[Shadow]

First and foremost, let me make something perfectly clear for everyone.

Unless I'm forced out, I'm not "leaving."

Yes, I'll be "elsewhere", but I'm already "elsewhere", and have been for years. Most of us have more than one site we visit. I've just always considered this one "home."

Second, I'm NOT upset about being "defrocked"
The hours were bad and the pay sucked worse than Scotts proposed cuts!

I am however, a bit disgruntled by the inferences made in a couple of the post.

So....

Originally Posted by Rich Z

OK, let's see how you interpret same comments being applied to YOUR statements...

Z06 Rocket, my brother, my friend,...,enough...as a friend...enough.

That's not telling you to SHUT up, now is it?

But what does "enough" in this context MEAN then?

No...it's not!
As you personally have reiterated on many occasions, the internet has no way of inferring feeling or emotion.
The only way one could do that, would be in thier style of writing.

In this case, the "Rich, my brother, my friend...." should have been seen as an attempt to reach out to a friend.

The repeated "as a friend...enough", should once again give rise to the fact that the author is reaching out to the intended reader.

In this case, it was a plea, from a friend to a friend.
An effort to let you know that the members were starting to notice and maybe we should curtail the repeated attacks?
And it was not just the LEO's (and former LEOS) on the board, but other friends and members, were growing increasingly tired of the repeated attacks on goverment as a whole and law enforcement specifically

It was time for a break.

This particular post was actually spurred by an email recieved by me from a concerned member.

I was acting as a FRIEND, not as a moderator.
As a mod, I'd have simply said, "that will be enough, or no more attacks, blah blah blah...."
I've done it before

People were getting tired and the repeated commentary was effecting the site.
It was glaringly obvious to me and others that you were angry.

I knew why from my interactions with you in the private, invitation only Harwood thread, and knowledge of what you'd been through with the 2 agencies you'd interacted with.

Others didn't and as you can see from some of the comments above, were concerend with your appaarently sudden change in attitude.

As an administrator, your words lay heavy on the members.

In the below post, you repeatedly use the term "rogue" when referring to moderators.

When the admin goes "rogue" (to use your own wording), it can also have a huge impact on a site.
In this case, I believe a very negative one.

And as with most scenarious, it's usually not apparent to the writer.
I've BTDT myself.

In the past, I've allowed sour grapes to influence or color my comments to the point where it was finding it's way into almost every post or conversation, on and off the board.

The redundant commentary was driving away friends and turning off potential new members.
As for your recent interactions with law enforcement, you've come to me for help, and I've done everything I could to help guide you.
In turn, you've either disregarded the suggestions, chosen to do things your way, or failed to follow through.
As a result, you've been tossed aside by the system, resulting (IMHO) in the situation you have now. A very negative (and justifiably so) feeling toward law enforcement in general.

That said, it's still not fair to paint everyone with the same wide brush.

We aren't talking about "jokes" or "snakes."

As for my own issues not so many years ago, It took a lot of introspect to find that and do away with the hurt and anger I was feeling.

As a friend, and at the risk of having you again lash out at me, I'm going to suggest that you too may want to take the time to look inside.
Otherwise, the anger will eat you alive...trust me!

Looking back, it was pretty disgusting. I can only hope I've learned from those days gone by and don't ever revisit them regardless of the situation.

Hopefully you won't take the above as some sort of condescending or derogatory commentary. It's just my opinion.

Be that as it may, I can't believe what I'm reading below.....

=Rich Z;132940]...(3) Moderators, of course, are there to "moderate" discussions when they become heated or otherwise blow up into what are called "flame wars" between members. This can produce a very uncomfortable atmosphere for a lot of onlookers watching the train wreck between other members, so the moderators' job is to try to keep such things from going beyond the simmer level to where the pot boils over. Continued flame wars will also often destroy a site as the majority of members cease to be amused by such antics and just take their presence and participation elsewhere to places where such things aren't quite so common.

This was exactly what was happening, except in this case, the rhetoric was coming from the ADMIN.
So how do you "moderate" that?

....A moderator gone rogue, for any number of reasons, can completely destroy a site of this nature. They can delete posts and messages at will. Like ALL of them if they so choose. They can ban every member. They will likely know the viewing habits of the admin, and will know when they will have the MOST available time to do as much damage as possible before the admin can learn about it. In many cases, the damage can be irreparable. I have seen MANY instances of moderators who had conflicts with not only the administrator, but also other moderators completely destroy websites.

"ROGUE?"

I have personally experienced moderators who used the access they had to the memberlist surreptitiously contact other members and advertisers as they built their own website to compete with the one they were moderator on. This often happens when there becomes a conflict between the admin and one or more moderators, and they become convinced that they can do a much better job of the website. Which they decide to do, but of course behind the admin/owner's back. There are normally two ways this sort of damage takes place, although both can and have been used concurrently.

One method is to try to get the current admin/owner so aggravated with the site because of constant strife and headaches that they just simply want to be rid of the site. Sometimes bogus registrations are employed just to provide aggravations and headaches to the admin, but not necessarily. It's not difficult for someone with the knowhow to fake IP addresses to avoid detection, and of course, free anonymous email addresses are a dime a dozen. The idea is to get the admin/owner so tired of dealing with the BS all of the time that they just want to walk away from it all. Which, of course, those mods will be only too happy to take over. A popular ploy is for a bogus registration to be so much of a pain in the butt that they get banned and then another bogus registration strikes up the marching band claiming the admin is overbearing and dictatorial by not allowing free speech and legitimate complaints from the membership. Basically putting the admin in a "damned if you do/damned if you don't" position. Which is actually very effective if the admin isn't aware of what is going on.

I think you'll recall this happening with another member here, and the steps I took to resolve the matter
Yeah, that was pretty "rogue."

Another method a rogue mod will use to undermine an admin and his site is to be building another website all along, secretively, while still maintaining the role of moderator and the appearance of all is cool, regardless of the friction. This gives a rogue mod a lot of time to get all their ducks in a row and contact other members, sponsors, and advertisers to bring them onboard with their new site. Often running the other site secretly while making those contacts. In this scenario, the mod or mods (or even some helpers supporting the mod and the new site) will constantly try to undermine the admin both overly and covertly trying to make the current site appear less attractive to the membership, and therefore make their own new site appear that much more attractive in comparison. Pretty much a sales pitch effort outlining the perceived faults of the "old" site and the changes that will be implemented in the "new" site. Fortunately, it is quite rare that these "spite sites" survive for longer than 6 months.

I have seen all of the above take place, and in many instances on some of my own sites with some of my own moderators. So I am quite cognizant of the dangers of what a rogue moderator can do and am constantly on alert for the signs.

That is why I have had to take care in my choices for mods for my sites, and picked people I felt were trustworthy and stable enough so that the possibility of the dangers mentioned could be minimized. Obviously, for me to have experienced such things in the past, my batting record has certainly not been perfect. Knowing I have made mistakes in the past, my current philosophy is to err on the side of caution.

So I'm suddenly not trustworty or stable?
Is that what you're implying?
My wife could have told you about the "stable" part

[quote]Now, no, I am not accusing Gordon of any of the above at all.[?QUOTE]

Of course not...

But I have become very cognizant of the fact that when severe conflicts become more and more common with a mod, and their attitude becomes very evident that they disagree with more and more of my decisions, that the jeopardy grows exponentially that ANY person can not be ruled out as being a risk to my site.

So, correct me if I'm wrong, but essentially what you're saying is, disagree with you on matters other than the operation of the site, and you're a "security risk?"

Although it's common knowledge that you and I disagree on the need for full names to be public to post in the BOI, (there are other ways) I've ultimately supported your need or desire to do so.

We've disagreed and debated on other matters on the board, from the oil spill, to seafood, to well, now law enforcement.

But when these rifts have come up, I thought we were doing so as a member of the board and not as a moderator.

If as a moderator, one looses the ability to participate without walking lockstep with the site administrator, then I'm no longer in the position in the first place.
I certainly didn't realize it was in the "job description."

From day one until today (well, yesterday now), I've done nothing but support you and attempt at every opportunity, to help it grow into a flourishing site.

Even when traffic continued to diminish, I tried to remain positive and keep things moving!

Myself and another member have even offered to take over the site if YOU decided to "shut it down" as you're suggested a few times in the past when traffic has slowed to a standstill.

No one has ever attempted to "take" it or it's members "from you."
Only to try to keep it up, running and open for it's members.

We've suggested more commercial sponsorship, and a more business approach, but you've always said, that's not what this site is about

Now, all of a sudden, there's this concern over "undermining" the site?

And as I've said dozens of times in the past, there's room on this great wide web for many sites.

Most of us belong to more than one anyway, whats the big deal unless it's a commercial venture, which this has never been!

I'm not sure why you have suddenly decided that I'm such a "risk", which despite the flowery commentary in your lengthy (I thought I was reading one of my own novellettes) "explanation", is glaringly obvious.

I've talked the sites free spirited and open, non-commercial, family atmosphere at every opportunity to the point of I fear, occasionally alienating friends from other sites.

So your sudden concern that I'm somehow "Rogue" is a bit baffeling?

Until yesterday, the concerns you've outlined, had never crossed my mind.
Sorry, I just don't work that way!

The fact that I have made this mistake in the past is ample evidence that it is not prudent to ignore the warnings and take steps IMMEDIATELY to prevent yet another mistake from taking place. It is much better to be safe than sorry.

"warnings?"
"Mistake?"
Trying to keep you from destroying your own site is a mistake?
I truly give up!

Do I think Gordon would do any damage to this site or undermine me in such a fashion as I have indicated? No, I do not. I still consider Gordon a friend, however we just are not compatible in an Admin/Moderator relationship. As such, one had to relinquish that power here. Since it is my name on the door, the choice was obvious of who that had to be.

Somehow Rich, after reading everything you've written above, I find this last part a bit hard to swallow.

The internet is littered with message board sites that have failed, and quite often it has been because of conflicts of this nature. I just do not want to see this site suffer that same fate, and felt I needed to take steps necessary to protect it in case I was once again wrong about someone I trust.

Wow.....just wow.....I really don't have any other words to sum up what I've just read

I'm sorry Rich, but the redundancy of the term "ROGUE" throughout the post, combined with all the other "FEARS", leads me to believe that there may be bit of parnoia involved, from someone who, for what ever reason, has lost faith in his fellow man
I'm sorry if I caused you such concern.

I'm sorry to see this and I truly hope you find a way to deal with your feelings and emotions in all regards.

For me, it's late, I've wasted far more time on this than I should have and I still have work to do.


BTW- This is why I do a lot of these post in the early AM.
It's not to "SNEAK" anything by, it's because that's when I'm up and working.
I've worked on this post for hours between writing and working.
I'm tired and I'm going to bed...hopefully, I won't wake up banned

Gordon

BTW-To further my point...It appears that once again, my second "contact info" post has been deleted.

Look, for the record...to whom this may concern...I'm not trying to sneak this in!!!!

MY PM BOX IS FULL!! And I don't want to clear it at the moment!

That's it!
Bo sour grapes, No "swan song" (EVEN SAID SO IN THE THREAD-NOT GOING ANYWHERE)
It's just that I'm busy and do not have the need to be on line as much as before, much less the time.
It provides those that want to talk with me, an alternate means to do so...PERIOD!
That's it, bottom line, end of discussion.
Am I really that much of a threat?
How about putting it back up?
WTF?Dang!!!

I GIVE UP!