Seems like this has since become a “Great Debate” to me…
The only moderator I ever had a quarrel with was anal Nick who complained that my closing signature constituted a “commercial site.” Putting me in with spammers was pretty odd IMHO, though I relnted slightly by changing the URL slightly.
In any event, I feel that everyone is well-intentioned by siding on Melin’s side. The gut-reaction of a person censored or fired for having an opinion is an easy cause to take up for. But just as I find the KKK repugnant and understand why people don’t want them to exist, I cannot take that view because the laws that allow them to exist and even march down an Alabama street are the same laws I cherish.
Anyway, I got the inside story from people I trust. In a nutshell:
Two moderators get into a public debate, something this site is for.
The debate crosses over from factual debate to peronal attacks, something this site is against.
Another moderator asked the two debaters to cease and desist personal arguments in public.
One arguer says, okay.
The other arguer says, well she started it, I’m just defending myself, I’ll quit if I can’t get my way…
The head honcho gets involved and makes it a policy against staffers fighting in public.
One moderator says, sure, sorry.
Another moderator says she can’t do that and fights - this time with the head honcho.
The head honcho says, well, if you can’t play by the rules, remember that thing you said about quitting?
I could care less about the individual egos and petty gripes. Looking at the facts without names above (even though the names are obvious, please amuse me), the following is obvious:
A public fight amongst representatives of you does not look good, no matter whom is right.
When asked to stop by a semi-authority figure, if one person says okay and the other does not, which one comes off as a stubborn trouble-maker?
When a rule is put in place by the main authority figure, which one person comes off as agreeable and which one as beligerant?
In a nutshell, Melin’s actions backed everyone into an uncomfortable corner.
In the corner, maybe everyone did not do the right things - but by this I mean the deleting of posts and the smug attitudes of some of the players in this little game, not the firing. And while you might not be able to excuse these wrongs, you can understand why they were made and appreciate attempts at righting them.
And the fact remains that a boss can make any rules he wishes. If you don’t agree to them, you have the right to not answer to the boss anymore. And if those rules are applied uniformly and fairly (which I think they were), everyone else has a choice to make. Obviously, there are other moderators who can live with these rules. Melin could not.
So they fired her. Their right. Deal with it.
It is also Melin’s right to complain about how she was treated unfairly, even if she was given every chance to either:
a) Stop the arguing
b) Take the arguing private
c) Agree to not argue in public
She did none of the above, and I have no sympathy whether she indeed resigned or was fired.
I do not like that she was censored after the fact (though that is within the administrators rights, I would choose to not frequent the place if it was run like that - my choice!), but they seem to be righting that wrong and are allowing her to speak.
As for all of you, as I said, I can totally understand you naturally feeling empathy for Melin and assuming she was an innocent victim whose crimes were only being opinionated. And the actions of the honchos - deleting messages (“the evidence” for the more conspiracy-minded mongst us) looked like Nixon erasing parts of tapes.
But stop thinking about how it looked and think about how it is.
If Melin’s future opining is removed from this board, I will change my mind!
But I think (and hope) that the earlier transgressions were errors which are being corrected and won’t happen again.
Folks, stop trying to be so righteous and start thinking about what is right instead!
CMC International Records
Yahoo Messenger Brian_ONeill