lack of consistency

[Mike Rosseel]

We all know I have been warned even had a few post removed due to the post violating the conduct required for the site. I have no problem with this because thats the rules and the rules are what they are. Even though I have butted heads with Rich Kelsey, I still have alot of respect for him because his arguments possess alot of fact and knowledge and believe it or not, I truly enjoy reading Rich work.

With that being said I have an issue with Brians comments about Marc Levine in the recent thread about open government, Brian made some serious accusations and when asked for the who, what, where, when, or why, he gave nothing. As per the rules of this site shouldn't that comment been removed? Seems like its making an accusation without any merit behind it.

Secondly, Brian starts a thread Mike vs Ted. In recent weeks, Rich expressed concern for a personal disliking I have for Ted Miller and how there was no place for that on this site. He referred me to take my issues to other sites that allow that kind of stuff. So that leads me to Brians post, again shouldn't this have been removed due to the threat of personal attacks. Isn't this not encouraged here? For the head of this site to try to provoke a nasty discussion, shouldn't that be removed? i have not mentioned Teds name trying to respect Rich wishes.

i just don't see consistency here! the rules are for everyone including the admin and moderators aren't they? How could you look to have officals post on a site that has rules for everyone except the admin?

[richardkelsey]

Jan 29, 2010 10:03:03 GMT -5 Mike Rosseel said:

We all know I have been warned even had a few post removed due to the post violating the conduct required for the site. I have no problem with this because thats the rules and the rules are what they are. Even though I have butted heads with Rich Kelsey, I still have alot of respect for him because his arguments possess alot of fact and knowledge and believe it or not, I truly enjoy reading Rich work.

With that being said I have an issue with Brian's comments about Marc Levine in the recent thread about open government, Brian made some serious accusations and when asked for the who, what, where, when, or why, he gave nothing. As per the rules of this site shouldn't that comment been removed? Seems like its making an accusation without any merit behind it.

Secondly, Brian starts a thread Mike vs Ted. In recent weeks, Rich expressed concern for a personal disliking I have for Ted Miller and how there was no place for that on this site. He referred me to take my issues to other sites that allow that kind of stuff. So that leads me to Brians post, again shouldn't this have been removed due to the threat of personal attacks. Isn't this not encouraged here? For the head of this site to try to provoke a nasty discussion, shouldn't that be removed? i have not mentioned Teds name trying to respect Rich wishes.

i just don't see consistency here! the rules are for everyone including the admin and moderators aren't they? How could you look to have officials post on a site that has rules for everyone except the admin?

Mike:

Thanks. Brian made a post suggesting that he had been told he would never be reappointed to a committee again. You rightfully noted that such a statement didn't have foundation, and moreover, left the appearance that the statement could have been made by anyone on council -- or everyone.

In this case, the statement was not third-party hearsay, and certainly was not directly derogatory. For example, it wasn't something like, "Hey, I heard Bob beats his wife."

In this case, the writer was saying that he himself had been told he was not ever going to be reappointed.

You complained siting our rules.

I back-up you up -- feeling like given the statement and how it was left, it would unfairly suggest that it could have been made by anyone on council -- or everyone.

Brian stepped forward and identified the person who told him that.

In this case, we have the party effected coming forward and identifying the source of the information.

That more than satisfies our standards. We are not trying to pin people to a legal proof standard of the validity of statements. We are trying to get people to give us sources so that we can make judgments about the validity of those statements. Moreover, I think all the moderators have posted the same thing -- this is not an exact science. Not every accusation is treated the same. Saying someone said something racist, or saying someone has violated criminal or civil law, will likely require a greater standard than asking a poster to back-up an allegation that he was told he was not to be reappointed to a board. Those reasons should be pretty obvious.

In this case, the system has worked.

Brian has identified the source behind his statement. If the statement is untrue -- it can be verified.

We have let you -- and others -- get away with far worse.

In this case -- the allegation became a distraction from the thread -- which also was a violation of Brian's own rules on trying to keep threads on point. Let's face it, everyone violates that.

I appreciate you opening the issue here.

As an admin, I consider it resolved.

As a practical matter -- I think Brian has a better shot of being burned at the stake than being re-appointed by this Council. That doesn't seem all that controversial. In fact, I might be further ahead on the appointment list than Brian at this point.

I thank you very much for raising the issue. I likewise encourage you and all readers to raise issues about the application of the rules and guidelines. As we note therein, it is not as easy as one thinks. We work hard to create standards for the community, but still allow frank debate. We are not perfect, and I am probably the furthest from perfect on the team.

[Mike Rosseel]

Rich, i certainly respect your above post and that has answered my question on the statement about never beng appointed again. Thank you for that clarification.

That still leaves me wondering about the Mike vs Ted thread, you didnt seem to touch on that? Isn't that encouraging exactly what you don't want here?

Once again, I thank you for your response and respectfully consider my first question resolved, please let me know about the Mike vs Ted question

[richardkelsey]

Jan 29, 2010 12:44:36 GMT -5 Mike Rosseel said:

Rich, i certainly respect your above post and that has answered my question on the statement about never beng appointed again. Thank you for that clarification.

That still leaves me wondering about the Mike vs Ted thread, you didnt seem to touch on that? Isn't that encouraging exactly what you don't want here?

Once again, I thank you for your response and respectfully consider my first question resolved, please let me know about the Mike vs Ted question

Mike:

I have to admit -- I am guilty of lazy reading. I somewhat skimmed that portion of your post and assumed the Mike v. Ted reference was to some thread in the past (obviously not titled Mike v. Ted) As it turns out -- I missed the actual Mike v. Ted thread! LOL

First -- let me say -- I like your last post on that thread. I think you summed it all up perfectly, the good, the bad, the ugly, and you come out looking great to me -- to the extent you care about that.

Second -- I don't think we can ban a thread because it could lead to personal attacks. Almost all our threads could lead there. However, I see your concern about such a thread -- and Lisa seemed to note her concern as well with respect to the need for such a thread.

In reading it, I think Brian's motives were not at all to get you two to attack each other. I think he was trying to see if you could find commonality and maybe move past the issues between you.

I can't say that a public thread on this site is the best mechanism for that -- but I guess Brian thought that the fight was public, so maybe the peace could be public. I don't know. Brian didn't consult me -- nor does he have to -- and I actually missed the whole thread until now.

My take on it is this -- it doesn't violate our guidelines. However, it sure temps folks to get in there and violate the guidelines, assuming the parties don't want to find peace. In that respect, I am not sure of the strategy. I think you know Brian better than me. I think it was his attempt to broker some peace on this site and among people he thinks have many common interests.

it was creative, and well within Brian's rights. (At the end of the day, Brian lives by the rules we all make -- and he also gets to make them. ) In this case I don't think he violated the rules -- I think he was trying to use the site to find a constructive end to the battle.

As I stated above -- I think your final post was excellent, and I respect you for it.

Oh -- and I better stay on top of the fast moving pace of threads around here. Lord knows what else I have missed.

Thanks

[Mike Rosseel]

Again, Thank You for your thoughts and comments, I truly appreciate them and respect them.

[lisas84]

I stand by my sentiment that that thread is troublesome and I do not like it. It's not fair to either Mike or to Ted.

This site has no business "trying to find a constructive end to the battle," IMHO. I can not see how the thread, being public, can be "an attempt to broker peace," due to the nature of it being front and center for all to see.

If for some reason it needed to be addressed at all on here (I vote for just having ignored it), then instead, a simple sentiment declaring: Hey, Mike and Ted, we like you, we hope you both can resolve your situation" would absolutely have sufficed.

that's my two cents and I'll just leave it all alone from here on out.

[admin]

Mike,

I am just passing through right now to drop a pre written post on another thread. I will not be near a computer for much of the week end. I will address your concerns and questions after the week end when I have a bit more time. Your thoughts are good and I do appreciate them.

Lisa and Rich, Both of you gave some good commentary today. You both showed why it was a smart move on my part to ask you both to moderate.

All of you have a good weekend!

[admin]

Mike,

I am back to try to address some of your concerns in this thread an others. I actually typed this out last night. When I went to look for the post, it was gone. I must have accidentally dumped it, so here I go again.

In another thread you mentioned that I do not always return to threads and reply to questions. You are right, and I do apologize for that, I am not blowing anybody off. There are a couple of reasons why I do that.

First, I do not spend a lot of time in front of the computer. More times than not, I am on line for maybe ten or fifteen minutes. When I visit this site I often have just enough time to get a few new posts and articles up for readers and do not have the time to get into back and forth dialog. From an admin point, I have to get fresh material up everyday. Unfortunately, I do not have enough people posting new stuff here every day. Readership has spiked a little bit and do want to give people something new to read every day. ( I wonder if anybody is going to give me credit for the fact that I put up about 90 percent of the positive stories? With two CIC members here, I would think they would be dusting me on that )

The other reason I do not always return to threads is that I have a long standing practice of trying to give people the last word. It is more important to me as an individual and an admin to see what people think. I enjoy listening to other people.

I hope the above provides some insight. Now lets get to your next topic. You express concerns about my mention of Marc. I avoided using his name. The only reason I did is because you asked me to cite a source. I did. It was nothing for or against him, just a matter of fact. I really have no desire or reason to discuss him. As far as I am concerned the little war between us is over.

The other thing I see you brought up is the Ted vs. Mike thread. Judging by the reaction from you and Lisa, I think it is safe to say that was a bad idea. If nothing else, the title was bad and should have been less confrontational.

That thread was actually meant as an attempt at civil dialog. You have expressed strong views, often without elaborating on them. You have very right to disagree with a public figure and more than anything, I want you to see that your views are welcome and encouraged. A few times this topic came up in other threads, only to muddle those threads up. I figured giving it a thread of its own was due. Like we have said before, putting any personal issues aside, you are free to speak your mind here.