Out a moderator! - Page 43

Nurta · 09-28-2006, 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elanie

:mad: :mad: :mad:

Was merely using you as an example. If you really are a mod I apologize for outing you.

RadarX · 09-28-2006, 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arthais

Well, you kind of make my point Nurta.

Either there are guidelines but, as radar insist, he KNOWS who they are, then those guidelines are not being enforced.

Or they're not there. Which is in itself a problem because if the "anonymous" moderators can, as a matter of policy, identify themselves to whom they chose to and not to those they do not chose to, we're right back to conflict of interest.

So if Radar truly, factually, knows who they are, then either the guidelines aren't there, but should be, or are not being enfored, but should be.

I can't say for sure which. Neither seems a pleasant option. The alternative is to suggest Radar is lying, and i have no reason to believe he is.

I can see your logic except where you leapt 200 yards to "Radar knows there are no guidelines." The only thing I claimed to know was whether there was truth to the original post in this thread. Not a bit more.

When I say there need to be clear cut guidelines I am of course speaking under the assumption there aren't any. I have absolutely no way of knowing how SOE runs things.

RadarX · 09-28-2006, 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SanjuNana

:confused:

I'm neither a woman, nor scorned.

If you're referring to my unidentified source, you're speculating that you know who it is. You assume that you know who it is, when really, you don't have a fucking clue, since I have not revealed my source, nor will I.

Unidentified...I'll play ball. It's not who I think it is, it's just nasty rumor kind of like your original post. Fair?

Arthais · 09-28-2006, 04:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RadarX

I can see your logic except the part where you leapt 200 yards to where "Radar knows there are no guidelines." The only thing I claimed to know was whether there was truth to the original post in this thread. Not a bit more.

When I say there need to be clear cut guidelines I am of course speaking under the assumption there aren't any. I have absolutely no way of knowing how SOE runs things.

Erm, I think I may have not been clear.

You state, and I have no reason to disbelieve you, that you know who the mods are.

Fair enough, now the only way you COULD know who the mods are, with certainty, is if you were told.

if you were told (and again I have no reason to disbelieve you) then one of two things are possible:

1) the guidelines that state that anon mods should not reveal their identities is not being enforced

or

2) no such guideline exists.

I didn't mean to make it sound like I suggested you knew WHAT those guidelines are, only that by the mere fact THAT you know, one of those two must be true. I, like you, don't know for certain what the internal policy is.

But if you know, either there is no policy against it, or that policy is being activly broken cause...um, you're not the only one who knows.

SanjuNana · 09-28-2006, 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RadarX

Unidentified...I'll play ball. It's not who I think it is, it's just nasty rumor kind of like your original post. Fair?

*shrug*

You'll believe what you want to believe no matter what I say, anyway. It's clear that your mind is made up already.

RadarX · 09-28-2006, 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arthais

Erm, I think I may have not been clear.

You state, and I have no reason to disbelieve you, that you know who the mods are.

Fair enough, now the only way you COULD know who the mods are, with certainty, is if you were told.

if you were told (and again I have no reason to disbelieve you) then one of two things are possible:

1) the guidelines that state that anon mods should not reveal their identities is not being enforced

or

2) no such guideline exists.

I didn't mean to make it sound like I suggested you knew WHAT those guidelines are, only that by the mere fact THAT you know, one of those two must be true.

or 3) Some of the people in question in all honesty (they weren't hooked up to a polygraph but had no reason to lie) admitted they were not moderators. Would you not say if someone could prove any number of people on that list was inaccurate it would severly lessen the credibility of the OP?

Nurta · 09-28-2006, 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RadarX

Unidentified...I'll play ball. It's not who I think it is, it's just nasty rumor kind of like your original post. Fair?

I'd say that is deadon

Alania · 09-28-2006, 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SanjuNana

*shrug*

You'll believe what you want to believe no matter what I say, anyway. It's clear that your mind is made up already.

I believe the "woman scorned" comes from this post.

Rhaz · 09-28-2006, 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RadarX

Maybe it's your turn now.

Make me laugh funny man! *throws a nickel*

Wow, this thread gained some pages since I came home. Anyway, I tried my luck at starting something, and as much as it entertained me for that brief period of time, it was not worth continuing. Besides, it's more fun if others are bickering and not yourself.

Cupcake · 09-28-2006, 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LFG

Sorry for the off topic blurt, but I couldn't help wondering what happens when the Page # of Page # bar at the top and bottom of the screen, which currently lists posts # 1 to 41, extends beyond the width of this screen.

This. And it sucks :smileysad: