posted August 24, 2015 05:29 PM            

The idealism and your enthusiasm in believing it will change is encouraging.

Protest is good but beating a lame horse just hurts the horse. You will feel better but the darn horse is still lame.

This Ami Anne`s forum with no other particapating Mods. She will run it as sees fit. One can`t change people and that`s the issue . Not changing rules.

posted August 24, 2015 05:31 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by florence:
Btw I don't see this as a mod issue. But I'm glad there will be no sexism / endless attacks on women. As to concerns about the two being in conflict, you have to give it chance. It will be tricky for sure but hopefully every thread won't be dragged down at least or there'll be some recourse to delay it being dragged down.

---

posted August 24, 2015 05:33 PM            

It is not my Forum, Juni. That comment is not needed, not true and trying to foment trouble. It is RANDALL'S Forum. It is LL's Forum.

------------------
Want to Read Simple, Fun,Sexy Articles on Astrology? Check Me Out, DUDE.

posted August 24, 2015 05:34 PM            

Not sure what you are advising except to quit?

The point is, if everyone can all see that they are not alone in feeling that they were left unprotected, that they are not the only ones seriously bothered by the policies here, maybe that will help them feel better.

And I want there to be a lasting record of the fact that we all were here.

And we DO have a voice!

And we want things to change!

Just having it said, and in this petition format, feels good to me, and I hope it feels good to the others who've signed.

The petition was recommended and partially penned by another member and when no one acted on it, I simply took on the task.

posted August 24, 2015 05:39 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by juniperb:

This Ami Anne`s forum with no other particapating Mods. She will run it as sees fit. One can`t change people and that`s the issue . Not changing rules.

---

Is this true? Is this Ami's forum? I thought the whole forum belongs to Randall.

If Am doesn't want to change her mod behavior towards sexism and there is no one to put pressure on her to do it or assign her to a more appropriate one, than how is this policy a genuine step to solve the issues people brought up here?

Why does Ami Anne have to be a moderator here since she seems to be fit for more peaceful and gentle parts of the forum, unless she decides to change her approach, of course? There are plenty of people who can do the job here, as I see.

posted August 24, 2015 05:43 PM            

I have seen the "rules" change more over the last 4-5 years than in the history of Lindaland. Rules have changed but the ones who causes the rules to be implemented have not.

I`m saying until an individual sees the light and will change or stop , all the rules in the world can and will be broken.

Rules only work when all Mods/Webmaster are on the same page. That is difficult when so many Mods are absent, quitting or nonexistant.

I completely see the point of this thread and wish you all the best with it.

posted August 24, 2015 05:47 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by juniperb:
I have seen the "rules" change more over the last 4-5 years than in the history of Lindaland. Rules have changed but the ones who causes the rules to be implemented have not.

---

That's what I've observed as well.

Typically "new rules" does not translate to improvement; it usually just exaggerates the same negative bias that originally caused the uproar, by validating the antagonistic moderation.

posted August 24, 2015 05:51 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Faith:
Thanks Juni.

That's what I've observed as well.

Typically "new rules" does not translate to improvement; it usually just exaggerates the same negative bias that originally caused the uproar, by [b]validating the antagonistic moderation.

I quit Hearth and Home permanently over that.[/B]

---

I know

posted August 24, 2015 06:00 PM            

But please let the thread remain open.

posted August 24, 2015 06:06 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeeLoo2014:
As long as the mod drastically changes a part of their behavior, of course, or the mod is changed. The mod's input was to encourage misogynistic attacks and bias which led to this situation. The petition and the new policy also include this; otherwise the change can't happen.

---

Whilst I've been offended for a long time, for a great part of that I did wonder if I had a right to object. It has not always been clear if it was misogyny (and even now that doesn't feel quite the right phrase). Becsuse, as I mentioned above, some things ive found to be fair comment but it's their attachment to a long chain of other unfair premises and sheer repetition - a whole web of entangling ideas, that I myself, having no bias at all towards AG, have wondered if it warrants intervention. It has taken you separating a lot of that out to identify it *is* sexism and unfair.

posted August 24, 2015 06:09 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeeLoo2014:
Randall, I don't know what is happening here, and what is the issue with Ami, or your business here, it is after all, your website, we are just guests.

But her behavior was wrong, biased and encouraging discrimination and insults on one side, and this was part of the issue. My thread was about her intervention. And criticizing that was and is the right thing to do, just like with everyone, no one is or should be above criticism, positive criticism while looking for a solution with so much effort from many people is not an Ami rant or Ami hate, in my view.

---

Yes.

I don't see any "Ami hate" anywhere, actually.

But let's not even mention her name?

posted August 24, 2015 06:11 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by florence:
Whilst I've been offended for a long time, for a great part of that I did wonder if I had a right to object. It has not always been clear if it was misogyny (and even now that doesn't feel quite the right phrase). Becsuse, as I mentioned above, some things ive found to be fair comment but it's their attachment to a long chain of other unfair premises and sheer repetition - a whole web of entangling ideas, that I myself, having no bias at all towards AG, have wondered if it warrants intervention. It has taken you separating a lot of that out to identify it *is* sexism and unfair.

---

It's gotten worse over the years, which may explain why it's taken you a while to solidify your opinion.

But let's not talk about AG.

Signatures only.

From now on.

posted August 24, 2015 06:12 PM            

But I understand that the issue is solved, policy implemented, and from now on all gender, race, religion bashing and rants and insults will be discouraged and admonished by the moderator, for this was the point here in the first place, and avoided by everyone as much as possible.

posted August 24, 2015 06:14 PM            

What are the signatures for if there are already new rules listed below?

------------------
Want to Read Simple, Fun,Sexy Articles on Astrology? Check Me Out, DUDE.

posted August 24, 2015 06:18 PM            

Faith, In what manner is this not sufficient for you? Please give details? Thanks

------------------
Want to Read Simple, Fun,Sexy Articles on Astrology? Check Me Out, DUDE.

posted August 24, 2015 06:38 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by florence:
Whilst I've been offended for a long time, for a great part of that I did wonder if I had a right to object. It has not always been clear if it was misogyny (and even now that doesn't feel quite the right phrase). Becsuse, as I mentioned above, some things ive found to be fair comment but it's their attachment to a long chain of other unfair premises and sheer repetition - a whole web of entangling ideas, that I myself, having no bias at all towards AG, have wondered if it warrants intervention. It has taken you separating a lot of that out to identify it *is* sexism and unfair.

Ok, I think I know which times you are referring to now and I think that is Ami seeing AG ganged up on. Perhaps there's more sympathy with his view than some have but now there is a rule it might help with that.

---

Unfortunately, I ended up commenting about this and protesting only after a longer evaluation, when I became sure of what it was. They were outright sexist comments, I'm afraid. The very definition of sexism. I wouldn't have called it so if in my mind I wasn't sure about it. A repeated, long-standing behavior.

But to be honest, just seeing one single comment, a first one, should be enough for an intervention from any balanced contemporary individual.

posted August 24, 2015 06:39 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ami Anne:
Faith, In what manner is this not sufficient for you? Please give details? Thanks

---

I never said it wasn't sufficient.

I said the petition is still open for signatures.

posted August 24, 2015 09:22 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeeLoo2014:
Unfortunately, I ended up commenting about this and protesting only after a longer evaluation, when I became sure of what it was. They were outright sexist comments, I'm afraid. The very definition of sexism. I wouldn't have called it so if in my mind I wasn't sure about it. A repeated, long-standing behavior.

But to be honest, just seeing one single comment, a first one, should be enough for an intervention from any balanced contemporary individual.

I also think that a person who launches blanket hate statements on gender and races, fortunately, always ends ganged up on, it's the rightful consequence of their actions, unless we are in a gulag or something, or traveling in the past 60 years ago.

---

As it happens my views on this subject aren't or haven't been balanced. I'm aware of that which helps but I still have to look close up to everything to assess it. perhaps because of this, and trying to evolve a personal view, these arguments have affected me quite a bit.

posted August 24, 2015 10:59 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by aquaguy91:
Randall,
I would also like to add something to this. I think people that can't respond to someone's opinion without getting highly emotional and nasty should just ignore that post. This is much better than the alternative which is to get angry and engage that person and get progressively nastier and nastier until the thread gets closed. And then point fingers, deny all responsibility, and say you want the webmaster to censor people you don't like. That's essentially what some do here.

---

But don't you respond to things in an emotional manner, as well? I ranted in a post in response to you the other night, but then decided not to post it - I was feeling emotional, and I didn't want to hurt your feelings.