[joab]

A while back hso PMed me about a dispute I had with a new member

I brought up some points that he felt I should bring up in open forum stating that he would support my starting the thread
I declined stating that it would be of no use

One of the issues I brought up was recently touch on up by newbie Lewis Wetzel
My main contention was unequal distribution of enforcement of the rules


I have to thank Mr.Wetzel for proving my point
A comment he made in a thread was singled out and turned into a separate thread by moderators and what followed was three pages of blatant vitriolic personal attacks on almost every aspect of his personality
Both jr. and senior members and even moderators joined in the name calling and character assassination

It was a disgusting demonstration that this once font of information and mature debate has been taken over by thugs liars and word twisters who are so appalled that someone would disagree with them that they resort to name calling disinformation and outright lies to make their points true

[ArfinGreebly]

I believe I was one of the first to reply to him.

I do know that the content was pulled out of the donations thread as, frankly, it didn't belong there. It was originally moved to Technical Support -- where complaints are normally housed -- and then, when he complained that it had been moved out of the higher traffic area, it was moved back to General.

As far as the actual content of the discussion, permit me this: 1) do you take issue with anything I wrote in response to him, 2) do you propose that his response to me was appropriate?

I missed the vitriol. Had I seen any, I would have quashed it. I believe by now you've had a chance to see my moderating style, and I don't believe my performance is inconsistent with that.

So, just out of curiosity, was there something that you saw in my material there to which you take exception?

I endeavor to be as even-handed as possible. If I have slipped there, I'd like to know.

[hso]

Joab,

I came late to the thread you mention, but the thread was split and LW's complaint was moved to Technical, where issues with the mechanics and management of THR are discussed, instead of just deleting his post as OT. You know the place well enough to post your concern on the management here in Technical, but a Mod gave him the benefit of the doubt that being new he wasn't as familiar with the rules and gave his complaint it's own thread in Technical. He complained about it being moved from a high traffic area and his complaint was moved to General (discussions of the mechanics and management of THR belong in Technical, but the mod bent over backwards to accommodate him and made the exception of moving it anyway). He complained about that.

As can be expected when a complaint about how any board is moderated, the majority of members posting in the thread then express their support for the way the board is run (were it loosely moderated they'd support that it was "fun and free wheeling", closely moderated, they cheer the "focus and maturity") and a few express reservations or agree with the OP. That seems to be the case regardless of the board. The majority of the active members are there because they like the place, otherwise they'd be on one of the other boards (I don't like McDonald's, but I do like Wendy's so I patronize Wendy's far more than MickyD's) so the majority of responses to a complaint are in support of the board.

Do all members interpret the rules of civility the same, no. Frankly what's civil in some circles is rude, crude and boorish in others, so we get a range of what is civil behavior. Some of that gets the attention of the mods and members are asked to adjust the way they express themselves for this setting. Are all the mods the same, well no. They're individuals with individual styles. Mine would be different from yours as a mod. Some are direct and some hint when they want to adjust a thread or post . All of them are spending time that would be better, personally, spent in the real world than here. Real time pressures, style differences, personality differences obviously make for differences in moderating (I'd have disappeared LW's complaint and any associated responses and PMd him to post complaints about the management where they belong in Technical. Other mods abhor deleting member's posts that are not vulgar, sexist, racist, etc.).

If you have specific suggestions about how the place can be better run, please bring them up. We should be adult enough to discuss them at THR. If its a general sense of unhappiness about the place, there's not much we can do.

[joab]

I missed the vitriol. Had I seen anyYou are going to honestly tell me that you missed the juvenile references to his financial abilities, the typical references to his intelligence and firearm knowledge
You can't possibly be trying to say you missed the comment about him and the horse he rode in on.
I will also assume that you are aware that you were not the only poster or moderator to post in that thread

Here's a bit of wonderment from a mod that I generally have immense respect for and have since our days together at 1911
We don't allow namecalling at The High Road.
This came after a full page of people calling him names and only after he referred to the moderators who allowed it to continue as clowns with no mention of their horses or finances

I got a real kick out of all the post stating that if not for moderation these forums would descend into nothing more than name calling and incivility in a thread that was nothing more than name calling and incivility and incessant references to trolls by the newbies who obviously could not be bothered to actually read the thread before adding to their post count


As one member noted
It's funny that a thread about overmoderation has stayed open so long when filled with personal attacks and "get out if you don't like it!" posts.
Which brings up my point
Unequal application of the rules
The OP was unpopular and critical of the board therefore the board allowed the pile on to continue until it shifted to which sodas go better with peanuts and moon pies

As can be expected when a complaint about how any board is moderated, the majority of members posting in the thread then express their support for the way the board is runWhich was the point I made in our PM session
As far as starting what would be a totally non productive thread on this just to have to
wade through the inevitable responses from the boot lickers about how this is the bestest gosh darn site on the web or deal with the inevitable comments and PMs from the mods telling me that their's is a thankless job and they are not going to argue with the likes of me about how to do it ( yeah I have already gotten them in the past) And then there is the also inevitable threats of banning or the hints about how they could if they wanted to.
Why would I want to that
This is what Lewis has proven to be correct

And if you remember those PMs were in response to managements unequal enforcement of forum rules
my original reply was meant solely to point out what I saw as blatant hypocracy of the management calling for an end to stupid asinine sexist remarks from idgets less than an hour after they supported the stupid asinine sexist comments from an idget

And of course there were the obligatory veiled threats of banning and/or implications of how I could be banned for not agreeing with the moderator after the also obligatory word twisting that is so prevalent on this board

[rbernie]

This seems to be a private conversation, but I'll butt in anyway - I'm in the neighborhood.

Lewis Wetzel was a troll who fanned the flames of his own thread. He made no effort to engage in respectful civil discourse in most of the posts he'd made, and he got the same in return. Sometimes, a public beating is a useful thing.

Were I a mod, I would not have allowed the thread to continue. But that's because of my innate distaste for mob behavior. But I'm not a mod.

The mods are human. They enforce rules unequally sometimes. I have my personal beefs with specific mods. But I allow them the privledge of being human, and I do my best to ignore the one that I think is clearly slanted in his perspectives. :D

Rules are ALWAYS enforced inequally. It's the nature of the beast. Joab - did you complain when you were the one being given the free hall pass?

[joab]

Joab - did you complain when you were the one being given the free hall pass?And here we go

When have I ever been given a free hall pass?
When have I ever initiated an attack such as the attack we are talking about?
Do you have access to me PMs?
Have you kept track of the threads closed when another tries to twist my words and I refuse to allow it?
Have I not adequately explained the nature of the PM conversation between hso and myself?

Lewis Wetzel was a troll who fanned the flames of his own thread. He made no effort to engage in respectful civil discourse in most of the posts he'd made, and he got the same in return. Sometimes, a public beating is a useful thing.Show me one of his previous trollish comments
I searched and found tech answers to tech question mostly and much less trollish answers than his main nemesis in the the donation thread has made throughout the board

As far as his efforts to engage in civil discourse, did you take note of the very first response to his comment
Posting an unpopular opinion does not make you a troll neither does fighting back
There were a great many trolls posting in his thread though

If he was indeed banned this is a further example of situation enforcement of the rules
There were two posters in particular that kept coming back to get their shots in, one has a habit of doing it in other threads

I do my best to ignore the one that I think is clearly slanted in his perspectives. Doesn't work once you're on their radar for goring one of their sacred cows

[tydephan]

The Lewis Wetzel thread and this one are completely different.

When I begin reading a "critical" thread about THR, I try to evaluate what the purpose is. With the LW thread, his purpose was to denounce the site and beat his chest about not donating. I didn't pile on, but I did ask him if he also did this with charities and other organizations that he disagreed with. I can't imagine he takes time to call up the Red Cross and tell them he refuses to donate blood because he disagrees with their policies. I have a hard time feeling sorry for him.

Joab brings up a solid point in a respectful manner. I have no problem with differing views. In fact, I welcome them.

The problem that Joab brings up is very real. However I'm not convinced there is a solution. With 20 +/- moderators, it is futile to expect the exact same standards to be applied across the board. Different personalities with different histories. Therefore, styles of moderation will also differ.

It was a disgusting demonstration that this once font of information and mature debate has been taken over by thugs liars and word twisters who are so appalled that someone would disagree with them that they resort to name calling disinformation and outright lies to make their points true
Well, I was with ya until this statement.

[rbernie]

When have I ever been given a free hall pass?
Dude - you've posted here almost five THOUSAND times. I guaran-dang-tee you that at least ONE of those posts was Not On The High Road.

We are humans. We all post things that are less than helpful sometimes. You are no different than I or anyone else. We have all likely been given a pass or two over the years. I certainly expect that I have.

When the mods failed to publicly sanction any given member for their contribution to the thread, they probably did so for any number of reasons - only one of which was because they chose to tacitly allow a public beating. I would like to presume that the mod response was NOT out of malice.

Given how the mods attempted to address Wetzel's concerns by moving the thread back in GenDisc when he complained about it being moved to TechSupport, I believe my assumption to be correct.

Show me one of his previous trollish commentsThird post in the thread, for example:
End of discussion on my end. Do research and get back to me. Classic troll - I've spoken my mind and now I'll hum loudly until you go away.

And then:
But then, I wouldn't expect many who are long timers here to have such awareness. Call it a lack of perspective on your parts.

You've got to be kidding. It's practically a joke on other gun boards.So, lemme reset things. He decried our ability to reason, insulted our perspective, and in the end he took the cheap cop-out - "Everybody else [un-named] thinks I'm right".

As was stated by tydephan in that thread:

Lewis,

Is it common practice for you to post on other forums or call up charities and explain to them why you refuse to donate? Or are you simply trying to stir the pot?

Look --> I can understand if you don't want to donate. Don't donate. In no way are donations required to use, learn, and communicate via this forum. But the "stick it in your face" comments are over the top, disrespectful and quite frankly, very childish.
And so it went.

I'm sorry - Lewis was trolling for attention, seeking a means by which to publicly proclaim his opinion. As far as I can tell, he got it. I can't feel too badly for that. I just wish it had been cut off sooner.

It's kinda ironic - he complains about the moderation being too strict, and in response the thread was allowed to continue past 'normal' moderation levels, and then you complain about the uneven moderation.

Sigh. I guess I'm just not smart enough to understand the razor's edge that you expect the mods to walk.

The problem that Joab brings up is very real. However I'm not convinced there is a solution. With 20 +/- moderators, it is futile to expect the exact same standards to be applied across the board. Different personalities with different histories. Therefore, styles of moderation will also differ.
Exactly. Trying to change this is like trying to change the weather by standing in your backyard and screaming at the skies.

Dunno. Maybe that really works in some places. Around here, they just call Social Services on ya. AMHIK. :)

[joab]

Well, I was with ya until this statementIn all honesty that was probably more about some other threads than this one but certainly some points apply to this thread as well

I guaran-dang-tee you that at least ONE of those posts was Not On The High Road. As I said do you have access to my PMs

As for those "trollish" comments you attribute to Lewis most are not even close
Almost all are responses to trollish comments directed towards him

How can you defend the assumptions that his financial contribution could not be much as anything else
And he did not hum loudly he maintained his end of the conversation in the face of the attack

If he had started the thread I would probably agree that he was trolling but he did not a moderator used his comment to start a new thread

Regardless Lewis' comments and motives are pretty much immaterial to the discussion, which is the behavior of the moderators in the matter
I have to believe that they were enjoying watching the beat down

It's kinda ironic - he complains about the moderation being too strict, and in response the thread was allowed to continue past 'normal' moderation levels, and then you complain about the uneven moderation.I have already explained that this is at the core of my observation
This was a mod sanctioned pile on that should never have been allowed to happen
The fact that moderators took an active part in the discussion proves that they were aware of what was going on
I would have to wonder why this blatant violation of the rules of personal attack was allowed to go on if not for the subject of the thread and victim in the attack

Nowhere have I stated that I want or think anything will change
But at this point the thread has been viewed 172 times and 172 people have seen how a mature conversation is conducted between disagreeing adults
And so far it has been a pleasant change from the status quo

[Robert Hairless]

Louis Wetzel:


WHAT A BUNCH OF CLOWNS. And to think the point I was trying to make was that Mods here were arbitrary and capricious.

Well, Laaa teee frickin' daaaaaa.....

Who'd a thunk it....What a collection of self-serving a$$sholes. Trying to distort something to make themselves look different or better. Distorting the truth of the matter in order to make look like I was starting a thread to be a S**t
T stirrer.....You ought to be ashamed of yourselves.

Pathetic.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=4032506&postcount=41

Seems to me that arguments with or about moderators aren't "Technical Support," that they are most comfortable in private messages between the aggrieved and the moderator, and that they serve only as a form of public pressure to accomplish private goals.

I did appreciate Joab's attack on my passing comment remark about "the horse." I am a bad boy named Richard. Joab is a superior, mature adult like Lewis Wetzel. It's good to have a forum that tolerates such extremes, because it give me the opportunity to learn from my betters.

Switching from equestrianship to Joel Chandler Harris for the moment, this message gives me the apprehension felt by Br'er Rabbit after touching the sticky stuff.

[Al Norris]

Full disclosure: I am one of the moderators of the Legal & Political forum over at the Firing Line. AKA: Antipitas.

Joab, Lewis Wetzel (http://thehighroad.org/member.php?u=56675) posted in a thread about donating to THR. Except that his post was about why he would not donate. He didn't just post that he wouldn't donate, he posted his opinion of what he thought he was seeing. He posted his (derogatory) opinion of the mods here... If he had done that to another member, other than the mods, he would most probably have been banned on the spot (Moderators, like LE, have to take a bunch of abuse and just sit back without saying a word. Our "peace" cannot be disturbed, yet yours can. That's just the way it is in the real world).

Member Old Fuff (http://thehighroad.org/member.php?u=495), opined that that opinion of the mods wasn't deserved. He also remarked that he would make up any supposed difference in donations.

About 15 minutes later, Mr. Wetzel came back and posted an ad hom against Old Fuff.

At that point, it (the tirades) was off and running.

As I didn't view the thread in real time, I can't say when the posts were pruned to a new thread and moved to Tech Support. Which, as you know, is where it should have been posted to begin with. The initial post by Mr. Wetzel was off topic to the original thread. The Mod who did the deed was simply adhering to good moderator practice by bending over and letting a member get his beef in the open air, in a forum that was (partly) designed for this.

This explanation wasn't good enough for Mr. Wetzel, who (it was painfully obvious) wanted even more exposure. It was given to him, yet, it was still not enough.

And then he was gone. But the vitriol had worked and the thread developed it's own legs, as they are want to do. When it was really apparent that Mr. Wetzel was not going to return, Mal closed the thread down.

Joab, this was and is trollish behavior, regardless of what anyone may think of Mr. Wetzel personally.

The mods here, are at times, way too lenient. Just as we are over at TFL. Hard and fast rules are sometimes (ofttimes?) bent, in order to show everyone that we aren't the jerks others make us out to be.

You call that unequal distribution of enforcement of the rules, while I call it good moderation.

[joab]

Joab is a superior, mature adult like Lewis WetzelYou just knew it wouldn't last long though didn't you bernie.
Notice the twist of my pointing out an inappropriate comment to an attack, sweet huh?


Antipitas I bring to your attention once again

Regardless Lewis' comments and motives are pretty much immaterial to the discussion, which is the behavior of the moderators in the matter

An I can point out many other trollish commenters in that thread and one so far in this one

Hard and fast rules are sometimes (ofttimes?) bent, in order to show everyone that we aren't the jerks others make us out to beSo how does allowing the board to act like jerks show anyone that we are not jerks
while I call it good moderation.And I still call it a moderator sanctioned pile on

[joab]

Member Old Fuff, opined that that opinion of the mods wasn't deserved. He also remarked that he would make up any supposed difference in donations.

About 15 minutes later, Mr. Wetzel came back and posted an ad hom against Old Fuff.Please don't try that intelligence insulting twist
Fluff's remark was an easily recognizable insult directed at Lewis
At that point, it (the tirades) was off and running.
At that point Fluff was the first one to respond

I am a newer member but cannot help but see a very heavy-handed (IMHO) methodology of moderation. I dislike that. It inhibits discussion and an exchange of ideas.

NO ONE would tolerate racism, vulgarity and name-calling, that's a given.

But I've read and seen way too many threads locked here, more than I've seen on any gun board.

So be it. It's your site. But TANSTAAFL.....

Your board, your rules, your bills.

I cannot contribute when it seems the moderators are somewhat thin-skinned. Nothing personal, I'm not looking for an argument, far from it. This is more in terms of an explanation. I know in advance that the margins of discussion here are constrained and that I'll need to abide accordingly.

Your board, your rules, your bills. Fair enough.
Derogatory? Critical yes, but derogatory? Really?
If this i what you consider to be derogatory then perhaps the thin skinned label fits
If this is what is considered derogatory then over half the members here would be banned, certainly on in this thread would be

If LW posted his opinion in a thread that was accepting opinions then what is the problem, other than some ruffled feathers caused by his opinion
In all honesty that opinion is well supported by the actions of the board and mods in retaliation for his posted opinion

[ArfinGreebly]

The longer this thread goes on, the more disoriented I find myself.

Said I to Lewis,
I am baffled.

Where is this thin skin of which you speak?
To which he replied:
You've got to be kidding. It's practically a joke on other gun boards.

Take a look at the number of threads that are locked.
Which does not, in fact, answer the question, but rather heaps derision on me and invokes a generality. Very *sniff-and-hand-waving* but entirely non-responsive.

This is not productive dialog, nor is it intended to be.

End of discussion on my end. Do research and get back to me. I have personal experience with a half-dozen or more boards. This board seems to be, BY FAR, the one with the tightest leash on the posters. BIG TIME.

But then, I wouldn't expect many who are long timers here to have such awareness. Call it a lack of perspective on your parts.
Shifting the burden of proof, appeal to authority, straw man and, finally, a slam at the membership itself.

Wow. Not a shred of attempted understanding. THR, and by association its membership, is being accused of not measuring up to a standard he hasn't articulated.

That some deny it does not make it less so. As an outsider I can assure you, it not only exists, but is the object of.....'observation and comment'...by others on other boards.

AGAIN, it is your board...I am not trying to inflict my values, just making a point with regards to MY values, and those things that are significant points with regards to providing financial support to an on-line board of any kind.
Semantically null assertion, followed by innuendo and rumor, condescension, and the declaration that his values are more worthy than those of THR.

At this point, I was inclined to issue a warning for trolling and lock the thread. Except that the thread in question is not one that I will lock, nor will I permit traffic in that thread that would make it eligible for locking.

Rather than either of these, I composed a straightforward, non-sarcastic, explanation of matters as I saw them. I did not attack him, insult him, deride him (all of which he had already done), did not warn or ban him, as it seemed to me that persuading an intelligent man is a worthwhile endeavor.

Joab, I asked you if you took "issue with anything I wrote in response to him," and whether you "propose that his response to me was appropriate?"

You answered neither.

Rather, you took issue with my failure to notice the nastiness you perceived.

Ten posts in, there was still no "vitriol" beyond what Lewis himself had posted, and with the eleventh post in the sequence, Lewis once again launched a screed of derision, mostly aimed at me, wherein he took some pains to misrepresent what I had said, adding terms of denigration in reference to the board ("coven") and alleging "diatribes" from those who had posted.

There were no "diatribes" and slandering the board membership as a "coven" was certainly worthy of at least a warning.

Still, no warning was issued, as it seemed that there might still be a chance of persuasion.

It was not to be.

Twenty posts in, still no vitriol beyond that which Lewis, himself, has brought to the party.

And in the twenty-first entry, Lewis once again engages in deprecating and sneering commentary, then accuses the other posters of "imagin insult," engages in further put-down of the membership ("discussions are more entry-level or hobbyist level") uses the fact that people have responded in disagreement to his views as "evidence" of the 'thin skinned' factor, then, with a flourish, declares the issue dead.

And it is at this point that I grasp that this,
But, should you decide you [I]DON'T like it here, and yet insist on staying, then I would question your judgement and/or motives.
has become the situation.

And finally, having given Lewis the benefit of the doubt for some twenty-one posts, and having reaped nothing but contempt from someone determined not to be persuaded, the membership finally decides to return fire.

There were some astute observations in the traffic that followed. Lewis showed up having already determined to offend and insult, did exactly that, then feigned surprise that anyone would take him seriously, after all "it's only the Internet," and the best he could bring to bear was snark and generalities.

I contemplated shutting down that thread a couple of times, but a) I had no intention of making it look like I was stifling dissent, and b) other moderators had already acted to move the thread -- first to where it really belonged, then to where Lewis desired it -- and had, themselves posted observations.

It became clear as things progressed that Lewis had the unmistakable intention to be disruptive, and I came to regret that I hadn't realized this earlier and just closed the thread, thus limiting the damage.

He didn't "prove" a damned thing, other than if you show up and sneer at the members and moderators, deride them and belittle them, and finally call them names, you will no longer be welcome on the board.

Joab, I don't know why his "cause" resonated with you, since you have never struck me as a troll. Is it that he seemed to be an "underdog" being "poorly done by" at the hands of the membership at large?

If so, please disabuse yourself of that impression. He was never the underdog. He was a provocateur and a self-important ass.

It's never seemed to me that you would fit that category, so I have some trouble grasping your dedication to promoting his point of view.

If you actually bought into his "victim" masquerade, consider yourself to have been fooled.

I had rather hoped he could be a valuable contributor, and to that degree was I, myself, fooled.

But I'm over that now.

[tydephan]

Joab,

As it is often difficult to read emotion in words, I assure you that I am very serious and this is said with utmost respect and intention.

You've identified a problem. You say this was a moderator sanctioned smack down. I may or may not agree with that assertion. Either way, do you have any prospective solutions in mind?

[joab]

Rather, you took issue with my failure to notice the nastiness you perceivedI thought Ihad made it clear that that was the core issue here
Ten posts in, there was still no "vitriol" beyond what Lewis himself had postedNo derision?
How about one post in
And I'll do my very best to make up whatever amount you didn't contribute.
It shouldn't come to very much
Post 8
Frankly and politely, one can only hope "an outsider" is what you will remain. I'm with Old Fuff, I'll gladly contribute what you might have as it wouldn't be much, monetarily or verbally.
Twenty posts in, still no vitriol beyond that which Lewis, himself, has brought to the party.
Post #14 is nothing if not derisive
Post #15
I'm glad you've figured out you are better than every other member of this forum. Welcome to my ignore list.
And finally the Texan of post 14 fame chimes in yet again
Old Lewis there has decided in less than a month that he has "seen all THR has to offer". That's probably true but I think it has more to do with Lewis' ability to absorb knowledge than THRs ability to impart it.
If you don't consider those comments derisive then you certainly could not consider his opening post derisive

And finally, having given Lewis the benefit of the doubt for some twenty-one posts, and having reaped nothing but contempt from someone determined not to be persuaded, the membership finally decides to return fire.You obviously are not reading the same thread that is in the THR archives
I wont stoop so far as to compare you to one of the twisty boys that frequent this board but I do have to wander what thread you are reading
Pity you couldn't show me the same consideration
Joab, I don't know why his "cause" resonated with you, since you have never struck me as a troll.Now I have to wander why you would try to associate me with being a troll
Nothing I have done here has even come close to that definition
Are you taking notes hso, y'all gonna have to call Joabstradamus after this one

It's never seemed to me that you would fit that category, so I have some trouble grasping your dedication to promoting his point of viewAs I have explained repeatedlyLewis' comments and motives are pretty much immaterial to the discussion, which is the behavior of the moderators in the matter
If you read the thread you will also find a few posts commenting on the beat down
Some while gleefully joining in and some more mature members calling for an end to it
I saw those, you would think someone tasked with moderating would have also
I did see what I believe to be the post referring to him as an ********* was deleted, but I don't know if that was self moderated or officially censored
Either way, do you have any prospective solutions in mind?Not a clue
Just demonstrating a long overdue point and taking up a long overdue challenge from another moderator
And I am not all that happy about being proven right in this case

[ArfinGreebly]

Joab, it would seem that you and I have rather different meanings for "vitriol."

Gentle chiding, even a moderate rebuff, is far from "vitriolic."

Your characterization of the remarks above as "vitriolic" is somewhat over the top.

You also take some liberties with the meaning of "derision."

Now I have to wander why you would try to associate me with being a troll
Joab, you have labored at some length to support the actions of a troll. I don't have to associate you with this troll, you did that yourself.

Lewis' comments and motives are pretty much immaterial to the discussion, which is the behavior of the moderators in the matter
Sorry, you don't get to eliminate the context and isolate actions as though they happened in a vacuum.

Lewis' comments are, in fact, central to the discussion.

No mod invited him to the forum to start a squabble. He showed up on his own and taunted both the mods and the members.

As for your assertion that I'm "not reading the same thread," horse hockey. I was there when the thread started.

I've already stipulated that I let it go on longer than was wise, hoping to achieve some persuasion. I was clearly wrong in so doing.

This does not mitigate the signal fact Lewis set out to disrupt and, despite attempts at rational discussion, insisted on lashing out.

I have this feeling that I've come in during the third act of a play that's already established the plot and modes, and no matter what dialog I attempt, it's not consistent with a script I've not been shown.

Joab, I assert that my address of Lewis' claims was rational and reasonable.

I further assert that I showed restraint in the face of his repeated attacks.

Finally, I will point out what I believe to be a classic piece of irony:
The conversation in question was the result of under-moderation in a thread whose primary complainant objected to over-moderation.
A man shows up, gripes that he can't support us because we, inter alia, over-moderate the forum. Then, in an effort to relax the strictures of moderation in this instance, we find that doing so permitted a backlash from members who took umbrage at his insults.

In the epilogue, more than one moderator notes that there should have been some intervention sooner.

In parallel with this, we find ourselves under fire for essentially acceding to the complainants wishes.

I'm not going to spend much more time trying to clarify my actions or position on this.

I would probably handle it differently should it happen again -- and I would imagine that I'll get an opportunity to test that theory. We seem to get one of these every few weeks.

Continuing to tell me that I'm missing the point or that my perception is distorted isn't likely to get any traction.

I'm already examined my actions, found them wanting, and resolved to improve.

I don't know if that was any part of your objective.

My hope for you is that you'll find a way to set aside your bitterness and join us in the primary mission of the board.

In any case, it's the New Year, and I wish you and yours the best.

[wideym]

Stiring the pot is good and bad. Sometimes the tasty bits come up to the surface and sometimes you get the burnt parts ruining the taste.

[RealGun]

Trying to make sense of this sort of thing always gets one lost in the trees. The problem is always that someone cannot accept authority, imperfectly or perfectly wielded. We all signed up via the rules that we would yield to moderator authority and ownership of the board in general.

These complaints cannot be satisfied by patient examination and explanation, because one cannot grant a respect for authority. Some will be persuaded, and some will not, so any entertainment of a complaint should be brief and matter of fact, conserving energy and not providing audience for the compliant. The complainer as incorrigible then becomes trollish, and there is only one action that will allow the group to move forward.

Moderators deserve admiration for patience more than perfection.

[Al Norris]

Regardless Lewis' comments and motives are pretty much immaterial to the discussion, which is the behavior of the moderators in the matter
As Arfin stated, the context and actions were not made in a vacuum.

As far as the initial derogatory remark, calling a person or a group of persons, "thin-skinned," is indeed derogatory... by any definition. It is a very mild sort of argumentum ad hominem, as ad homs go, but it does set the tone for what followed.

You don't see it that way. So we disagree. We've disagreed before, and undoubtedly we will again.

Regardless, you have made your mind up and no amount of explanation or discussion is going to change it. You and I have been here before.

[Biker]

If a stranger walks into a neighborhood bar and starts insulting the bartender and the denizens of said bar, there's likely gonna be a thumpin'. Just human nature.

Biker

[joab]

Joab, you have labored at some length to support the actions of a troll. I don't have to associate you with this troll, you did that yourself.I say again
The complaint and issue being discussed is the moderators actions not LW's
You can try to divert from that all you want but I started this thread about moderator behavior.
I clearly stated the purpose for the thread why are you trying to twist it to be what you want it to be
Wouldn't that be kinda like twisting a thread about donations into a discussion of why not to donate?
Now for the obligatory
Wanna show me where I supported his actions or his statements?
The closest I come is not accepting him as a troll, which seems to be the newest catch phrase for those we don't agree with

As for your assertion that I'm "not reading the same thread," horse hockey. I was there when the thread started.The you should have been aware of what was goping on in it

I've already stipulated that I let it go on longer than was wise, hoping to achieve some persuasion. I was clearly wrong in so doing.And you were obviously not the only person with the power to stop it
As a matter of fact the one person I expected to stop it did, and you will notice that it was his only appearance in the thread
I have this feeling that I've come in during the third act of a play that's already established the plot and modes, and no matter what dialog I attempt, it's not consistent with a script I've not been shown.No. I'm just not allowing rewrites that attempt to change the story line

I also get the feeling that you think this entire thread, and Lewis' is directed directly at you or that you are the sole moderator in charge
Nowhere have I singled you out, I have mentioned only one name here and it is in the title
You were the most frequent poster and therefore obviously in the best position to see what was happening, so maybe that is why you are so defensive
But rationalizing this into anything other than what it was is disingenuous at best
Using the quote about the under and over moderation simply proves my point
This was a sanctioned pile on that would not have happen if the originator had not presented such an unpopular opinion

And finally
I'm already examined my actions, found them wanting, and resolved to improve.But yet every post is you defending your actions

[joab]

Main Entry: de·ri·sion
Pronunciation: di-'ri-zh&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Late Latin derision-, derisio, from Latin deridEre
Date: 14th century
1 a : the use of ridicule or scorn to show contempt b : a state of being derided
2 : an object of ridicule or scorn

Can you explain how this fits that definition
You've got to be kidding. It's practically a joke on other gun boards.

Take a look at the number of threads that are locked.

But these do not
And I'll do my very best to make up whatever amount you didn't contribute It shouldn't come to very much
Frankly and politely, one can only hope "an outsider" is what you will remain. I'm with Old Fuff, I'll gladly contribute what you might have as it wouldn't be much, monetarily or verbally.
I'm glad you've figured out you are better than every other member of this forum. Welcome to my ignore list.
Old Lewis there has decided in less than a month that he has "seen all THR has to offer". That's probably true but I think it has more to do with Lewis' ability to absorb knowledge than THRs ability to impart it.

vit·ri·ol (vtr-l, -l)
n.
2. Bitterly abusive feeling or expression.
I can show you some of those also

Here's another that you might want to look into
discursive

[joab]

If a stranger walks into a neighborhood bar and starts insulting the bartender and the denizens of said bar, there's likely gonna be a thumpin'. Just human nature.But this isn't a bar and barroom behavior is supposedly not encouraged here

As Arfin stated, the context and actions were not made in a vacuumDoesn't matter
We have also had these discussions
The wrongful actions of one should not justify the mob mentality and wrongful actions of others

[Biker]

Of course THR isn't a bar, but the concept is transferable. You know *exactly* what I was saying.

Biker

[RealGun]

It was a disgusting demonstration that this once font of information and mature debate has been taken over by thugs liars and word twisters who are so appalled that someone would disagree with them that they resort to name calling disinformation and outright lies to make their points true - joab

I don't believe you have stated what resolution you are seeking. What is the point? What pound of flesh would satisfy? I infer that someone needs to be nailed to a cross. Can you be more direct? To be better than a common troll, you need to have some point other than to get attention and spoil someone's day.

[XavierBreath]

I'm closing this one to give everyone a chance to reflect. We all want The High Road to be a more welcoming place for gun owners and civil liberties minded folks to gather. We share a common goal.

This thread seems to be getting rather heated, with folks saying things that further entrench themselves into a position they may not desire. If we are trying to work towards resolution of a problem, it ain't happening. After reading through this thread, I became alarmed at a few things. I'll list them.

1. It is not polite to discuss private messages on an open forum.

2. Moderators at The High Road historically have not discussed the behavior of one member with another member. The moderators do this among themselves, but not among the membership.

3. Moderators at The High Road historically do discuss how and why they moderate in certain ways, but to be fair to other members, even banned ones, we have tried mightily in the past to not discuss specific cases.

There are some who will disagree with me closing this thread. Joab, PM me, and I will re-open it for you at your request. I will be in and out of the forum all day. The other mods can re-open it as well either to post or to get the discussion going again. Please though, lets reflect a bit, and cool down.

In the end, we are on the same side here. Lets realize that and work towards understanding rather than dissention.

FWIW, what I have to say publically about the thread/issue in question is contained in that thread.