The post that we interpreted was about 3 weeks ago.
Jeremy hasn't been online for the past week.
If Jeremy comes online and reads Steve B's quote(recent) from Sam below, Jeremy would surely have allowed links to Ippolit again. We have BB's report as evidence.
ICD is not dictating anything - they simply asked for more consistent attention to what has been policy forever here - no links to illegal software. They are continuing to leave decisions about what is and isn't legal to the mods. It is up to the membership as always.
-Sam-
Would you mind posting his report here? Graham is clueless.
Hi Terry, which report? If you mean BB's report - It's here:
I just typed in your name as an example.
( clue: it's not you or JB. )
I guess most will get it now.
swami wrote:Maria,
The post that we interpreted was about 3 weeks ago.
Jeremy hasn't been online for the past week.
If Jeremy comes online and reads Steve B's quote(recent) from Sam below, Jeremy would surely have allowed links to Ippolit again. We have BB's report as evidence.
mariaclara wrote:Graham,
so it's the Mod's "interpretation".
Lemme get it straight.
If we follow the rule of majority,
then that means 2 out of 3 Mods, right?
So, for instance:
if Graham & Jeremy interprets a thread as acceptable,
even though Swami doesn't like it,
rule of majority , 2 out 3 , means
Jeremy & Graham's interpretation over rules Swami.
Am I wrong????
Now, what happens if Swami still insists he is right.?
are the other 2 mods obligated/required to follow him???
ICD is not dictating anything - they simply asked for more consistent attention to what has been policy forever here - no links to illegal software. They are continuing to leave decisions about what is and isn't legal to the mods. It is up to the membership as always.
-Sam-
.
.
................. Mu Shin ..........................
Steve B wrote:
i would have refrained from pell mell..helter skelter link deletion and simply contacted ICD for a more concise explanation
The message regarding links was quite clear. Otherwise, why would Jeremy (who has been one of the biggest proponents of allowing links) have taken it that way. I emailed Quentin for clarification on whether he expected us to go further, but never got a response.
i dont know Jermeys reasons for interpreting this one way or the other
and its certainly not clear to me
I would have persisted
Contacted Sam...called ICD
anyway...
it is clear now isnt it?
I have asked the question and received the response
ICD does not prohibit links to IPPO
they leave that decision to the current mods
It's because you haven't seen the full message in the mods forum.
However, if your electioneering campaign is successful, all will be revealed.
Cheers,
Graham.
actually the last thing on my mind was to run for mod again
at least not for awhile anyway
i just put in 15+ months
i followed the elections which resulted in a 3-4 mandate for a continuation of the prior mod teams positions
next thing i know...the place falls apart
a new forum is created on the net ..with some highly respected members voting with their feet and leaving
i do not blame you alone for this..not at all
rather i think you and Jeremy each had their own "agenda" with no one putting the interests of the CCC first
your quite right that i am heavily considering running again
my preference would have been not to.. and instead have a smoothly running forum
rather i think each mod had their own "agenda" none of which but the interests of the CCC first
And what was my agenda? Do tell. I'd really love to know what agenda you think I had. While you are at it you tell us what agenda you think Peter and Sam had, or do you mean the CCC moderators only?
It is fairly obvious what agendas Swami and Jeremy have. It is in full swing still. It does not, has never, involved moderating a forum.
but why not tell them y our "agenda" and clear it all up
Christopher Conkie wrote:
rather i think each mod had their own "agenda" none of which but the interests of the CCC first
And what was my agenda? Do tell. I'd really love to know what agenda you think I had. While you are at it you tell us what agenda you think Peter and Sam had, or do you mean the CCC moderators only?
It is fairly obvious what agendas Swami and Jeremy have. It is in full swing still. It does not, has never, involved moderating a forum.
.
.
................. Mu Shin ..........................
but why not tell them y our "agenda" and clear it all up
Christopher Conkie wrote:
rather i think each mod had their own "agenda" none of which but the interests of the CCC first
And what was my agenda? Do tell. I'd really love to know what agenda you think I had. While you are at it you tell us what agenda you think Peter and Sam had, or do you mean the CCC moderators only?
It is fairly obvious what agendas Swami and Jeremy have. It is in full swing still. It does not, has never, involved moderating a forum.
If you call moderating when you are a moderator "having an agenda", then that must be it. Making new threads when there are existing threads on the same subject is spamming. Add to that the fact you have nothing useful to offer and you get the picture of what a troll looks like.
but why not tell them y our "agenda" and clear it all up
Christopher Conkie wrote:
rather i think each mod had their own "agenda" none of which but the interests of the CCC first
And what was my agenda? Do tell. I'd really love to know what agenda you think I had. While you are at it you tell us what agenda you think Peter and Sam had, or do you mean the CCC moderators only?
It is fairly obvious what agendas Swami and Jeremy have. It is in full swing still. It does not, has never, involved moderating a forum.
If you call moderating when you are a moderator "having an agenda", then that must be it. Making new threads when there are existing threads on the same subject is spamming. Add to that the fact you have nothing useful to offer and you get the picture of what a troll looks like.
Making threads is not against the charter. You shouldn't be doing anything to them.
but why not tell them y our "agenda" and clear it all up
Christopher Conkie wrote:
rather i think each mod had their own "agenda" none of which but the interests of the CCC first
And what was my agenda? Do tell. I'd really love to know what agenda you think I had. While you are at it you tell us what agenda you think Peter and Sam had, or do you mean the CCC moderators only?
It is fairly obvious what agendas Swami and Jeremy have. It is in full swing still. It does not, has never, involved moderating a forum.
If you call moderating when you are a moderator "having an agenda", then that must be it. Making new threads when there are existing threads on the same subject is spamming. Add to that the fact you have nothing useful to offer and you get the picture of what a troll looks like.
Making threads is not against the charter. You shouldn't be doing anything to them.
Making multiple threads in multiple forums here about a subject that is currently being discussed is spamming. It always has been and always will be in any sane forum anywhere. The Charter is irrelevant.
If you dont believe....would you like me to make 40 new threads here now about the same thing?
come on Swami,
