Close this ...

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, Tom & Chip? Maybe you guys should start signing your posts 'Washington Irving.'

I guess 'thoughful responses' means that which goes with the grain. So much for the light moderation you promised back in January.

Pete

 

Pete, I can appreciate your concern, but those who have had their posting restricted had that happen only after repeated warnings, both here and in e-mail. The messages that violated the TOS (profanity, personal attacks) were then deleted.

There really is no conspiracy here, just trying to keep things civil and somewhat on-topic. I don't think anyone wants this to degenerate into what a.e.d. has become, after all that's the reason this was created.

Bruce

 

Pete,

The moderators are discussing this issue as we speak. Because there are a bunch of us, and because a lot of things fall into a "grey area", we aren't always 100% consistent with the way we handle things, as much as we'd like to be.

I am not certain that we haven't made some mistakes with the way some of the issues have been handled in the last 24 hours. Please give us a day to review the decisions we've made (actions taken by 4 different moderators at different times) and come up with a solution.

We really *are* aiming for very light moderation, preservation of opposing views, and simply avoiding personal attacks, flamefests, and things that will simply flame out of control... and sometimes somebody jumps the gun a little too quickly.

I think I speak for all of the moderators in saying that we value your input, along with the input of all of our contributors. Most of the policy comes from comments and input from our contributors.

I am confident that we can resolve this without preventing opposing views from being shared.

 

Mr French seems to have been way out of line with his comments. The moderators acted in a restrained and reasonable manner.

 

While you’re noodling a censorship policy, you may want to consider a policy governing how your moderators comport themselves in other forums. The fact that AED is not moderated is a technicality and it reflects poorly on your board’s management when your admins sink to a certain level in one forum, but have a propensity (and power) to snuff out the same behavior in their own forum. I don’t condone French’s language, nor do I share his beliefs. Remove the expletives if you must, but don’t censor his message.

 

Pete, you're 100% right, and I'd like to apologize for my recent ouburst on a.e.d. I'm the type of person who fights back when attacked, even when it's not the right thing to do. It won't happen again.

Bruce

 

After you’re done patting the sysops on the back, you may want to peruse the policy on quoting previous messages.

Pete

 

I have to *personally* agree with you on this... I can afford to be a bit calmer when I post on a.e.d... but I'm not sure it's appropriate for degreeinfo (as an entity) to insist that our moderators, all of whom contribute their time and effort without compensation, should have their rights to free speech in other forums abridged as a result of their agreeing to help moderate this forum.

It is a sticky area, and with or without a policy, people will evaluate a contributor's comments based on what they write here and in other venues. That alone should encourage everyone posting (who wishes to have the respect of others) to be careful what they say in all venues.

 

If that's the case, in the future Lawrie won't have to quote one of your outbursts again to make a point... and have his privs suspended for making a ‘thoughtful’ post. I think Lawrie caught you folks off guard. I know in the past, Lawrie has dissected the arguments of some of the regulars and probably made some feel uncomfortable. There was nothing objectionable about his post and the thread wasn't locked. I think you guys went off halfcocked. If anything, his concerns should've been addressed right then.

Pete

 

FWIW, I didn't suspend Lawrie's privileges. In any case, it was entirely inappropriate, IMO, to cut & paste something from a.e.d. and post it here. The reverse would be likewise. This forum was created because a.e.d. became an unusable mess....they are seperate worlds, and the two shouldn't be involved with each other, again IMO.

If I went through the Google archives I'm sure I could find some objectionable posts to a.e.d. from just about everyone, but even if I did, I sure wouldn't post them here to prove a point.

Bruce

 

It's an interesting argument, but since I'm the one that suspended his privileges (only until I could discuss what he had posted with the other admins, which happened, and he now has posting privileges again), it doesn't hold much water. None of what you describe that he has done has ever been in my direction. Nor, to be honest, have I paid much attention one way or the other to his posts (lots of posters and lots of topics).


Tom Nixon

 

The moderators didn't (and probably still don't) have 100% clarity on what is and isn't appropriate. While I'll admit to occasionally being annoyed by some of Lawrie's posts, I also think that he's been a very valuable contributor here, offering us the "4 week BA" and other informative topics, and I certainly don't want to discourage him from commenting, even when the comments might go "against the grain."

As long as our regular posters can be civil with their disagreement, and post only under a single username, I think it's reasonable to expect that the moderators won't mess with the messages posted.

'Nuff said?

 

I don't know, Bruce, but there does seem to be a conspiracy at work here---one which involves the FBI, CIA and certain high ranking Democrats. Operation DIPSCUM (Scummy Diploma's) is the code name for an overt attempt by the FBI, to infiltrate degreeinfo.com and locate all substandard schools. The conspiracy appears to involve moderators, administrators and everyone who posts in favor of legitimate, recognized and credible credentials.

I registered here to learn more about DL, never thinking I would become part of a national undercover operation.

Russell

 

Well, the evidence is that this is blatant humbug. Tom has in the past celebrated that fact that I no longer posted in AED, claiming that I had never made any worthwhile contribution and that he was glad to see the back of me. The record clearly show that this man bore enough animus to post those mean spirited comments months after I withdrew from Usnet. They form part of the AED record, and if you want me to post them, I certainly will.

The point is that there is ample evidence of a prior resentment and dislike of me on the part of Tom Nixon. It was Tom Nixon who precipitously and callously used his
power to silence a contributor for no good reason other than because he could. I think Pete H. is entirely accurate in his analysis, Tom was getting even.

Again, Tom, should you wish to dispute any of this, I'll be glad to post the evidence of your prior diatribes that directly contradict your current protestations of detachment and disinterest.

Additionally, your rather offensive email informing me posting privileges are being restored, suggests that I knew I was violating or knew I "came close to violating" the TOS but that you will condescend to give me the benefit of the doubt. That is completely outrageous. Please either detail the evidence justifying that charge or withdraw it. I note that even now, you have completely failed to detail what part of the terms of service were violated. The reason for your reticence is obvious - there was no
violation. The evidence strongly suggests you simply abused your position as moderator.

 

Exactly why was it "entirely inappropriate", Bruce? You did write those words I quoted, didn't you? They are your thoughts, are they not? Do you mean that you should judge others but others should not judge you? Does being a moderator give you a pass on reasonable and moral conduct? What does any of this have to do with the terms of service?

What reverse would be likewise, Bruce?

Again, your opinion and nothing at all to do with the TOS. An opinion, I must say, that does not bear analysis. Because AED became an unusable mess, you reserve the right to be profane and abusive there and no one should say boo? Indeed, how dare anyone suggest you be held to account for your public conduct, let alone quote you in this forum? I don't understand Bruce, how does it follow that because AED is a mess, you have the right to be profane and abusive without third party comment? And should anyone comment and quote you, well then they are violating the TOS. The fact that that is your opinion does not confer validity upon these ludicrous notions, nor does it justify your bad behavior.

Let us be clear about this, there was no need to go through the AED archives, was there, Bruce? You had used the abusive epithet on Friday. It was very current and germane. I understand that you do not like being brought to task as you brought Peter to task for similar misdeeds, but that's life. Are you seriously arguing that in and of itself, quoting from AED should be deemed a violation of the TOS? Or, more likely, that those quoting AED posts detrimental to your position are violating the TOS? That is it, isn't it, Bruce?

You have apologized for your conduct in AED, but sadly, this last quoted post of yours leads me to doubt the sincerity of that contrition.

 

On behalf of *all* the degreeinfo moderators, I offer our sincere apology for the problems that arose, including the suspending of posting privileges (which have since been restored) the closing of a thread (which has been reopened) and the communications associated with it.

I really hope that you'll accept the apology, allow us to acknowledge that this experience is helpful to us in creating better uniformity with our policies, and let the matter drop so that we can get back to discussing distance education issues.

If you do have any issues with individual moderators, I'd appreciate it if you'd discuss them via private email rather than here in the forum. Please email [email protected] if you need to contact any of the admins.

Thanks.

Chip

 

To be honest Lawrie, I really couldn't care less what you think. I made my apology, those that want to accept it can do so. You seem to want to keep publicly yanking my chain, but it's not going to work. If you want to keep discussing this, then you're welcome to e-mail me, or the moderators at [email protected]. There is not point whatsoever in continuing this conversation here.

Bruce

 

Russell, your official degreeinfo.com secret decoder ring is in the mail.

Bruce

 

I can honestly say that I don't remember celebrating your not posting anywhere. However, I will certainly take you at your word.

I certainly apologize for any misunderstanding (on my part or otherwise)that has occurred. As Chip has said elsewhere, we're doing our best (which isn't always as good as it should be). I will strive to do better.


Tom Nixon

 

Thank you, Bruce! I always loved to watch "Mission Impossible," so I can hardly wait to get in on some of this distance learning espionage. And now I take the DegreeInfo.com oath:

I promise to:
1. Be a loyal DL agent.
2. Read 10 pages in Bears' Guide each day.
3. Never associate with degree mills.
4. Learn the secret DegreeInfo.com handshake.
5. Never tell anyone the DegreeInfo.com secrets.
6. Never acknowledge, recognize or otherwise promote degrees which are not credible, legitimate and substantive.

WOW! I feel better already, and am ready for action.

Russell