Here are the trade specifics.

[shelbygray01]

Originally posted by Tarhog

We're not infallible.

But we have a hard thankless job at times, and it doesn't help us, or the board as a whole, to be challenged every time we make a decision.

Our job is to keep the board a relatively calm, civil, energetic place to come and talk Redskin's football. A place relatively free of trolls, spammers, hotheads, and idiots.

We do the best we can. And we do it because we love the place. Thats really the only reward, knowing we help keep the place running.

We don't try and stomp out diverse opinion - for God's sake, look around. Its everywhere. One of the few things we do ask is that, when we make a decision, its respected.

Hope that helps.

I certainly hope not to be named a troll, and I have nothing but respect for the job of any mod. However, it was my understanding that the rule said that no mod was to be questioned for any action to a poster (ie, bans).

[Tarhog]

Originally posted by shelbygray01

The rule that I cited stated, in short, and please correct me if I disagree, that all posters outside administrators and mods must not question the actions of the former, and that rule interpretation is not allowed by these lowly posters.

Now let us assume, for the sake of argument, that a moderator does make a mistake, or possibly gets into an improper altercation that, after all heated opinions subside, was found out. The rule requires that nothing can be said to the contrary that the moderator did the right thing.

Is that justice?

We serve at the pleasure of the owners. They scrutinize everything we do.

If we were to do anything they didn't support, we'd immediately know about it.

But its not your place to question how we manage the site.

Got it?

[illone]

So much for talking about the actual trade, huh?

I was hoping for a trade down yesterday. Better late then never.

[Tarhog]

And since as Ilone points out, this threads been diverted...

[Art]

Originally posted by shelbygray01

The rule that I cited stated, in short, and please correct me if I disagree, that all posters outside administrators and mods must not question the actions of the former, and that rule interpretation is not allowed by these lowly posters.

Now let us assume, for the sake of argument, that a moderator does make a mistake, or possibly gets into an improper altercation that, after all heated opinions subside, was found out. The rule requires that nothing can be said to the contrary that the moderator did the right thing.

Is that justice?

Shelby,

You're generally right.

Your intrepretation of a rule is generally not something we're going to be all that impressed by. You didn't write the rules. You didn't discuss and implement them. While I'm sure you would have thoughts on the various application of the rules, when it comes to administrative decisions, there's nothing you can add.

However, as this rule says, and this discussion validates, you can certainly QUESTION what a rule means, and even QUESTION the administrative decision. What you can't do is suggest a simple disagreement of opinion led to administrative action, because, here, it never has.

This thread is a good example. No one is arguing the opinion Fpickering has put forth. Yet he and about four others are convinced the action taken against him is due to a disagreement of opinion, which, itself, is impossible given no contrary opinion was expressed -- and, I even AGREE with the general thought that this Miller pick was not one I would have made.

With hope you understand the distinction.

If you have further questions, since this thread is closed, feel free to PM me.