[Jools]

When I said 'me too' I was expressing a personal agreement that a period where everybody backed off from posting contentious 'tit for tat' emails around DD was a superb idea. In terms of a cooling off period for everybody concerned, with whatever point of view, over DD topics - that's a good idea too. My personal views - independent of my MT membership.

Remember though that some people are under moderation for repeatedly breaking the forum rules that we are all requested to adhere to. All posts, by all members, can be reported by the whole membership if they are felt to be beyond the bounds of acceptable behaviour and some people are moderated because people from the wider membership have called for it. In many cases their moderation has nothing whatever to do with DD

Moderation is a temporary measure, designed to let people cool off before posting again. It does not mean that those people are banned from posting, it simply means that their posts are screened for any further breach of forum rules. The webteam moderators attempt to exercise this with utmost objectivity and people on both sides of flame war arguements have found themselves being placed under moderation.

Do the webteam always get it right? Of course not. It's a very, very difficult job to do especially when everybody, with whatever shade of opinion, seems to be firing from the hip. I am not a moderator, but those people who are moderators have had to face charges of bias because they've left threads open that others feel should be removed for a few minutes longer than their own threads lasted before being removed. I think it's only fair to remind people that being a moderator is a voluntary position that does not mean being on duty 24 x 7 monitoring every thread. There is also a view that if you're moderated it affects your ability to put your views forward because you do not have 'real time' access, however, it is entirely possible in my view to summarise your arguements and present them without using language that would not get past a moderator

'Amnesty' is an often misused word. What it means is that whatever somebody has done they are granted the status of absolute innocence.

So, in message board terms should we allow people to post whatever they like without any consequence? Should we simply overlook any, and all, posts that break the rules that members have voted for? Should we back off from enforcing the rules that members have voted for simply because people who are currently the subjects of enforcement of these rules shout loudly about it? The membership of the club have voted for the website to be accessible (in all but one forum) to anybody that wants to post. Should we let non-members roam free to use the resources we pay for for whatever purposes and agenda they hold, regardless of whether they have the clubs interests or damaging it in mind?

My own view is, in that direction lies a Visordown type forum. There are plenty of examples. One that springs to mind is the vicious attack that Jewell (a non-member) made upon GXSRAge (another non-member). We banned Jewell because that is what a statistically valid number of members wanted. We could lift that ban and simply pretend that it never happened - that's what 'Amnesty' truly means, but if that's what members want let's have another look at the forum rules at the AGM.

'Amnesty' over any other club related issue?

The MT don't have the power to grant 'Amnesty' to anyone. The MT are simply the people whom the membership has voted for and entrusted to look after the interests of the club and to try to promote it's success.

Within that framework, the MT are required to act as arbiters of any disagreement between club members, or other matters that materially affect the club and it's assets. In the current situation, some club members (no, not MT members, nor MT supporters - if there are any) are demanding an explanation from others over their course of action. Simple as that.

I'm going to stop now. I fully support the idea of 'peace breaking out', but I can't help feeling that, being asked by others to respond, and making this reply in return has already contravened the spirit of calling a ceasefire that the original post called for.

That's going to be my last public word on the whole issue. If anyone wants to talk to me about it PM me.