Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner "under voice": a warning

Is that your Robert Conrad in a Duracell commercial impression?

No, David I'm not moderating anybody. Maybe never will again.

Ken

I miss the days we used to talk about piano things.

Many people here are questioning things because we have been here long enough to understand some of the group dynamics and know some history of people's interactions here, along with the mods interactions with us, and the application of the "rules", such as they are. All of which go to explain what it is that you as a newbie are having difficulty understanding. It should be at least obvious that the situation is not just simply about a person getting banned because they insulted a mod.

LOL, that was funny.
I fully realize, as was pointed out to me just a short time ago, that I've not been here very long (and, apparently, this has some bearing on my comprehension abilities, not to mention my reading abilities), but, I think, PianoDad, that you might want to keep in mind that Ken, here, didn't bring the subject up to begin with. He, and the other moderators, have only joined the conversation at times to provide further input, and, since some have asked, they've tried to clarify some things. I haven't seen anything, that would qualify as "dumping" on anyone, at all.

Somebody is forcing you to read this? And not the other threads that are about piano things?

While this thread has been compelling reading, I feel that further contributions to it will only be destructive. I would urge everyone to desist.

Umm... Ken didn't start this thread did he Piano Dad? Ken doesn't have the power of Megatron here. I for one wouldn't do his job if you offered me $1000 a week. Why? Because he has to deal with adults who regress when confronted with their own B.S.

We're not talking about getting kicked out of the Bar association here. We're talking about being banned from a forum where someone crossed the line. Give the dude a break.

Heh...Mary-Rose demands proof of warnings, Ken provides proof and promptly gets his hand slapped for slandering a member who can no longer defend himself.

This is why the process is not transparent. Transparency creates as many problems as it solves.

This is also why I keep my mouth shut and speak in generalities (and why it's common to all people in administrative positions.) Every time you make things specific, all it really does is give your enemies a more clearly defined target to shoot at.

And seriously...FOUR PAGES of posts occurred during my drive home from Mizzou today.

When I posted last night, I hope people would take the hint, but I'll spell it out:

WE KNOW THERE'S PROBLEMS.

WE WORKING ON IT.

IT'S GONNA TAKE A WHILE.

so in the meantime...

*GO PRACTICE!!!*

Kreisler,

Please reread the OP. Mary Rose did not ask the moderators for anything. Please don't use that as a way to dismiss my critique of Ken's unbecoming behavior. I have asked MR to be more circumspect. I think I have some street cred about this. Thus I would appreciate not being patronized. It's bad enough when know-nothings read my posts and then confuse who started things with how a moderator should behave.

What's a no-nothing? Just curious.

I think he meant 'know-nothing'.

Indeed. Anger can make even the erudite careless.

Well, according to the moderators, that's not the case. He was warned more than once and then dropped a nice little f bomb on one of them. There's nothing to read between the lines really, though everyone is trying their darndest TO read between them. I'm sorry, but, there's nothing here that "newness" hides from sight.

You do (and please don't think of leaving).
From what I saw on a prior example, if anything you would tend to feel we shouldn't make an issue of something to the staff.

IMO the moderators have been either disingenuous or at bit blind here. Mary Rose was mainly just pointing out that something false had been said. Ken upped the ante by saying something about her "motives," and then we were off and running.

All that would have been needed would have been a simple acknowledgment and (preferably also) apology, rather than aggressiveness and clouding that narrow issue by reiterating all this other stuff.

David,

If I offended your sense of right and wrong I am truly sorry.

People want answers. I gave them to the best of my abilities. Maybe they are not what people want, but they are the truth.

Damned if I do and damned if I don't.

If it seems unbecoming to you I am sorry - that was not the intent.

Ken

I think the thing that has concerned me the most is when Steven's defenders have referred to moderators as Nazis, members of the Stasi, and talked about people in "jack boots".

In the actual world, there are people who were real victims of repressive political regimes and security agencies that caused the death of many many innocent people and great suffering to their families.

Let's get a grip people. I just played my piano for an hour and it was fun. I mean no disrespect to those who feel deeply about all this, but let's try to get some perspective. To compare the experience of an internet poster to the real life suffering of true victims of injustice dishonors their memory and trivializes real suffering.

Obi Wan Kenobi says...



If you ban me, I will become more powerful than
you can possibly imagine.

I don't understand their logic either. Maybe I have not been here long enough.

That's really an excellent point, Larry. I've noticed some of the same terminology being thrown around (conspiracy theorists unite!) and thought they'd gone just a BIT overboard.

pno, if you've been here long enough to read about what happened (occurence, determination, outcome), then you've been here long enough. It's been spelled out fairly well and more than once.