General discussion of moderation procedures - Part 7

Fair shout, I missed that. The posts that followed were the main things I picked up on. Where one side was saying: "provide quotes" and the other side saying "I did" over and over again. Your parts in this can be found at messages113, 109, 107, 102, 99 and 96Those posts were repetitive and didn't serve to clear up the matter. I thought that we'd gotten stuck in a loop and a third party was needed just to kick the record player a little.

jar - this post seems like a good place to resolve this from. If ever there was an opportunity to resolve things amicably it was this opening by randman. Diplomatically speaking I don't see the use in badgering someone to support or retract - it is much better to try and reach a mutual understanding, neh?

As you may have noted, I have requested that jar do his utmost to clarify once and for all his position on violence et al and evil. I asked you to simply stop insisting what jar's position is, and allow jar to tell you what his position is. If you think it is inconsistent that is fine - and you may say so. It would probably do to have a thread on the nature of evil revolving around whether or not violence and oppression is inherently evil. I just wanted it put to rest in that thread since it (and the 'is' 'is not' nature of it)was becoming the focus of the thread, where it shouldn't be (and it was very boring for non-participants too). Actually, I basically agree. The topic title was poor. It should be something like 'barbarity of Christianity vs barbarity of Islam' or something. The OP was vague and it quickly went off kilter, but there you go. More on this later... As far as I am concerned the OP explicitly mentions that it is a comparative thread between Islam and Christianity. Therefore Islam is on topic...though I'd rather not see yet another Islam is barbaric thread and the focus should be principally on Christianity with reference to Islam (my opinion).Using admin status for advantage in debate is frowned upon - I do not think jar is guilty of this in this case but I do agree he may have erred a little here (but not much, after all Christianity is meant to be the focus of the thread, not Islam).As far as lying goes, I've not seen the accusation. I saw him call you on what he considered a misrepresentation of his position in message 99. jar only considered you dishonest if you did not retract the comment that he said Christianity was evil. It was a far cry from 'that was a baldfaced lie' as you have used (and not been suspended for (until you did it again)).My advice - chill out, seek a resolution to the issue rather than victory and engage diplomacy. If you can't do that - simply ignore jar.I'm leaving the forum to go to bed in a few minutes, so I'll leave it in another mod's capable hands for the next 8-10 hours or so.I plead that all parties not try and 'win', do their best to understand each other, and if the worst comes to the worst, cease and desist talking to each other. Better would be to take it to its own thread.

I find posting with Holmes to be an unusual experience since you could be agreeing with each other in the most disagreeable tones. That said, both parties in an argument have a responsibility for continuing the argument and staying on topic. I was reading the threads trying to work out what either of the parties involved where talking about. In the end I ended up just thinking Why don't you BOTH SHUT UP?. It's times like that that I consider the option of closing the thread, but I was so baffled by the exchange that I just closed the window and walked away to do something more interesting - which is mostly anything.In the end, I can't lay blame at anybody but everybody.Edited by AdminModulous, : No reason given.

---

Looks like you misunderstand me. Let me try again in a less facetious manner. Looking at the posts I came to the conclusion that both parties were right. That both parties were also misunderstanding one another and sooner or later things would end. I could sift through the epic he said she said thread, but it is certainly not my responsibility to do so - its my responsibility to decide what would be the best manner to deal with a situation.I decided to let it go, it was simply an annoying thread to have to drive through. I considered closing the thread, but given that both parties had a valid greivance I decided against it. I thought about suspending one party, but could not discern which that should be. I considered suspending two parties but I didn't think that would ultimately solve anything, since upon return it is likely that any unresolved conflict would simply re-raise its head.Since you are both experienced posters I anticipated that given time and space you would be able to resolve the issue eventually and come to a mature close of the differences between you. I beleived that the thread it was taking place in was a better place to settle it rather than in some other thread. Perhaps my judgement was wrong in that, but I'm an optimist.If you want me to start moderating on the issue, I would suspend both of you for 72 hours so you can have time to consider how you are going to tackle the communications failure you are having with one another. Hopefully then you'll be able to return, deal with whatever it is, and start making more quality threads again. As explained above, I want to believe that it doesn't need to come to that - but that's up to the two of you to decide I suppose.