To add to this, Twill, I truly believe that mpjh is completely correct here, but that this is also common sense.mpjh wrote: I also suggest that you need to address the conflict of interest problem. I suggest a rule that prohibits an admin or mod from taking disciplinary action against any member when the admin or mod is a member of a clan involved or is a friend of the accused or accuser.
To act on behalf of the clan you are in, in a position of power, could be argued to be as bad, if not a more severe abuse of power than someone having the power to sneak into a forum and debate with civility.
It creates an us vs. them mentality, creating, as you've called it, a toxic atmosphere. If we knew the powers-that-be didn't play favorites, and were shown that by witnessing them recuse themselves from decisions where a conflict of interest would be easy to identify, it'd go a long way towards resolving that toxic atmosphere.
Dump the us vs. them mentality, and an awful lot of problems work themselves out. Keep up the us vs. them mentality, and everything becomes a fight. Even something as ridiculous as this latest massive drama.
I can provide you with examples of this same bullshit being carried out, in sub-forums that didn't include a large contingent of people close to you, and their punishment NEVER EVEN HAPPENING.
That has to be why The Gang of Forum were surprised by such a severe punishment, because when this wasn't done to people close to the admins, there was NO RECOURSE for the aggrieved and zero consequences for the perpetrators.
Plus, that us vs. them mentality is not a Christian attitude. While it may exist in many churches and Christian cultures, it is not Christlike.
Remember Twill, if Jesus were walking among us today, we'd all crucify him again. And it'd be Christians doing it. Please don't get upset, those last two sentences are theologically sound, and directly taken from the scripture. (also, DO NOT interpret this as drawing a comparison between The Gang of Forum and Jesus Christ's crucifixion. IT IS NOT. What it is, however, is drawing a comparison between the us vs. them mentality of the pharisees, and how that's an integral part of human nature that Christ calls us to resist, and how in the modern times, we still struggle with those same sins: pride, and the ugliest of all, vanity.)
Granted, you're in the unfortunate position of having to enforce the rules, but while that duty places pressures upon you I would never want, it also requires great judiciousness.
Something else I've been thinking about, in light of the recent controversy is something that happened a long time ago. There was a "class clown" that was popular in my 6th grade class. He always had some witty comment to make, was always making the teacher look foolish, etc. It created a deep division in the classroom, a severe us vs. them mentality, and it became very difficult to sit on the fence. That is, until the teacher placed that kid (let's call him Dancing Mustard for the purposes of this story) in charge of the class gerbil (let's call him Starship Enterprise, for the purposes of this story). All of a sudden, Dancing Mustard straightened up. That us vs. them mentality in the classroom evaporated rather quickly. DM was in charge of keeping that cage clean, getting Starship Enterprise back to his cage at the end of the day, assigning who would care for Starship Enterprise during school vacations.
He wasn't in charge of the classroom, just a small part of it.
The troublemakers often make great leaders, and almost always stop making trouble when given some responsibility. That's been my experience. I bet if you gave DM an opportunity to manage a small part of the forum, you'd see an awful lot of these problems disappear. In fact, I'd be willing to stake my account here on it.
So think on that for a little while. I have no idea if DM would even want or accept a minor position at the moderators' table, but from your perspective consider it a purely Machiavellian move. Even Jesus kept the enemy among his disciples closest...
There are other historical examples too. Churchill, perhaps one of the greatest war time leaders of any country in history, purposefully placed deep political enemies in his cabinet. Abraham Lincoln, the greatest war time leader in the history of the United States, did the same thing. It serves a Machiavellian purpose, true, but if your enemies can cause you so much trouble, think about how much better off you'd be if they were on your team, and thus less able to cause damage while simultaneously being able to use their influence to help your ultimate goal: the expansion and perpetuity of Conquer Club.
Sadly, you're the only one with the ability to extend that olive branch, and restore balance to "the Force". You have to be the big man here. It's not easy, and I don't envy the position you are in, but the rewards will be many, whether in this life or the next.
)
