Issue one: Ely. He was a jerk, and that is the main reason I would have banned him. DJ did not act alone in this regard despite his acceptance of "taking credit" or "blame" for banning him. I would point out that more than once, Ely himself said that when he corrected newbies he felt no remorse in not explaining his disdain when he did so. Likewise, I feel none in the action taken to ban him, even though he was afforded warnings about his arrogance.

Issue two: Stumpy. I happen to like Stumpy even if he did ban me before I got to visit and post at his website. I have told him that and Warlord as well. His broken leg and hospitalization story was very wrong. I regret letting my soft side for him overrule my initial decision to ban him for the weekend. It took an impartial judge (Joe) to realize my mistake and keep him banned longer. As I evaluated the situation at length while that initial period was passing and as I in particular saw Warlord’s improper "support" publicly be voiced I realized as did Joe that bringing Stumpy back would be counterproductive to the forum atmosphere which was becoming less a spam fest without him. I wish him the best but his attitude is not what we are promoting at this forum. I am disapproving leaving the Stumpyland links on our site. That will be a decision Joe must consider further.

Issue three: Warlord. He is a very smart sophomore from Germany with a better command of English than many Americans. He did not, however, appreciate the importance of being a team player. No team has "I" in the word, and his inability to see this is how his public "discontent" with Stumpy’s banning was the beginning of his misfortune. He is young and will learn from this. Being part of a team means not always saying what is on your mind. Even what I write can get edited. Nevertheless, Joe has addressed this with him privately. I did not see his retirement as a moderator as unexpected. Whether he chooses to leave completely the forum will be his decision.

Issue four: Moderators. I am happy with the capacity of this group to lead in a manner that is proffered in the guidelines. We are conscientious, perhaps to a fault. I do not feel that every action we take needs substantial explanation. I feel that integrity is guide enough; treat people fairly and try not to show favoritism or allow personal attitude about posters come into play. We do that, generally, and I do it certainly. We respect the posters and strive to treat people fairly. Moderators are not here to suck up to the whims of those who believe they know what is best for the forums. Those people should look elsewhere to impart their advice. We have responded, however, to the requests of people including the chat channel and hardcore forum and the Off Topic forum among others. Here again, I acknowledge the leadership of The Acolyte.

Issue five: Dolmaniac. He did improve initially, but not enough. He does not see the big picture. It is not necessary to respond until Dolmaniac is happy with the response he gets. We are not Cal Berkely liberals, here. The explanation you got was it. Your attempt to undermine the infrastructure Joe has in place was reprehensible.

Issue six: Forum strength. Read some of the following individuals' posts for examples of the knowledge still active on these forums. Like Joe said, better to have a small, cohesive group than a large, chaotic one.

• GarretJax
• Pyrolocutus
• DerekSagan
• Arkady Tspesh
• Starwolf
• Sepulchrave

The forum is strong due to our leadership which is a direct result of our site director, The Acolyte, Joe Silvagni.

Previous Page | Next Page