mod•er•ate
adj.
1. Being within reasonable limits; not excessive or extreme: a moderate price.
2. Not violent or subject to extremes; mild or calm; temperate: a moderate climate.
3.
a. Of medium or average quantity or extent.
b. Of limited or average quality; mediocre.
4. Opposed to radical or extreme views or measures, especially in politics or religion.

n.
One who holds or champions moderate views or opinions, especially in politics or religion.

v. mod•er•at•ed, mod•er•at•ing, mod•er•ates
v. tr.
1. To lessen the violence, severity, or extremeness of.
2. To preside over
v. intr.
1. To become less violent, severe, or extreme; abate.
2. To act as a moderator.

[Middle English moderat, from Latin moder tus, past participle of moder r , to moderate. See med- in Indo-European Roots.]

mod er•ate•ly adv.
mod er•ate•ness n.
mod er•a tion n.
Synonyms: moderate, qualify, temper
These verbs mean to make less extreme or intense: moderated the severity of his rebuke; qualified her criticism; admiration tempered with fear.
Antonyms: intensify

\Mod"er*ate\, v. t. [imp. & p. p. Moderated; p. pr. & vb. n. Moderating.] 1. To restrain from excess of any kind; to reduce from a state of violence, intensity, or excess; to keep within bounds; to make temperate; to lessen; to allay; to repress; to temper; to qualify; as, to moderate rage, action, desires, etc.; to moderate heat or wind.


2. To preside over, direct, or regulate, as a public meeting; as, to moderate a synod.
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.


moderate

\Mod"er*ate\, a. [L. moderatus, p. p. of moderate, moderati, to moderate, regulate, control, fr. modus measure. See Mode.] Kept within due bounds; observing reasonable limits; not excessive, extreme, violent, or rigorous; limited; restrained; as: (a) Limited in quantity; sparing; temperate; frugal; as, moderate in eating or drinking; a moderate table. (b) Limited in degree of activity, energy, or excitement; reasonable; calm; slow; as, moderate language; moderate endeavors. (c) Not extreme in opinion, in partisanship, and the like; as, a moderate Calvinist.

moderate

\Mod"er*ate\, v. i. 1. To become less violent, severe, rigorous, or intense.

2. To preside as a moderator.

moderate

adj 1: being within reasonable or average limits; not excessive or extreme; "moderate prices"; "a moderate income"; "a moderate fine"; "moderate demands"; "a moderate estimate"; "a moderate eater"; "moderate success"; "a kitchen of moderate size"; "the X-ray showed moderate enlargement of the heart" [ant: immoderate] 2: not extreme; "a moderate penalty"; "temperate in his response to criticism" [syn: temperate] 3: marked by avoidance of extravagance or extremes; "moderate in his demands"; "restrained in his response" [syn: restrained] n : a person who takes a position in the political center [syn: centrist, middle of the roader, moderationist] v 1: preside over; "John moderated the discussion" [syn: chair, lead] 2: make less fast or intense; "moderate your speed" 3: lessen the intensity of; temper; hold in restraint; hold or keep within limits; "moderate your alcohol intake" "hold your tongue"; "hold your temper"; "control your anger" [syn: control, hold in, hold, contain, check, curb] 4: make less severe or harsh; "He moderated his tone when the students burst out in tears" [syn: mince, soften] 5: express less strongly [syn: tone down] 6: restrain or temper [syn: chasten, temper]

mod•er•a•tor
n.
1. One that moderates, as:
a. One that arbitrates or mediates.
b. One who presides over a meeting, forum, or debate.
2. The officer who presides over a synod or general assembly of the Presbyterian Church.
3. Physics. A substance, such as water or graphite, that is used in a nuclear reactor to decrease the speed of fast neutrons and increase the likelihood of fission.

moderator

\Mod"er*a`tor\, n. [L.: cf. F. mod['e]rateur.] 1. One who, or that which, moderates, restrains, or pacifies. --Sir W. Raleigh.

2. The officer who presides over an assembly to preserve order, propose questions, regulate the proceedings, and declare the votes.

3. In the University of Oxford, an examiner for moderations; at Cambridge, the superintendant of examinations for degrees; at Dublin, either the first (senior) or second (junior) in rank in an examination for the degree of Bachelor of Arts.

4. A mechamical arrangement for regulating motion in a machine, or producing equality of effect.
moderator

n 1: any substance used to slow down neutrons in nuclear reactors 2: someone who presides over a forum or debate 3: someone who mediates disputes and attempts to avoid violence.


This doesn't strike me as what moderation or being a moderator stands for on this site. Shouldn't it be called something else then?
My point is that when you become a moderator you have to be exactly that, moderate. I would like to have all the moderators of the site act/behave as they tell others to, and that sure isn't the case at present. A sad fact is that if a moderator expresses an opinion, be it positive or negative, other people will follow the lead, and that has been pretty obvious since this site got an additional moderator.

Last, but not least - Ian, you need to act like your title. It's either that or resign your position. You don't get to trash people anymore, because that will give others carte blanche to do the same. Some people might have strange or impopular opinions, but that does not allow you to start a crusade against those people. Your position allows you to, and requires you to,moderate the discussion or situation, nothing more and nothing less. Now, please don't disappoint me and others by treating this thread like previous threads that are criticising. Do what you're supposed to, because if you don't you have proved me right and need to resign.

point.less adj. Devoid of meaning or purpose.

wha?

waterhead said:

:LOL:

hey Teach, why don't you and your husband grow up instead of always being such drama queens?

hey..me thinks she's got a valid point here...take it as constructive criticism and move on...

MrsFiness / Teacher, if you aren't happy with the title "moderator" then call us "evil dictators" if you prefer... sheesh. One title is as good as another really.

Semantics aside, since you've aimed your comments directly at me, allow me to respond. I follow the site rules in my posts, same as everyone else. However I'm not here solely for the purpose of moderation - I'm also here because I enjoy being here and I enjoy posting on this site. You'll have to get used to that I'm afraid - the moderators aren't just "facilitators" who run the site out of the goodness of their hearts and have no other involvement - we contribute to the site too. I wouldn't be here otherwise.

MrsFiness - you have never reported any problematic posts to me. You've never asked me about a moderation decision, and we've hardly had any contact whatsoever. If you have a problem with the way this site is run, you certainly haven't told anyone about it, and the vague criticism in this thread is insubstantial and without merit in my opinion.

As I say, one title is as good as another, and whether or not you like the phrase "moderator" the fact is we are reponsible for running the site as best we can, and we enjoy the fruits of our labour too by posting on the site.

ian said:

I thought I had reported things to u, what else was our emale discussion about two months ago?

As for "moderation decisions", there are no such thing on this site.

AaronForever said:

There is no drama in this thread Aaron, and you know it. Leave Steve out of it please, he neither created the thread nor posted on it. This thread was meant to make people think about the moderation, or lack of it, on this site, and directed at Ian who answered.
May I remind you that it wasn't that long ago that you had way worse problems with Matt? You had valid points then, and the same points stand now, since nothing has changed for the better. I know you are going by "If you can't beat them - join them" but we are not all alike. If I bother you so much you can always choose not to read what I write. I've been told that so many times on this site, and the same goes for y'all.

MrsFiness said:

I don't recall, it was 2 months ago. It was very brief anyway. I haven't heard a peep out of you in ages.



I wish that were true, I could save myself the hours of free time that I put into the site every day. You clearly don't frequent the site very much, or you aren't aware with what is involved in running a site of this magnitude, or you just haven't noticed the work that goes into moderating this site (which is fine).

MrsFiness said:

When you get your own site, you can hire and fire at will.

ian said:

You are right, I don't frequent the forums much because it makes me sad to see what people do to each other. They did it to people before me, to me, and when I was gone somebody else was in line. I give you that you do the work, but why not do it right all the way, why allow some people to trash others but not the other way around? We both know what I'm talking about Ian, there is no need for tedious examples. There seems to be a silent agreement between the moderators and the "forum people" that says it's allowed to trash one person at a time, as long as you stay away from trashing the moderators or other people this one person is allowed. It's been going on too long to be a coincidence, and no matter how stupid people might be in their posting, there are no Org rules against stupidity (yet).
[This message was edited Tue Oct 29 7:10:13 PST 2002 by MrsFiness]

teller said:

Aw Teller, you shouldn't have told me what you're getting me for Christmas!! I get all...all...

MrsFiness said:

Alas, we just don't have the resources to achieve what you suggest. There are so many posts and threads each day that we could never hope to read each and every one. We do our best, but we do also rely heavily on people reporting things to us. This works well a lot of the time - the community is responsible in no small part for its upkeep. Far from perfect, but it does work.

As for this "one person" (I presume we are speaking about Nep2nes here) we did our best there, but the fact was that she refused to follow the rules, severed all lines of communication with moderators, yet still expected us to clean up the mess she left behind her every time she was abusive on the forums. I have removed COUNTLESS posts because they flamed Nep2nes over the last few months, but we didn't have the resources to keep up with her, nor did we have the inclination as it was decided that she should be ejected from the site. Any bitching you may seen recently most likely occurred AFTER she was removed from the site, so it ceases to be a violation of the forum rules. Bear in mind too that most of the bitching was instigated by her numerous fake accounts and personas she created after the account deactivation.

teller said:

well said teller.

ian said:

Tell me, how is this different from what Aaron did, and why is every account that 2nes created deleted but Aaron remains?
No, I'm not only talking about Nep2nes, it's pretty and convenient for you to think so, but this was going on way before you became an...evil dictator... anybody denying that this has been going on for a long time is either blind, stupid or a pet to the evil dictators.

Thank you for taking the time to discuss this in a civilised manner, even though I'll never agree with you this is constructive.

MrsFiness said:

With regard to account deactivations, we handle them on a case by case basis. In Aaron's case, by the time we noticed his new account we had resolved the issues, he was responding civilly and intelligently to moderator requests and he had changed his attitude and posting style visibly. We decided that he had made a great effort to clean up his act to stay on the site so we left his new account alone.

In Nep2nes' case, she did not respond in a civil manner to moderator requests or discussions, and proceeded to create a fake persona (ItalianToy) and continued the same abusive posting and manner of old. She didn't show any intention of cleaning up her act, and the moderators do not have the time to deal with her issues so we removed her new accounts, because she is banned from the site unfortunately. That was our decision to make.

I hope that answers your question. I've no idea what you are trying to say with your next point about evil dictators so I'll skip that one.

I'm sure I don't need to explain to you that Prince.org is not a democracy The rules of this site state clearly that moderators' decisions are final and we are under no obligation to provide explanations or appeals. I don't wish to sound rude or abrasive but that is the site, that is the way it is run. I honestly and sincerely suggest that anyone who is not comfortable with those rules consider finding another site to post on that is more accomodating or more in line with your own views on how a site should be run.

regards

Ian

I think we've said all that ever needs to be said regarding the issue of Nep2nes accounts, Aaron's accounts etc, it's been done to death at this point and I for one am not prepared to discuss it further. Let's move on.

Matt, Ben and myself are all reasonable, friendly people (I believe!) and we are always willing to listen to constructive criticism regarding how we run the site (even though, strictly speaking, we aren't obliged to). It's all very easy to point the finger and say "oh you should resign" or "this should be run differently" but without intelligently expressed suggestions to improve the site, it accomplishes nothing.

Now, let's turn that loop off... dayum!

MrsFiness said:

if you hadn't made such a dramatic exit before, you might not have missed the fact that moderation has been a pretty hot topic around here since June.




I got over it.



Hasn't it? Those points have been resolved.



That's not what I'm going by at all. I took a look at how I was acting and how I was making the moderators react, and I made the appropriate changes.



Indeed. But then again, I can also read anything anyone (including you) writes in public on this website and respond to it as I see fit.

teller said:

Preach it, Teller!!!

MrsFiness, your posts were lame and annoying when you were here as Teacher...And you know what? During your brief time away, they've doubled in lameness, and annoyingness.

Give it up already. Quit your bitching, and leave like you did before. If you don't like the way Ian handles it, then don't come. I'm most CERTAIN we'll get along FINE without you.

an·noy Pronunciation Key (-noi)
v. an·noyed, an·noy·ing, an·noys
v. tr.
To cause slight irritation to (another) by troublesome, often repeated acts.

id·i·ot Pronunciation Key (d-t)
n.
A foolish or stupid person.

stu·pid Pronunciation Key (stpd, sty-)
adj. stu·pid·er, stu·pid·est
Slow to learn or understand; obtuse.
Tending to make poor decisions or careless mistakes.
Marked by a lack of intelligence or care; foolish or careless: a stupid mistake.
Dazed, stunned, or stupefied.
Pointless; worthless: a stupid job.


Thank you.

[Edited to remove flame. Ian]

I love you battier! LOL you have me cracking up!

nLA said:

I would like it if you'd just hump my leg.

I love you too, nLA. Heh heh.

BattierBeMyDaddy said:

No humping allowed

A. you are not on four legs and if you are, GET UP!
B. you are underage
C. your dog would be jealous.
D. you're great regardless!

nLA said:

A. You are not on four legs, nor am I. But I saw in a porn once...awe, it don't matter.
B. I may be underage, but a leg, a leg is harmless! You could hump my arm, too. If you prefer.
C. I don't own a dog. I own a snake, and he doesn't hump.
D. Thank you, sir. You're pretty damn great yourself!

that's all I have to say

@ BBMD

Ian, thank you for proving that I was right in one of my points, I couldn't have done it better myself!

MrsFiness said:

Mrs. Finess, please excuse me, for I don't mean to offend you -- but you're coming off as bitter and bitchy and no one here knows why.

Even Oceana, whom I detest, seldom bitches at Ian or any other moderator when they don't "see" her side of things. She's getting there, but not quite.

Nep2nes was the high priestess of clamoring how "unfair" and what "dictatorship" the ORG was... well guess what? You don't like it -- leave. Or be forced out on your derriere.

Right?

Yet I feel your post is not about "hey guys, I see that there is no uniformity in moderating" or whatever ... instead I see a sourpuss coming out of left field trying to point out the evil in this pit, yet you continue to wallow in it with us.

Your argument is futile and really sort of (excuse me) assinine in the fact that its a public forum and not owned by you. So get over it and enjoy slinging poo from time to time or get out and live in the real community and don't post.

This does nothing for your "positive" image you seem to hold.

Just a thought.

nLA, I spent two months away from here, but I have the same issues with the site now as when I decided to leave for a while.

Thank you for making points though, instead of flaming or making rude comments. It is very much appreciated

Jen