quote:

ORIGINAL: pyschosubmission

Glasgow would welcome you with open (drunken) arms

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyPact

Have one for Me, too.

It would tickle Me to no end that you would get to do that face to face with each other.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyPact

Have one for Me, too.

It would tickle Me to no end that you would get to do that face to face with each other.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyPact
For once Benjamin consented to break his rule, and he read out to her what was written on the wall. There was nothing there now except a single Commandment. It ran:
ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL
BUT SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS

quote:

ORIGINAL: gungadin09



What I got from the poll was: the majority of posters are content with moderation.

quote:

36% don't have major issues with moderation, meaning that 64% do have major issues.

quote:

ORIGINAL: VideoAdminChi

quote:

36% don't have major issues with moderation, meaning that 64% do have major issues.

I think your second major was supposed to be a minor, yes?

There is a category lacking - "no issues with moderation whatsoever." This cohort may or may not be included in the "don't have any major problems" category.

Also, I wouldn't agree that having a minor problem signifies discontent. It may just be an acknowledgement of a minor problem.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitaTruble

quote:

ORIGINAL: VideoAdminChi

quote:

There is a category lacking - "no issues with moderation whatsoever." This cohort may or may not be included in the "don't have any major problems" category.

I thought the category "no issues with moderation whatsoever" was unnecessary. I doubt such a person exists, but if so they still fall under the category "don't have any major problems with moderation", because not having a problem at all is STILL not having a major problem.

Also, I wouldn't agree that having a minor problem signifies discontent. It may just be an acknowledgement of a minor problem.

Precisely.

Okay, maybe I am misunderstanding.. what % do have major issues with moderation.
I agree with you and the lack of that catagory ... that would have been an excellent addition and presented a truer picture.

This poll was never meant to compare the percentages of people who have a major problem with moderation versus those who have only a minor problem(s) with moderation versus those who have no problem at all. If you did not vote in the "I have no major problems" category, logically it must mean that you DO have at least one major problem with moderation, and the rest of the poll was devoted to the problems I've heard mentioned most often. Since it's possible to have a major problem(s) and also have a minor problem(s), and there is no way to specify when you choose that "problem" whether you find it a major problem or a minor one, you cannot simply add up all those votes and say "these people all have major problems". It simply means "these people all have problems with this area of moderation".

Personally, I was more interested in hearing what posters would say the problem *was* than in finding out how *strongly* they felt that that was a problem, and anyone who had VERY strong feelings could have posted, explaining them.

:;ready for the math lesson!::

You quoted what I said in post 59. It's now post 153. I can't remember what the poll said *then*, but I think what you would do is take the total number of votes minus the number of people who voted "no major problems", all over the total number of votes, to get the percentage of voters who have at least one major problem with moderation. I can't remember if I actually punched those numbers at the time, or whether my statement should simply have been that the category with the highest number of votes is "no major problems with moderation".

ETA: The percentage of voters who have no major problems with moderation can be found by dividing the votes in that category by the total votes.

I do happen to think the whole Arpig thing was handled very poorly, but the poll is about moderation now.

Pam

quote:

ORIGINAL: gungadin09
Okay, first of all... I KNOW that I overreacted to this post (and, boy, did I ever overreact. Okay, I'm a freak. I admit it.), but I do want to say this:

Obviously, you are not responsible for my reaction. But the fact is that when you flounce around making dark innuendos, quoting George Orwell, threatening to leave the site, commenting how people will miss you, telling certain other posters not to "lose their faith in humanity", all over some relatively minor problem... it erodes your credibility. How much more effective it would have been to have made an argument based on logic rather than emotion.

I'm a sucker for an emotional argument, really. It gets me nearly every time. But it's also like crying wolf. The next time you complain about something, I will be less likely to believe you.

Pam

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyPact
Now, the reason that I posted that quote had a lot to do with the 'rules being made up as we go along' concept. That has come to the forefront a lot recently. Even to the point where gold letters include specific categories that can't be found anywhere in the guidelines or TOS.

I completely agree.

quote:

I do happen to think the whole Arpig thing was handled very poorly, but the poll is about moderation now.

Oh, I would agree. Especially the part about how it was such a sad thing to lose such a "valued poster". That may have been then, but it still effects this joint today.

I agree with that, too. I wasn't attempting to deny it. That's why I reacted so emotionally myself. That comment about Arpig being handled poorly wasn't directed at you. Someone emailed me about this poll on the other side, and I was reflecting on what they said. I'm sorry if I failed to make that clear.


You may have lost respect for Me because you think I used an emotional angle.

That's not what I said at all. I just said I would be more skeptical of what you say in the future.

Fair enough. Just keep that losing respect thing equal across the board. Oh, wait. That would mean some *not* being more equal than others,



LadyPact- I try real hard to be fair across the board. Maybe it seems like I pick on you a lot. I don't mean to. I don't think that my post was motivated by jealousy or malice. If you see me NOT treating everyone equally, if you see me applying a double standard, I hope, sincerely, that you will call me out on it. That goes for the rest of y'all, too, forum members. If you see me pulling crap, please say something.