With so many skilled lawyers on the mod board, one might think that at least the appearance of impartiality would be considered.
If one of the mods was an actual very angry participant in the "discussion" that lead to the bannings, one would certainly have hoped that such an individual would have recused him/herself, or been recused by cooler heads, from any further diciplinary proceedings, rather than possibly take on a role of judge, jury, or prosecutor.
But maybe we as a society are just getting accustomed to a more Gonzales style appearance of fairness as a standard, though recognizing that RR is certainly not bound by any such guidelines.
The point to this thread is and has always been Fermis Banning. The actual title was a bit of subterfuge to bring an uncomfortable situation out into the open. You may sweep it under the rug if you wish but it will not soon go away.
The one single event regardless of all rules, discussions etc. was the banning of Hatrack and Fermi. We have asked politely that you reconsider your decision. We have been told that "it just doesn't work that way folks". Inflexible. We have chosen to speak for our friends because perhaps they are too hurt or angry to come begging to you for reconsideration. You voted them off the Island, only you can vote them back on. You can vote my ass off the island for insubordination and it won't make a bit of difference, I'm a newb here anyway. Hell, vote us all off the island and the moderators win! Toys and prizes all around! but no one left to moderate.
No one gets "voted off" RR without rules violations, almost always multiple sequences of rules violations, ignored warnings, discussion, debate and a consensus decision by the admin/mod group. It is not a fun task. It is not one we take lightly.
This thread is closed.
