Lord Mauly Mall decision

"I suggest you lighten up just a bit. It's disheartening to see a TFN-staffer act as you have today."

Wow, that's a shock. There are other members who stated that I've been neutral, as much as I can be, and fair. But it doesn't do me any further good to be the only admin speaking.

If I've been arrogant, I humbly apologize.

 

Well, I think I'm gonna have to go with the administration on this one too. LMM broke the rules, and now he is paying the price for it. As a moderator, he definitely should have taken his position more seriously and helped set good examples for everyone on the boards. Hopefully this ban and demotion will help set him straight.

 

"Apology accepted, Captain Needa."

GO 'CLONES!

 

And who's being snide now?

 

I'm genuinely grateful of your apology. I only meant that to terminate this discussion between us, but if you perceive it as otherwise, then so be it.

Just a piece of advice (and I don't mean to be a smart-Aleck): Assuming can only get you so far.

GO 'CLONES!

 

After reading this carefully, I decided to chime in on my opinion of this "situation" (ugh. This is the internet). Without any kind of agenda, I think the fair resolution could've been taken in 3 steps:


1. Give LMM a strong warning. And I do mean strong. Strongly worded. Not some, "Don't do that again ".

I think a public apology by LMM would be completely useless, and it's obvious that he wouldn't mean it anyway. Furthermore, I think a temporary ban of any sort would also be useless, cause like AYBABTU said, they mean very little in the grand scheme of things (except as a black mark on you record). The only people that are affected by temp bans are fools like Smuggler-of-Mos-Espa and YodaOfTheSith (the latter to a lesser, with AOL), who essentially live for the JC so much that it is pathetic. I don't think LMM has reached that point.

LMM is a mod. That damage is already done. Though, of course, mods are people too, he has a criteria to uphold. Any secondary incidents for someone in such an exemplary position should (with the afore-mentioned warning) in a banning that is drastic, but not quite final. Like a year-long ban. That would make someone think twice about his/her attitude. However, though it is too late, and he was in that position...

2. ...LMM should have his mod status removed. Completely, forever. Not as an action of punishment, but as an act of epiphany. In other words, I think from LMM's contributions via artwork, he is more than suitable to be a member of TFN staff. However, under no circumstances do I think a TFN staff member should be a moderator/administrator/manager. That even includes Joshua Griffin and Scott Chitwood. I believe it is simply a conflict of interests, as evidenced in this issue. Furthermore, I think LMM's staff member status should be suspended for, oh, say two months. He is an example of TFN staff, and failed as much. And don't feed my that bologna that he's not paid anyway, so it's not a big deal. I think it would be safe to say that LMM enjoys designing banners for TFN. He probably considers it a privelage. If he didn't enjoy it, he probably wouldn't do it. No doubt he likes having his work displayed. Which leads me to...

3. Remove his TPM banner, and hold a new contest for a new banner as punishment. Without LMM's participation. Take his work down. It's obvious that the thing is controversial anyways.

So, to sum it up:

1. Strong warning, with a threat of a really long-term ban and loss of staff status for 2nd incident

2. Removal of mod status, but retainment of staff staus with temporary suspension

3. Removal of LMM's TPM banner, and a contest for a new one without LMM participation

 

I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to backtrack a bit here. I'm just catching up...



"The admins don't ban users for an ego or an attitude..."

Actually, I would describe LMM's ego-driven ramblings as being characteristic of baiting. This goes back to the whole "I knew ... it would cause some controversy" thing.



"OK, there's a relevant question that can be addressed, and not put into consideration with the spamming."

I don't see how Just_A_Slacker's question is any different from Darth_AYBABTU's. You're shifting gears rather abruptly, Carter, without a clutch. It's making you look foolish.



"...another delay in a situation as clear-cut as this is only viewed by the membership as preferential treatment."

Bingo.



"I miss I_D "

Me too.



"Action has been taken and, for the crime commited, it's suitably harsh."

I strongly disagree. I got alot worse for alot less, and the general population here is replete with similar tales, such as Dan's.



"...this thread topic is about the discipline resulting from spam posts by a moderator."

I believe that is exactly what we are all talking about and reacting to.



"As a representative of the advisory council, you are not acting in the best interests of the JC posters."

*ahem* I'd like to take a moment to personally thank Darth_AYBABTU for acting in the best interests of the JC posters by keeping this debate in the public eye and not listening to Carter-TFN's doubletalk.



"There are other members who stated that I've been neutral..."

You mean that one guy who agrees with you? ?

 

I like what you have to say, Twink, but I don't know if that'll really work. Of all of them, I think your first option's the best. It's most fitting for the "crime".

Your second option might not go well with people like Scott and Josh, as they are the highest-ranking TF.N staffers. Besides, I think Josh is a fantastic JC administrator. But who knows. Most of the TF.N staff are VIPs or rarely do any JC moderating so it might work.

Your third is probably more of a mockery than a punishment. It'd be insulting and a waste of time. LMM deserves to be punished, not insulted.

GO 'CLONES!

 

"Your third is probably more of a mockery than a punishment."

Which is why I think that is more than fitting for the crime, which has ego at its heart. One man's mockery is another man's punishment.

However, it's not like saying, "You're banner sucks; we're not going to use it." I think it's more like saying, "Because you got so haughty, and showed a bad example of TFN and the JC administration over a questionable work of art, we have decided to remove your banner."

 

Hard to tell who to agree with on this issue, but as of now I'm agreeing with Carter. I don't understand on why you guys want to keep downplaying on the administration as you are *cough*AYBABTU*cough*, I don't see what that achieves.

AYBABTU, if you're on the AC, and you're supposed to be doing things for the people of the JC, why do you keep denying to take it to the AC to discuss? I'd imagine you could all (the AC) discuss it there and decide on what you all think should be done that would be in the people's best interest. As the title says, "Advisory".



It's not just "drama", and labeling at such does nothing but take away from the serious questions that are posed and need answering.

I'm talking about the drama certain people are creating. Not the issue in itself.

 

Would anyone like to tell me whose interests are served by taking this discussion to a private forum? Would anyone like to explain to me how the 5 or so active members of the Advisory Council can shed any more light onto this than the numerous active participants in this ongoing discussion?

This is more subterfuge, I think, but if either or those questions can be answered with any clarity I'll be impressed.

AYBABTU?

 

Then what the heck is the AC for? Sitting on their hands and sending one person such as yourself out to handle everything?



...and a Jango

 

Are you going to answer either of the questions I posed, or do you just like seeing your name on the page?

AYBABTU?

 

Are you going to answer mine?



Would anyone like to tell me whose interests are served by taking this discussion to a private forum?

Hopefully the JC. That's what the "Advisory" Council is for, isn't it? To dicuss the topic amongst themselves in a group then present their advisory desicion? As I see, to be advisory is to give advice. I certainly see you giving advice, but what about the AC? Are you deciding what the AC is saying, or is the group of the AC?



...and a Jango

 

The members of the Advisory Council are indivduals who make their own decisions and formulate their own opinions. If you want to know what the other AC members think of the situation, then you can ask them. They are duly aware of this discussion and will add as they see fit.

AYBABTU?

 

Then why is it a "Council" if the members don't discuss it as a council?

I am utterly confused now as to why the AC is even around. Just to give you a fancy title?


...and a Jango

 

Note that we did not accept the title until it was offered quite recently.

The AC advises on proposed policy, and asks the occasional question on behlf of members. And AC advice is not binding in any way, and we do not come to a consesnsus among us. We are a collection of inviduals with a wide range of viewpoints. To imply that we should act as one voice illustrates your own misconception of the value that the AC brings.

The bottom line is this -- the AC can do no more good than a thread with full participation by all interest parties. Period.

AYBABTU?

 

Would anyone like to tell me whose interests are served by taking this discussion to a private forum? Would anyone like to explain to me how the 5 or so active members of the Advisory Council can shed any more light onto this than the numerous active participants in this ongoing discussion?

I can answer both questions with a single response:

This is the Communications forum. It's a place for the JC members of all statuses to discuss issues such as this. If this discussion about LMM's spamming and ego is taken to the Mod Squad and/or the AC, it would defeat the purpose of this thread and it would get nowhere due to incessant politicking and corruption.

Private forums are meant to discuss things that are for the good of the board, but the thing is, if it weren't for the "normal" members, I'm sure many issues would be stuck on Square One or not even considered at all. For example, recently YodaJeff proposed a ban on manual sig pictures. If it weren't for him, it's highly unlikely that such an issue would have been discussed in the Mod Squad or the AC.

The AC is meant to represent the JC, but they're just a handful of people representing just a few thousand souls. Again, they can only accomplish so much. They may come up with things, but the rest of the JC has a wealth of ideas. It's a shame that so many of them don't speak up. There's nothing wrong with contacting a moderator or AC member, or whatever it takes to get the job done, I say. It's always worth a shot.

GO 'CLONES!

 

Sounds good, Maddux. I agree completely.


...and a Jango

 

My request concerning the Advisory Council is in regards to the decision handed down by the Leadership Council which some members are in disagreement of.

I do agree with Jedi Greg Maddux. All other pertinent discussions regarding the issues are continuing in this forum.

 

So why does the AC even have a Private board if not to discuss these kinds of topics?

Because the AC is designed to act as a sounding board for new moderator derived policies, and as a more expedient way for some issues to be brought up with the administration. Essentially they should act as the "Senate" to the Mod Squad's "House of Representatives", giving opinions on what needs to be revised in the delivery and execution of new board policy. At the same time they can, in a sense, institute some themselves by making an issue that might be missed for some reason, known to the admins, and giving their recommendations on solutions first.

 

Excuse my ignorance here, but isn't the Communication forum supposded to be the place for users to bring their questions, concerns, comments, and complaints?

It seems that this is exactly what people are doing. This issue needs to be dealt with for all to see, not in the privacy of the AC, who, with no offense to any of the esteemed members serving on that august body, has all the bite of a toothless eel.

If this forum is NOT for that, then what is Comm for, icon choosing?

 

Thanks for the clarification, Dingo.



Excuse my ignorance here, but isn't the Communication forum supposded to be the place for users to bring their questions, concerns, comments, and complaints?

Yeah. But the way I see it, is this is about a mod, not a reg. user. The total decision should be by the administration and the AC (possibly). Yeah, the users need to voice their opinons as well here, and from that, the ultimate decision should be made privately between the admins and the AC, so that way there won't be a bunch of people interving the discussion of the ultimate decision.


If this forum is NOT for that, then what is Comm for, icon choosing?





...and a Jango

 

Well, I don't have much to add, but since I was in the two previous threads, I think I should speak up. I agree with Cetera and AYBABTU for the most part on this issue.
I read the TPM Thread and just to clarify until that thread I really had no concept of who LMM was heck, I had no concept of who Carter was or anyone involved with this. I try to do my own thing around here. I'm about as unbiased as you can possibly come. In my hmble opinion LMM's punishment may or may be adequate for the spam but it is disengenuous to ignore his attitude or to address it with simple E-Counciling. The JC as an Astronomically Huge Database of Users. Among them it should be exceedingly easy to find a replacment mod who does not have ego problems. As I see it there is no excuse to protect a mod with a bad attitude. let him go and find someone new. there are plenty to choose from. The JC SHOULD NOT no CANNOT be run as an old boys club where a group of stogey old posters who have sworn oaths to each other keep the reigns of power. Is it run that way? Heck if I know like I said I don't pay attention, but it sure seems like it is based on the threads that lead up to this.