just to clarify things (although you better read this fast before this one is locked or invisablized) I never said a moderator said I was going to get a warning, I said someone at POL PMed me about this) and just so you know the nature of why I got my first warning (I did forget about it as it was so silly) I used the word "dorkey" about something LT wrote. The Horror!!!!!!!!!

Jane... You mean you're leaving over this?

<-------- says, Sounds like a bunch of horse hockies, to me.

I wasn't even going to get into all of this, but I just read on the 'other' thread that you were issued a warning, Jane, because you didn't not aplogize to PB, which was considered making a "direct attack" on him...

This has gone past ridiculous!
I hope you aren't leaving over this, Jane...but...I think I can understand...
The whole thing is utterly ridiculous...and apparently some moderators certainly don't have a realistic clue as to what a "direct attack" really is.
Sad.

Regrettably, problems like this (varying definitions and interpretations of "rules") are found on all internet forums. It's a shame when squabbles over form outweigh content.

Pieganjane, please don't leave because of this. It's not the first time, nor will it be the last, that "power" has overcome reason.

This makes me really, really sad. Jane, please stay?

I am appalled. The word "dorky" can't be used to describe the author of a book? Does that mean negative comments of any stripe or sort are not allowed whatsoever? How can we have an informative and illuminating discussion on any topic if we're limited to glowing comments? Can we scale it back to namby-pamby ones, or what that offend also?

The moderating seems so capricious and inconsistent. In any case, I don't see where piegonjane said anything at all that would not be permitted in a debate. Contentious, perhaps, but let's keep this interesting! Can't we all have a thicker cyber-skin than to demand apologies or papa spank? As in, this hurts me more than it hurts you?

Losing Jane is a loss to the community.

I guess I'm not sure why all of this has been allowed to be played out in public.

It's pretty clear that from the beginning, pieganjane disagreed quite strongly with the philosophical reasons for the movement of the thread, and its' subsequent 'invisible-izing' while moderators discussed the matter, and she took it really personally. In that case, I really think the moderators as a group, and individually, should have responded with far more sensitivity, especially since she's something of a celebrity, with presumably less privacy than the rest of us.

Pieganjane has expressed herself, which is her right, but it does seem to me that moderators have a responsibility to resist the urge to attack forum members, as it seems Prince Barry did:



Maybe pieganjane got the facts wrong, but I'm not convinced that it's ever a moderator's role to rebuke a member in public. Privately, yes, but I do think in this case it would have been far better for all the moderators to confine their role to private discussions, not allowing themselves to vent their frustrations. If members can't do it, should moderators be allowed to, privately or publicly?

(I'm also not sure how pieganjane could have known that Prince Barry had been the moderator to move the thread initially. If she thought it had been removed completely, isn't it pretty clear that she hasn't caught on that it had been relocated?)

I think it would have been far better for Prince Barry to just remain publicly and privately silent on the issue, and for a moderator who's not involved directly in this dispute to continue discussions with pieganjane in private. Prince Barry's post quoted above seems to imply that he thinks it's appropriate to retaliate, and that he's done so twice, which I can hardly believe is in line with the TOS and the moderator's own rules of conduct, whatever they might be.


I also take issue with Donna225's statement "They [Prince Barry] asked for a sorry but received none therefore that is classed as a personal attack and merits an offical warning." Asked for a sorry??? An apology perhaps? Couldn't moderators make a better effort at Standard English when discussing a sensitive subject? Is it required that a member apologize publicly when a moderator requests it ?? If they don't, the member has earned the right to be punished and publicly rebuked?? Since when do moderators have that much more status than ordinary members? IMO, the mod in question [Prince Barry] let their temper get the best of them, more than once, publicly, and I'm honestly not sure that's appropriate for a moderator, ever.

I don't know what sort of discussions go on among the moderators, but it seems to me that the system is not working, if an individual moderator has the right to attack a member, request an apology, and punish the member with a warning (discussed publicly) for not submitting to their will. The moderators ought to be seen to work as a group for the good of the community (which does also include the moderators), not as individual members venting their tempers on those who've misunderstood something the moderators did amongst themselves. If Prince Barry were only suggesting that she apologize (as it seems he did, from the quote above 'it would be nice', not quite a demand, in my view), why then give pieganjane a(nother) warning??

I think it would be a really good idea if the moderators built in some sort of check and balance, to prevent the sort of problems that have been exposed here.

This group of moderators is still quite new, and mistakes will happen, but I do think it's more appropriate that moderators discuss their business in private, and present a united, calm, courteous, literate front in public. If the moderators need to modify whatever area of the forum they use for their own business, then I think it needs to happen, in a hurry.

That's exactly what the temporarily invisiblize function is designed for - it's like a football game where a "time-out" has been called so the refs can watch the instant replay and then decide whether to make a judgment call or not. Because moderators live in different time zones, this process sometimes take longer than we would like. We're all human beings here and while there are guidelines and codes of conduct that we all have agreed to follow when we registered to be members of POL :
http://perfumeoflife.org/index.php?showtopic=16
(Check out numbers 1, 2 & 3 which speak to the issue at hand), sometimes there are judgment calls, misunderstandings and different personality styles which may clash at times. If a mod. makes a decision someone disagrees with, the most efficient and least disruptive course would be to immediately PM the mod and Jeffrey, the owner. If a mod. decision turns out to have been unecessary, a couple of private PM's should correct it. In this case, the "direct attack" was considered the 3rd thread, which publicly and falsely accused PB of deleting several different threads, which seemed like an invitation for members to gang up on PB - that is not allowed in the code of conduct. I believe the request for a public acknowledgment that PB had not done what he was being accused of, was a chance to air the truth, publicly, since the false accusation was made publicly. I think this was like being given a second chance to avoid the ensuing warning, but that is obviously not how it was perceived by many. Also, remember that we come from different cultures and countries - some have a more formal style and some have a more casual style - some deal with things more openly and some more privately - these differences affect how we come across on-line and there can be misunderstandings and hurt feelings that result due to these differences.
PS The warning about Luca was issued because Luca is a member of POL (not because he is a scientist or an author) and thus is also protected by the code of conduct.

Jane says "dorkey" and gets a warning, while CV goads him for several exchanges and gets nothing...

http://perfumeoflife.org/index.php?showtop...=0&#entry115989

I second what Rococo and IsabellaBird said.

Full-tilt - the word "dorkey" is actually a terrible curse in another language (just kidding)

Good News for all! From now on, books about food can go in either the Food OR the Arts section, books about perfume can go in either the Perfume OR the Arts section, books about music can go in either the Music OR the Arts section! And BEST OF ALL: Books about Britney Spears' creation of her latest chocolate scented perfume (accompanied with CD of hit single) can be discussed in either Arts, Music, Food OR Perfume sections - hooray!

You're too late. LT and I have already spoken our minds on this, and neither of us blew a stitch over it, so your feeble attempt to get me that 4rth warning failed.

Jane, I hope the POL community doesn't lose you as a member over this.
That would be very sad- there are many members here who enjoy your posts.

Heavens, what a bunch of silliness this is...I'm very busy at work today, but several members PM'd me to intercede. Which I shall not do. I thank those of you who have contributed intelligently to this thread. Jane, Baz, Donna, Jo and the rest of you are valued and treasured members of this community. Please stop quibbling over this bone and let's all get back to posting and commenting on other threads. End of story.