Hi all,

I'm going to *try* and take a break from the internets. Don't know how successful I'll be. Tired of cycling through websites minute after minute expecting a different result. I'll still be on MSN/AIM on occasion should you feel the need to reach me.

Thus, I'm stepping down as your moderator. I nominate Oyasumi to take my place as she seems the most objective when it comes to pointing out trouble.

As for those of you that I owe stuff, let me know in this thread.

*Gets left alone in a cage full of savage cabbits*

Eeeek! Help! Neelick!

^_^;;

I'm sorry to see you go Bkev. You've kept a level head through some trying times which isn't easy. I know all to well. Taking a break is a good thing since it will help you recharge and stand back for a better perspective. Hopefully you'll be able to come back again soon, I'm going to miss having you around. v_v

Hm, well, I'm not really sure that I want to be mod. It seems kind of scary here sometimes, lots of drama. But if you guys need a mod, I'll take the job.

Well it can't be me. I'm too new and besides, I'm biased towards Sasami-chan.

Tell you what, you take the job and I'll tell you what to do. I'll be like your greasy eminent.

Props to Bkev for all the work that he's done but I'll throw in an opinion not yet aired and say that this board doesn't need a moderator. It's practically unmoderated as is.

Just a few things from the old days for everyone to sample:

http://www.henheart.com/tenchi/forum/vi ... .php?t=492
http://www.henheart.com/tenchi/forum/vi ... .php?t=562
http://www.henheart.com/tenchi/forum/vi ... .php?t=696
http://www.henheart.com/tenchi/forum/vi ... .php?t=864

I've dug these up just to show that character bashing and fan bashing is nothing new. It's not some absurd phenomena that just magically appeared one day and is not going to magically disappear either. At the time those threads were made the board was for all intents and purposes unmoderated. Neelick was the only mod and admin and as we all know is fair and lenient about letting people express their opinions. So is having moderators a significant need for the community here? Having to edit or lock threads for whatever reason is in itself an undesirable action since it is an infringement upon people's freedom of speech. However, having board members leave this community because of unpleasant experiences is equally undesirable. So where should the middle ground be sought? Where do you draw the line between individual rights vs. social order? Freedom and lawlessness are not the same thing.

Thing is, there's no such thing as freedom of speech.

I don't care about the amount of moderation, so long as it's applied equally to all members. No walking on eggshells for anyone.

Both of you have have good points, although I'm not sure how I would quantify or measure the "amount" of moderation. If poster "A" does something requiring moderation and a month later poster "B" does the exact same thing, the moderation response needs to be the same in both cases. I prefer to think of it as consistency rather than equal amounts.

Both of you are correct, no one should have to feel afraid to speak their opinion. It should not feel like you have to tread on eggshells, it should feel like a safe environment. I personally would never, ever want to see a forum turned into something like Hogwart's under the stewardship of Dolores Jane Umbridge. Jibril makes an important distinction between a person's opinion and the person themself. Without exception, when a flame war erupts it is because arguments have degenerated into personal attacks. The opinions are no longer the issue, instead the people expressing them become the issue. When poster "A" starts a new topic and writes an opinion, it is perfectly acceptable in a debate for poster "B" to come along and challenge that opinion. It is also perfectly acceptable for poster "A" to refute (rebuttal) poster "B"'s challenge, and so forth. What is never acceptable is for either of them to personally insult, threaten, or attack the other. When a debate becomes prolonged, sooner or later one side or the other will start to run out of ideas. When this happens, previous arguments may be repeated (beating a dead horse), false or made up information may be presented, or if emotions are raised personal attacks may start. At this point the debate must end with all parties agreeing to disagree. If that doesn't happen and the fight continues to escalate, then it is time to resort to moderation. Technically the debate would already have ended so all the moderator would be doing is stopping the bloodshed. The mutual respect that each person has for the other should always outweigh the need to triumph over the other in an argument and that agreeing to an impasse is not considered a defeat.