Mr Shades, I moved it due to the fact that Jase chose to ask for opinions in the admin forum as he did not want to come across as "picking" on you.
*sigh* Then why o' why didn't you just say so? Something simple like "Me and Jase have had a word about the joke and we both agree that it shouldn't be in the thread" and I would have put my hands up and said fair enough. I'm not
that unreasonable. The reason this escalated is because it appeared to me that one mod had made a decision (perhaps based on past events, because, up to that point, no-one else had complained) and another mod was "blindy" standing by the first. It is not as though this sort of situation does not happen and regrettably it was exactly my interpretation of events. I really wish you had of said that sooner.
@Rob;
Is it wrong of me to be laughing at some of your comments? (I mean laughing in a "that's actually quite funny" way and
not "I think that's stupid" way!). I'm fairly certain that I wasn't supposed to be laughing but you make it very difficult!
Anyways...
Please accept my apologies, to you and everybody, for the disruption caused to the thread. It would appear to be a simple misinterpretation of a situation that got much too far out of hand, for that I sincerely apologise. I also apologise to Jason, Mark and yourself if any of you thought I was seriously questioning your general abilities to administer this forum. You may not believe it but I'm a pretty fair person and as such I expect nothing less in return. When I find myself in a situation, such as I perceived this to be, I will absolutely and unequivocally stand my ground, for that I make no apologies. However, that does not mean I am above apologising, as I have done above, when I get something wrong.
I am, however, surprised and a little saddened by your decision to publicly air something which was sent to you in
private as a
private message. If you felt it necessary to give people a little background info then alluding to the fact that me and Jason have "locked horns" in the past would have been fine. However revealing even minor details of something I sent you in confidence does not send out the best message to anyone else who may wish to do so in the future. Furthermore, for the record, I sent you one, long PM to avail you of all the facts as I saw them so as to specifically
avoid playing ping-pong with private messages. I also didn't expect nor desire a reply, and any course of action you chose to take was entirely your business and not of my interest. I was simply letting you know how extremely unhappy I was with how the matter in question was dealt with and, as I said, hoped that it could be used as nothing more than an example of how to possibly not let certain situations develop in the future.
Speaking of avoiding certain situations may I be as bold (or outright cheeky!) to make the suggestion that perhaps, in future, a little more transparency about certain decisions could be useful? As you already know I too am a moderator on a busy forum and to specifically avoid situations of misinterpretation, misunderstandings and alleged bias we operate with a certain level of transparency. If someone feels aggrieved by the decision of one then, much as Jase and Mark did (but sadly only revealed
much, much later), we confer and actually let individuals
know the situation has been discussed in private and any conclusions we have come to have been reached as a
group (or at least by
more than one person) at a very early stage in any signs of a conflict. This, in one easy step, removes misinterpretations of decisions and allegations of possible bias, and really does work. The most important thing though is to get in there early. Its just a suggestion.
Lastly, about the "little Hitler" thing:
I (made clear I) wasn't equating any of the mod team to Hitler
himself (I wouldn't be
that offensive, and besides, I'm pretty certain none of the mods have invaded neighbouring countries, committed mass genocide, or even has dodgy hair and a funny moustache! You are the absolute last person I'd have thought would misinterpret the tongue-firmly-in-cheek reference to "Little Hitler", which means nothing more than "An unnecessarily or pretentiously dictatorial person (or persons)", which was how I saw it at the time.
Best regards, and apologies,
Shades
, even if he chooses to acknowledge them or not.
