Govindia

mcmasterdonia:
If his posts that are awaiting moderation are flaming etc - does that warrant a further warning? It's clear he is still ignoring it.
Click to expand...

Yes, an unapproved post is still a post and can still be penalized for.
 
On an amusing note:

Govind Ramabadran (Google Drive) gramabadran@gmail.com

1:23 PM (23 hours ago)

to me
Request to share
Spreadsheet TNP Judicial Election November 2012

You are the owner of this item and gramabadran@gmail.com has asked that you share this item with:
+ gramabadran@gmail.com

Add these people in Sharing settings.
Google Drive: create, share, and keep all your stuff in one place.
Click to expand...
 
I think I can see what the current midpoint is, namely a 100 % warning level for the PM abuse, and using the loss of PM privileges as we did with AC 195 (this would involve a special mask.)

Along with it, a warning to Govindia that any further issues with his behavior on the forums will result in an immediate and permanent IP ban. He should be told that this also involves an open-ended moderator preview of all posts, and any further problem posts will be sufficient to impose the ban.

I think we have bent over backwards to give him every chance to clean up his act, and nothing is taking. Since the 100 % warning carries with it that indefinite mod preview of posts, I will ask that any posts he makes after this that are not approved by a mod be copied and posted in this thread so we can all review the matter. This will not stop any of the admin from implementing the ban if they feel the situation is clear cut.

Agreed?
 
I agree with Schnauzers.

Here is the PM exchange I had with him over the past couple of days:

Govindia · Yesterday, 2:26 PM
Why wasn't I allowed to voice my concerns during the appeal of my warning?

I find it a bit inappropriate and unfair that my side was not heard.

I also find it very one-sided how I am being treated unfairly for demanding a public official disclose something that was publicly requested by the delegate / MOD. The people have a right to know.


Great Bights Mum · Yesterday, 4:08 PM
Who did you ask for the appeal? Did you give them the reasons for your appeal? Were you prevented from PMing any mods regarding the appeal? Is there some mitigating document not in evidence that we missed?

You were warned for defying a direct request from me to cease and desist. In the matter of BOTH Tim and Elu I told you to stop, yet you continued. You cannot do that with impunity. As far as I'm concerned, you got off easy with only 20%. By rights it should have been 20% FOR EACH. Count your blessings and behave yourself.

-GBM


Govindia · Yesterday, 4:30 PM
I asked Democratic Donkeys to appeal the review. I was expecting a thread to open up where I could voice my concerns but no thread was open and if it was, I wasn't notified about it. I was away during the weekend as my family was visiting me so I didn't get a chance to say my explanation.

I have a right to ask reasonably what happened to Eluvatar and he didn't answer my question. I asked Tim also for reasonable disclosure re: the source of a leak as did others and he was not forthcoming either.

I believe I have a right, and the people have a right, to know what happened in both cases and my requests were NOT unreasonable ma'am, that's why I believe the warn was unfounded.


Great Bights Mum · Yesterday, 9:07 PM
How many times did you ask Elu? How many times did you ask Tim, and in how many threads?


Govindia · Today, 2:55 PM
i asked only twice to Elu because his first response wasn't even a real answer. He never explained to anyone.

I asked Tim, BW asked TIM and so did others. He never responded to anyone either ma'am.

Again, all I asked was a reasonable question to both people and that I did not get a reasonable answer from either.


Great Bights Mum · Today, 4:01 PM
Wrong. You asked Elu 4 times. You don't even know how many times you asked Tim or in how many threads you brought it up - and are still trying to bring it up. I don't care what the question was or how reasonable you believe it to be or how much you feel entitled to know, that is badgering. Badgering is not going to be tolerated.

Secondly, I am among the most lenient of mods. I am willing to let a lot of things slide. But when I issue a caution, you better listen or there will be consequences.

Finally, the answer to your question for both Elu and Tim is Real Life. Now my question to you is this: Why, when everyone else on the forum understood that RL was the answer, you did not?


Govindia · Today, 8:46 PM
Where honestly did Eluvatar say RL? Where did Tim say RL?

I really don't understand in the case of Tim how RL precludes him from disclosing the source of a NPA leak.



Great Bights Mum · Today, 9:55 PM
In Elu's first post he says " I did not give appropriate notice. That was a disservice to all of you and I apologize." Then he says this: I have merely been unavailable for NationStates or other online matters. The final piece is when he refers to it as an "involuntary absence." At that point, you should understand he was afk for RL matters. What else could it mean?

In Tim's initial reply to you in the campaign thread he said:

"There is a difference between disclosure and public disclosure. I believe that MoD Mcmasterdonia and I resolved the matter in private discussion. After that point, I believe it is his choice whether to disclose to the rest of the NPA or not. It was something that originally was a Private Matter. I believe it can stay a Private Matter.

Sure I could make a giant public statement about it, but that would involve a lot of details about RL and other stuff that was happening at the time. If I wanted people to know about my RL, then I would have a blog. A public forum is one of the last places I would ever want to divulge a lot of RL information."

To summarize, he said it was a Private Matter involving RL details. He said it quite plainly. Then he repeated it emphatically. It is wrong of you to pretend he never said it and to continue to badger him, disbelieve him, and make needling remarks about it at every opportunity.

Their conduct is not the issue here. Yours is.



Govindia · Today, 10:10 PM
See my response to Elu in his thread that's in mod queue. As I have admitted, I do have social issues so what people say may not always be clear at times.



Great Bights Mum · 16 minutes ago
I am sorry to learn of your social issues. The mod team will help you with your issues by continuing to review your remarks prior to their being posted.

Yours,

-GBM
 
I will go ahead and implement the 100 percent warning, and send a message to Govindia by e-mail since we will be implementing the PM system suspension as part of this.
 
Recent Post
Govindia:
Chasmanthe:
If it so please the court.

It is socially acceptable to bully and victimize Govindia. Blue Wolf has banned Ramaba before, it's reasonable that his intention to do it again is for real. I was going on the assumption that nobody substantially objects to Blue Wolf's intentions, therefore they are considered acceptable. This undermines the values expressed in the Bill of Rights, if we as a society favour Blue Wolf's discretion over the Bill of Rights, it makes the Bill of Rights irrelevant. I am not happy with that, I want to preserve the rule of law. The way to do that is to legitimize Blue Wolf's intent.

Did I not make my intentions clear?

If Flemingovia is always right then I must be a fuckwit then. I must be wrong.
Click to expand...
No it is not socially acceptable to bully and victimise myself, OR ANYONE ELSE.

Get that through your thick head right now, everyone.
Click to expand...

I'm inclined to say that this is not worth moderation action, but a caution may be appropriate.

Thoughts?
 
I think Gov has demonstrated remarkable restraint. This is at least the 3rd time he has asked Chas, BW et al to cut it out. One might surmise some are seeking to push Gov off the deep end.
 
I'm with GBM on this. I think it's fairly apparent that certain people are flamebaiting Gov, in the hope that he will get a final warning.
 
I am not govindia's greatest fan, but at the moment he is being subjeted to an astonishing level of deliberate provocation. It seems he only has to open his mouth, however mildly, and people are stabbing the report button or running to the courts. I am heartily sick of it, and ashamed of the behaviour of some of our community. It is like watching bear baiting.

To be honest, i would be much more inclined to slap a 20% warning on some of those who are prepared to dish it out but run to the courts sobbing about their "freedom of speech" or "Bill of Rights" whenever they are called out on it.
 
On further reflection, I think the mod warning levels should be a reward for good behaviour as well as a punishment for bad. Govindia has shown such restraint I propose a reduction of his warning level to zero.

I have long thought it odd that we do not have a policy for warning reduction - some warnings can remain in effect for months or even years.

IF some are trying to provoke Govindia to a forum ban, let's show them that their behaviour can have the opposite effect.
 
Both Cham and BW have been very explicit about their flamebaiting from what I can see. There's no question they're hoping to provoke Gov into crossing over the line one last time so he would be banned. In other contexts or with other people of targets it might be viewed differently, but in this case the aim and motive seem quite apparent.

I also think we need a 20% warning to the more explicit flamebaiters. We've been toelerant of this behavior from others, but there does seem to be an real effort to provoke, and as a moderation team I think just a caution to them won't accomplish anything, so at a minimum we need to issue warnings, along with a public statement on the matter so people know that falebaiting won't be tolerated.
 
Re Flem's suggestion of a warning level deduction for Gov, i'm not opposed to it, but I still think we should issue warnings to the others and post a public statement on the matter.
Doing both warning increases and reduction might get our point across even better.
 
If this is done, it will be seen as a continuation of your ongoing feud with Blue Wolf, rather than a legitimate moderation decision.

I want to de-escalate this issue, rather than increasing the problem.
 
I do not agree with Flems suggestion that we should lower Govindias warning level to zero. I'm not convinced it should be lowered at all. It should however be considered at some point in the future, I don't think that now is the time.

I agree that the post mentioned by Eluvatar does not warrant moderator action. If flamebaiting is happening by other forum users, they should be warned appropriately.
 
flemingovia:
If this is done, it will be seen as a continuation of your ongoing feud with Blue Wolf, rather than a legitimate moderation decision.

I want to de-escalate this issue, rather than increasing the problem.
Click to expand...
So you are giving your political ally carte blanche to get away with whatever misbehavior he chooses to engage in on the forums?

Is that the bottom line of your comment, Flem?
 
mcmasterdonia:
I do not agree with Flems suggestion that we should lower Govindias warning level to zero. I'm not convinced it should be lowered at all. It should however be considered at some point in the future, I don't think that now is the time.

I agree that the post mentioned by Eluvatar does not warrant moderator action. If flamebaiting is happening by other forum users, they should be warned appropriately.
Click to expand...
I agree with McMasterdonia. It seems that people are definitely pushing to try to get Govindia that final strike. Perhaps warning increases for them?




Sorry that I haven't weighed in until now. The previous matter was one that directly concerned myself, so I felt that it would be best that I stay out of it.
 
I apologize for my intrusion, but I would like to make a possible suggestion.

Perhaps Gov's warning rate could be reduced to 80% in a while if his behavior continues to be good? It's basically carrot and stick, except the entire carrot isn't given at once. His record should still be kept track of, and I would suggest it not be forgotten so quickly.

In regards to other warning increases, I would definitely agree that those pushing him are flamebaiting and need to receive the proper response as such.
 
I agree with McM. Govindia hasn't really earned a reduction in warning, but he also doesn't need to be warned about that post taking into account the way he is being riled up.

I also agree with a warning for Chasmanthe and possibly others.
 
I support warning Chas & BW at 20%. Gov should get a verbal pat on the back for exercising restraint in this matter. I am not in favor of reducing his warning level. He has earned every one of those percentage points.
 
Great Bights Mum:
I support warning Chas & BW at 20%. Gov should get a verbal pat on the back for exercising restraint in this matter. I am not in favor of reducing his warning level. He has earned every one of those percentage points.
Click to expand...
My thought exactly.
 
It speaks volumes about the forum moderation team when a caution is suggested to Gov for calling people thick headed etc but Flem calls people F***wits and no one says a thing. That said, I do agree entirely with Flem closing that thread, so that isn't the issue.

And for the record, I agree completely with what has been said here. If it were me I would be tempted to reduce Gov's warning level to zero just to prove a point. And then on TOP of that warn the others. I'm unconvinced that it sends the right message to Gov though.

I would submit that GBM's suggestion is probably the best one and as part of the verbal pat on the back, Gov should be told that if he continues to think about what he says before he posts, he will be rewarded accordingly. If he thinks he is able to improve his predicament, he may well learn.

I'll also submit that Gov isn't my favourite person but I've always tried to treat him fairly and equally as I would any other forum user or NPA member. What he had to undergo wasn't fair and I don't like bullies.
 
I have no objection to issuing warnings for flamebaiting to the posse.

I would strongly oppose lowering Govindia's warning level below 80% at this time. I don't think it should be lowered right now. I agree entirely that it need not be raised at this time.

I'm not sure we're correctly understanding Chasmanthe's intentions, however. He tends to be a little... strange.

I think he may actually have intended to express disapproval of Blue Wolf and those who express approval of Blue Wolf's stated intention of banning Gov without cause if he gets a chance.
 
I re-read the threads. I don't think my verbal caution was unclear, yet neither BW nor Chas seemed to get it. Chas' political intentions are not a mitigating factor when he was asked to stop.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
flemingovia:
If this is done, it will be seen as a continuation of your ongoing feud with Blue Wolf, rather than a legitimate moderation decision.

I want to de-escalate this issue, rather than increasing the problem.
Click to expand...
So you are giving your political ally carte blanche to get away with whatever misbehavior he chooses to engage in on the forums?

Is that the bottom line of your comment, Flem?
Click to expand...
I Don't think i can let this slide without comment.

in the first instance, Blue Wolf and I are about as far apart as it is possible to get on the NS political spectrum, so I do not see where you are coming from describing him as my "political ally"

Secondly, as I think my comments clearly show, my suggestion was based on a possible negative fallout from moderator actions, when I was trying to de-escalate the situation. That was the "bottom line". There was no hidden bias in favour or against any individuals.

There IS, however, a bottom line to this post. To save you hunting for it, Grosse, I will spell it out: Your desccent into paranoia is getting painful to watch and unedifying. When you start linking myself and Blue Wolf in your mind you begin to look absurd.
 
As I've said previously, I think the way Govinda is treated on these forums by some members is appalling. I would support 20% warnings for the worst offenders, and a reduction in Gov's warning level, to a level where he is no longer on moderator preview; back to 0% is however excessive.
 
Flem, the point of my post is that your objection to issuing any warnings for those who have been flamebaiting Gov came across as being blantantly political and a seeming exercise in being tolerant of anything that has the smell of achieving your own aims. And to criticize me about Blue Wolf when his behavior towards me has been even more outrageous than he's been toward Gov does suggest to me that you have taken his side on a lot of things.

You have been on a relently never-ending campaign to punish me for doing the right thing when you quit the region and the forum admin team at the end of your term of Delegate. I'm not going to count the number of times you've expressed, or implied, that I "stole" the root admin account from you.

And we won't get into the unilateral abuse of your admin powers in setting up your temple in the wrong place without even consulting anyone. That was an ego trip on your part that was without parallel here. Had you asked the other admin at the time (me, Elu, and Ator) beforehand at least we could have discussed it and avoid misunderstandings.

Getting back to the topic at hand, the consensus appears to be to: (1) issue 20% warning to the most visible offenders of flamebaiting Gov and (2) give a public pat on the back to Gov for now. It's not clear to me yet whether the consensus is whether we should also give him a 20% reduction.

I won't be the one to implement this, maybe Elu you should so as to keep complaints and criticisms down to a minimum.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
Flem, the point of my post is that your objection to issuing any warnings for those who have been flamebaiting Gov came across as being blantantly political and a seeming exercise in being tolerant of anything that has the smell of achieving your own aims. And to criticize me about Blue Wolf when his behavior towards me has been even more outrageous than he's been toward Gov does suggest to me that you have taken his side on a lot of things.

You have been on a relently never-ending campaign to punish me for doing the right thing when ypu quit the region and the forum admin team at the end of your term of Delegate. I'm not going to count the number of times you've expressed, or implied, that I "stole" the root admin account from you.

And we won't get into the unilateral abuse of your admin powers in setting up your temple in the wrong place without even consulting anyone. That was an ego trip on your part that was without parallel here. Had you asked the other admin at the time (me, Elu, and Ator) beforehand at least we could have discussed it and avoid misunderstandings.
Click to expand...

If you feel that way, you have the right and power to remove me as an admin, should you so decide. With Elu back you could bring McM back onto the team, should that make you feel more secure.

With that said, In the light of Proverbs 26:4 I consider this conversation to be at an end.

I am in favour of reducing Govindia's warning level, but not of increasing others. But do as you will.
 
I think it's clear that none of that is really relevant to the matter at hand.

The consensus seems to be:

1) warn those who have been flamebaiting gov
2) Leave Govs warning as is, will review later

With slight variations of the two. I suggest we implement something soon before this flies past us, which I think it may have already.
 
I will be implementing a 20% warning on everyone who I evaluate has been flamebaiting Govindia. I will post their names here when I finish reviewing.

I will not be altering Govindia's warning level either way, but I will privately inform that if Govindia avoids misbehavior his warning level will be reduced.
 
There has been a request that this thread be made public, so that people can better understand the reasons behind the warning. Since there seems to be some confusion out there about the reasons for the warning, and i do not see any security concerns, I believe that the latter part of this thread, from Eluvatar's post on 18th December, should be de-classified.
 
In other words, this?

Eluvatar:
Recent Post
Govindia:
Chasmanthe:
If it so please the court.

It is socially acceptable to bully and victimize Govindia. Blue Wolf has banned Ramaba before, it's reasonable that his intention to do it again is for real. I was going on the assumption that nobody substantially objects to Blue Wolf's intentions, therefore they are considered acceptable. This undermines the values expressed in the Bill of Rights, if we as a society favour Blue Wolf's discretion over the Bill of Rights, it makes the Bill of Rights irrelevant. I am not happy with that, I want to preserve the rule of law. The way to do that is to legitimize Blue Wolf's intent.

Did I not make my intentions clear?

If Flemingovia is always right then I must be a fuckwit then. I must be wrong.
Click to expand...
No it is not socially acceptable to bully and victimise myself, OR ANYONE ELSE.

Get that through your thick head right now, everyone.
Click to expand...

I'm inclined to say that this is not worth moderation action, but a caution may be appropriate.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

Great Bights Mum:
I think Gov has demonstrated remarkable restraint. This is at least the 3rd time he has asked Chas, BW et al to cut it out. One might surmise some are seeking to push Gov off the deep end.
Click to expand...

Belschaft:
I'm with GBM on this. I think it's fairly apparent that certain people are flamebaiting Gov, in the hope that he will get a final warning.
Click to expand...

flemingovia:
I am not govindia's greatest fan, but at the moment he is being subjeted to an astonishing level of deliberate provocation. It seems he only has to open his mouth, however mildly, and people are stabbing the report button or running to the courts. I am heartily sick of it, and ashamed of the behaviour of some of our community. It is like watching bear baiting.

To be honest, i would be much more inclined to slap a 20% warning on some of those who are prepared to dish it out but run to the courts sobbing about their "freedom of speech" or "Bill of Rights" whenever they are called out on it.
Click to expand...

flemingovia:
On further reflection, I think the mod warning levels should be a reward for good behaviour as well as a punishment for bad. Govindia has shown such restraint I propose a reduction of his warning level to zero.

I have long thought it odd that we do not have a policy for warning reduction - some warnings can remain in effect for months or even years.

IF some are trying to provoke Govindia to a forum ban, let's show them that their behaviour can have the opposite effect.
Click to expand...

Grosseschnauzer:
Both Cham and BW have been very explicit about their flamebaiting from what I can see. There's no question they're hoping to provoke Gov into crossing over the line one last time so he would be banned. In other contexts or with other people of targets it might be viewed differently, but in this case the aim and motive seem quite apparent.

I also think we need a 20% warning to the more explicit flamebaiters. We've been toelerant of this behavior from others, but there does seem to be an real effort to provoke, and as a moderation team I think just a caution to them won't accomplish anything, so at a minimum we need to issue warnings, along with a public statement on the matter so people know that falebaiting won't be tolerated.
Click to expand...

Grosseschnauzer:
Re Flem's suggestion of a warning level deduction for Gov, i'm not opposed to it, but I still think we should issue warnings to the others and post a public statement on the matter.
Doing both warning increases and reduction might get our point across even better.
Click to expand...

flemingovia:
If this is done, it will be seen as a continuation of your ongoing feud with Blue Wolf, rather than a legitimate moderation decision.

I want to de-escalate this issue, rather than increasing the problem.
Click to expand...

mcmasterdonia:
I do not agree with Flems suggestion that we should lower Govindias warning level to zero. I'm not convinced it should be lowered at all. It should however be considered at some point in the future, I don't think that now is the time.

I agree that the post mentioned by Eluvatar does not warrant moderator action. If flamebaiting is happening by other forum users, they should be warned appropriately.
Click to expand...

Grosseschnauzer:
flemingovia:
If this is done, it will be seen as a continuation of your ongoing feud with Blue Wolf, rather than a legitimate moderation decision.

I want to de-escalate this issue, rather than increasing the problem.
Click to expand...
So you are giving your political ally carte blanche to get away with whatever misbehavior he chooses to engage in on the forums?

Is that the bottom line of your comment, Flem?
Click to expand...

Tim:
mcmasterdonia:
I do not agree with Flems suggestion that we should lower Govindias warning level to zero. I'm not convinced it should be lowered at all. It should however be considered at some point in the future, I don't think that now is the time.

I agree that the post mentioned by Eluvatar does not warrant moderator action. If flamebaiting is happening by other forum users, they should be warned appropriately.
Click to expand...
I agree with McMasterdonia. It seems that people are definitely pushing to try to get Govindia that final strike. Perhaps warning increases for them?




Sorry that I haven't weighed in until now. The previous matter was one that directly concerned myself, so I felt that it would be best that I stay out of it.
Click to expand...

Alvino Castillon:
I apologize for my intrusion, but I would like to make a possible suggestion.

Perhaps Gov's warning rate could be reduced to 80% in a while if his behavior continues to be good? It's basically carrot and stick, except the entire carrot isn't given at once. His record should still be kept track of, and I would suggest it not be forgotten so quickly.

In regards to other warning increases, I would definitely agree that those pushing him are flamebaiting and need to receive the proper response as such.
Click to expand...

Kingborough:
I agree with McM. Govindia hasn't really earned a reduction in warning, but he also doesn't need to be warned about that post taking into account the way he is being riled up.

I also agree with a warning for Chasmanthe and possibly others.
Click to expand...

Great Bights Mum:
I support warning Chas & BW at 20%. Gov should get a verbal pat on the back for exercising restraint in this matter. I am not in favor of reducing his warning level. He has earned every one of those percentage points.
Click to expand...

Hileville:
Great Bights Mum:
I support warning Chas & BW at 20%. Gov should get a verbal pat on the back for exercising restraint in this matter. I am not in favor of reducing his warning level. He has earned every one of those percentage points.
Click to expand...
My thought exactly.
Click to expand...

Kiwi:
It speaks volumes about the forum moderation team when a caution is suggested to Gov for calling people thick headed etc but Flem calls people F***wits and no one says a thing. That said, I do agree entirely with Flem closing that thread, so that isn't the issue.

And for the record, I agree completely with what has been said here. If it were me I would be tempted to reduce Gov's warning level to zero just to prove a point. And then on TOP of that warn the others. I'm unconvinced that it sends the right message to Gov though.

I would submit that GBM's suggestion is probably the best one and as part of the verbal pat on the back, Gov should be told that if he continues to think about what he says before he posts, he will be rewarded accordingly. If he thinks he is able to improve his predicament, he may well learn.

I'll also submit that Gov isn't my favourite person but I've always tried to treat him fairly and equally as I would any other forum user or NPA member. What he had to undergo wasn't fair and I don't like bullies.
Click to expand...

Eluvatar:
I have no objection to issuing warnings for flamebaiting to the posse.

I would strongly oppose lowering Govindia's warning level below 80% at this time. I don't think it should be lowered right now. I agree entirely that it need not be raised at this time.

I'm not sure we're correctly understanding Chasmanthe's intentions, however. He tends to be a little... strange.

I think he may actually have intended to express disapproval of Blue Wolf and those who express approval of Blue Wolf's stated intention of banning Gov without cause if he gets a chance.
Click to expand...

Great Bights Mum:
I re-read the threads. I don't think my verbal caution was unclear, yet neither BW nor Chas seemed to get it. Chas' political intentions are not a mitigating factor when he was asked to stop.
Click to expand...

flemingovia:
Grosseschnauzer:
flemingovia:
If this is done, it will be seen as a continuation of your ongoing feud with Blue Wolf, rather than a legitimate moderation decision.

I want to de-escalate this issue, rather than increasing the problem.
Click to expand...
So you are giving your political ally carte blanche to get away with whatever misbehavior he chooses to engage in on the forums?

Is that the bottom line of your comment, Flem?
Click to expand...
I Don't think i can let this slide without comment.

in the first instance, Blue Wolf and I are about as far apart as it is possible to get on the NS political spectrum, so I do not see where you are coming from describing him as my "political ally"

Secondly, as I think my comments clearly show, my suggestion was based on a possible negative fallout from moderator actions, when I was trying to de-escalate the situation. That was the "bottom line". There was no hidden bias in favour or against any individuals.

There IS, however, a bottom line to this post. To save you hunting for it, Grosse, I will spell it out: Your desccent into paranoia is getting painful to watch and unedifying. When you start linking myself and Blue Wolf in your mind you begin to look absurd.
Click to expand...

Belschaft:
As I've said previously, I think the way Govinda is treated on these forums by some members is appalling. I would support 20% warnings for the worst offenders, and a reduction in Gov's warning level, to a level where he is no longer on moderator preview; back to 0% is however excessive.
Click to expand...

Grosseschnauzer:
Flem, the point of my post is that your objection to issuing any warnings for those who have been flamebaiting Gov came across as being blantantly political and a seeming exercise in being tolerant of anything that has the smell of achieving your own aims. And to criticize me about Blue Wolf when his behavior towards me has been even more outrageous than he's been toward Gov does suggest to me that you have taken his side on a lot of things.

You have been on a relently never-ending campaign to punish me for doing the right thing when you quit the region and the forum admin team at the end of your term of Delegate. I'm not going to count the number of times you've expressed, or implied, that I "stole" the root admin account from you.

And we won't get into the unilateral abuse of your admin powers in setting up your temple in the wrong place without even consulting anyone. That was an ego trip on your part that was without parallel here. Had you asked the other admin at the time (me, Elu, and Ator) beforehand at least we could have discussed it and avoid misunderstandings.

Getting back to the topic at hand, the consensus appears to be to: (1) issue 20% warning to the most visible offenders of flamebaiting Gov and (2) give a public pat on the back to Gov for now. It's not clear to me yet whether the consensus is whether we should also give him a 20% reduction.

I won't be the one to implement this, maybe Elu you should so as to keep complaints and criticisms down to a minimum.
Click to expand...

flemingovia:
Grosseschnauzer:
Flem, the point of my post is that your objection to issuing any warnings for those who have been flamebaiting Gov came across as being blantantly political and a seeming exercise in being tolerant of anything that has the smell of achieving your own aims. And to criticize me about Blue Wolf when his behavior towards me has been even more outrageous than he's been toward Gov does suggest to me that you have taken his side on a lot of things.

You have been on a relently never-ending campaign to punish me for doing the right thing when ypu quit the region and the forum admin team at the end of your term of Delegate. I'm not going to count the number of times you've expressed, or implied, that I "stole" the root admin account from you.

And we won't get into the unilateral abuse of your admin powers in setting up your temple in the wrong place without even consulting anyone. That was an ego trip on your part that was without parallel here. Had you asked the other admin at the time (me, Elu, and Ator) beforehand at least we could have discussed it and avoid misunderstandings.
Click to expand...

If you feel that way, you have the right and power to remove me as an admin, should you so decide. With Elu back you could bring McM back onto the team, should that make you feel more secure.

With that said, In the light of Proverbs 26:4 I consider this conversation to be at an end.

I am in favour of reducing Govindia's warning level, but not of increasing others. But do as you will.
Click to expand...

mcmasterdonia:
I think it's clear that none of that is really relevant to the matter at hand.

The consensus seems to be:

1) warn those who have been flamebaiting gov
2) Leave Govs warning as is, will review later

With slight variations of the two. I suggest we implement something soon before this flies past us, which I think it may have already.
Click to expand...

Eluvatar:
I will be implementing a 20% warning on everyone who I evaluate has been flamebaiting Govindia. I will post their names here when I finish reviewing.

I will not be altering Govindia's warning level either way, but I will privately inform that if Govindia avoids misbehavior his warning level will be reduced.
Click to expand...
 
Belschaft, Grosseschnauzer, Tim, Alvino Castillon, Kingborough, and Hileville have not yet given their permission.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top