You've been given more of an opportunity to respond than we normally give, we've even allowed you to share an account which usually comes with an immediate ban so I feel we have been more than fair.
Members have the relevant information and are free to form their own opinions and post as they wish.
I have no need to justify myself to you more than I already have so now is the time to leave it and let the thread take it's natural course, be that drop of the page or continue to attract comments.
That is not a suggestion BTW.
Thank you for the clarification, Davie.
I have to admit, though, it’s rather telling that after several pages of discussion, multiple moderator interventions and a lengthy explanation of your role, the questions themselves remain largely unanswered.
I asked about moderator impartiality.
I asked about the distinction between moderation and participation.
I asked where the conduct standards and moderation standards are clearly published.
I asked why a moderator publicly describing people as having “spat their dummies out” should be viewed as impartial moderation rather than personal commentary.
None of those questions have actually been answered.
Instead, we’ve now arrived at:
“We’ve let you respond.”
“We’ve been fair.”
“Time to leave it.”
“That is not a suggestion.”
Which rather gives the impression that the strongest response available wasn’t an explanation but an instruction.
As for being allowed to respond, I’m not entirely sure “you were permitted to defend yourselves” is quite the flex you seem to think it is.
Particularly when the thread itself consists largely of people discussing the motives, conduct and reputations of women who were not originally present to respond at all.
The reality is that I didn’t need you to justify yourself.
I simply asked questions.
The fact those questions appear to have produced more discomfort than answers is something members can judge for themselves.
The good news is that you’re absolutely right about one thing.
Members do now have the relevant information.
They have the original review.
They have the subsequent discussion.
They have the moderator commentary.
They have the responses.
And they have your final position, which appears to be:
“I don’t need to answer any further questions, and the discussion is now over because I’ve decided it is.”
That, I suspect, will speak for itself far more effectively than anything I could add.
One final point that genuinely puzzles me.
You state that the thread should now be allowed to “take its natural course”, whether that means dropping off the page or continuing to attract comments.
Yet in the very same post, you instruct me to stop responding.
Why?
If the thread is genuinely being allowed to take its natural course, then surely that principle applies to everybody participating in it.
The thread continuing naturally appears acceptable.
Members continuing to comment appears acceptable.
Moderators continuing to comment appears acceptable.
But my participation is apparently where the natural process suddenly ends.
That seems a rather curious definition of “natural”.
Either the discussion is open and participants are free to contribute, or it isn’t.
The contradiction is difficult to ignore.
Perhaps that is the clearest illustration of the issue I’ve been highlighting throughout.
The standards appear remarkably flexible depending on who is speaking.
The thread can continue.
The commentary can continue.
The speculation can continue.
The opinions can continue.
The only thing that apparently cannot continue is the response from the people being discussed.
Which rather brings us full circle.
For all the talk of fairness, openness and allowing members to form their own opinions, it does seem that some voices are considered considerably more welcome than others.
And with that, I am finished! Because it appears I’d get more out of smashing my head against a brick wall. Enjoy your forum Davie!
