And the effect of this Quizz was...

[Malenfant]

Let me ask you something, Fridger.

If this academic committee was set up and at some point came to a decision - for whatever reason - that you either disagreed with or even that went against something that you posted, what would you do?

Given what you've said so far I have no doubt that you wouldn't abide by their decision - that you would again threaten to leave or complain to Chris if you didn't get your way.

So either way, it really wouldn't be any different in practice to having a single moderator enforcing a set of rules because you'd still hold everyone to ransom if you didn't like how things went.

[t00fri]

Let me ask you something, Fridger.

If this academic committee was set up and at some point came to a decision - for whatever reason - that you either disagreed with or even that went against something that you posted, what would you do?

Given what you've said so far I have no doubt that you wouldn't abide by their decision - that you would again threaten to leave or complain to Chris if you didn't get your way.

So either way, it really wouldn't be any different in practice to having a single moderator enforcing a set of rules because you'd still hold everyone to ransom if you didn't like how things went.

OK that is a sensible question, worth a somewhat detailed answer.

Given what I know about you, I suppose you have little personal experience how such boards work and how efficient they are. I can take this also from your very negative comments that reflect mainly a lot of prejudice...The concept of advisory boards is the preferred structure in any kind of complex management nowadays. Of course this is in no way limited to academic environments.

Let me start off with a typical concrete example, of my laboratory. The structure is absolutely identical e.g. at Cornell University, where Selden works.

In my lab there is e.g. the Physics Research Council (PRC) where I have served for 3.5 years. This is an advisory board to the Director General of the lab. NOTE: It's function is strictly ADVISORY not EXECUTIVE! I.e. the director remains the boss! This board is composed of internationally renowned scientists, including also e.g. a Professor from Cornell! They are nominated by the Director General.

+++++++++++++++++++++++
Obviously Directors have MANY responsibilities and clearly have also limited expertise like everyone of us. That's where the advisory board comes in. But clearly, the existence of such a board has precisely the opposite effect than what you presumed: Rather than weakening or even bypassing the Director's decisions, it makes the latter more RELIABLE, by feeding in the board's cumulative expertise via brainstorming!
+++++++++++++++++++++++

What is most important is that there are definite rules for such a (relatively small) board. Also generically, the PRC meets only once every 6 months, for example. The PRC typically deals with experimental proposals that have to be submitted to the PRC in writing.

Now, it should be easy to transcribe such a board structure to our Forum.

Having such a commitee would only undermine the positions of authority of a moderator or admin.

The most crucial part directly relating to your question and this statement of yours is that the Director (<=> Mod, Admin) remains the executive power, while the board's function is purely advisory!

++++++++++++++++++++++
Suppose I had something in mind that I wanted to push. I could make my case but the admin or the Mod still have the last word. The whole idea is to provide them with a MAXIMUM of specific expert know how that might be eventually relevant for an optimal decision making.
++++++++++++++++++++++


That's all.


Bye Fridger

[Malenfant]

First, given that you don't seem to care when experienced people tell you how the much more relevant administrative structures of online forums work, why on earth should you expect me to care about how the completely irrelevant administrative structures of academic advisory groups work? You can tout it all you like, but the fact remains that they have no relevance here. Forums simply aren't and cannot be run like that.

Second, such a structure wouldn't solve any problems at all. Like I said, you don't need a bunch of 'experts' to understand that a quiz isn't appropriate to a board.

Third, since the Moderators have no obligation whatsoever to call upon the committee's expertise for anything, and also have no obligation to listen or act upon what they suggest, that means a committee serves no real practical purpose.

Fourth, having such a board around is simply is not an appropriate way to run an online forum. For that matter, a generally democratic approach involving all members on a board with dozens of active members like this one isn't an appropriate way to run an online forum either. The Admin/Moderator/User hierarchy is the prevalent (if not the only) way to run an online forum because time and time again it has been proven to be the most effective, efficient way to run forums. Stop trying to fit a square peg into a round hole here.

Fifth, you didn't even remotely answer my question, Fridger. I don't really care how such a board would work - what I'm asking is what happens if a decision is made by the board that you don't agree with. If such a board agrees to certain rules and you don't like those, then would you leave it? If you were on such a committee and the director still disagrees with what it suggests (as is his right) then would you threaten to leave? If the committee requested that a thread of yours be removed would you storm out?

[Telepath]

-- deleted PM --

[t00fri]

Look this discussion is getting useless. You are just not reading and you are full of prejudices.

First, given that you don't seem to care when experienced people tell you how the much more relevant administrative structures of online forums work, why on earth should you expect me to care about how the completely irrelevant administrative structures of academic advisory groups work?

You are not the only experienced person in this discussion. The difference is only that our experiences are from different proven environments.

Since you have no experience with advisory boards you have no concrete basis whatsoever for your repeated statements that they could never work for the Celestia Forum. It's pure prejudice. I have at least 4 years of intensive experience with the Celestia Forum which is most relevant for this discussion! The latter is uniquely close to science and education as I emphasized, quite unlike most other forums.

You did not care to read in my previous post that advisory boards are in no way limited to academia! Here is my respective quote:

The concept of advisory boards is the preferred structure in any kind of complex management nowadays. Of course this is in no way limited to academic environments.

Fifth, you didn't even remotely answer my question, Fridger. I don't really care how such a board would work - what I'm asking is what happens if a decision is made by the board that you don't agree with. If such a board agrees to certain rules and you don't like those, then would you leave it? If you were on such a committee and the director still disagrees with what it suggests (as is his right) then would you threaten to leave? If the committee requested that a thread of yours be removed would you storm out?

Again you did not care to read but rather preferred to recycle your prejudices. I have completely answered your question. The point is that advisory boards have NO EXECUTIVE power! The Mod, Admin always retain the last word!

Here is my quote:

++++++++++++++++++++++
Suppose I had something in mind that I wanted to push. I could make my case but the admin or the Mod still have the last word. The whole idea is to provide them with a MAXIMUM of specific expert know how that might be eventually relevant for an optimal decision making.
++++++++++++++++++++++

Bye Fridger

[t00fri]

Selden is neither a scientist nor an educator.

In case you don't know: the majority of the Celestia authors/developers have a University degree in physics, math or related subjects, including Chris. Grant is a medical doctor (consultant).

I',m trying to stay out of this stuff so far, as my involvement would probably just re-inflame this nonsense, but I have been 'lurking' and I think this statement is beyond the pale and completely insulting to you.
From what I understand, you are a computer scientist working at Cornell anyway, so he's completely wrong anyway.

If you want to correct me, please inform yourself BETTER before writing such posts! What makes you believe that I am so unexperienced to making the above statements without KNOWING?? There is nothing offensive about not being a scientist or an educator. I have said NOTHING more whatsoever.

http://www.lns.cornell.edu/~seb/


Bye Fridger

[ElChristou]

...I'm a degree qualified Computer Scientist with 20 years experience in the industry. My degree included astronomy, philosophy, and mathematics of course, amongst other things...

Whaow... and with this background you haven't be able to respect a bit more this community? this quizz coming from a teenager can be forgive, but from someone with such formation I find it hard to swallow...

****

@Fridger and Malenfant, I urge you both to stop this, now nothing good will come from this thread...

[Malenfant]

Since you have no experience with advisory boards you have no concrete basis whatsoever for your repeated statements that they could never work for the Celestia Forum. It's pure prejudice. I have at least 4 years of intensive experience with the Celestia Forum which is most relevant for this discussion! The latter is uniquely close to science and education as I emphasized, quite unlike most other forums.

And by that same argument your lack of experience with online forums (and the Celestia forum is clearly one of those) means you have no concrete basis for your repeated statements that your 'advisory board' would work in this environment either!!! And don't lecture me about 'prejudice' when you've spent this whole thread doing exactly what you're berating me for.

It works both ways, Fridger. You have ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER to assert that your way of doing things would work on an online forum. I don't give a rats arse how well your advisory boards work in an academic environment, because THIS FORUM IS NOT, NEVER HAS, AND NEVER WILL BE AN ACADEMIC ENVIRONMENT. The fact that no other public, open, online community is run that way also works against the idea of such a 'committee' organisation.

The difference between our 'different experience' is that mine is relevant to the discussion - yours isn't.

The concept of advisory boards is the preferred structure in any kind of complex management nowadays. Of course this is in no way limited to academic environments.

Yes, but the point is we don't bloody well need "complex management" here!!! How hard is that for you to comprehend, man? It just doesn't work in an online forum environment.

Again you did not care to read but rather preferred to recycle your prejudices. I have completely answered your question. The point is that advisory boards have NO EXECUTIVE power! The Mod, Admin always retain the last word!

But Mods and Admins retain the last word right now too! The problem is that you don't agree with that 'last word', which is why you're complaining so much and making your threats to leave.

Since you have such a problem abiding by their decisions now, your behaviour suggests that you would react in exactly the same way if your 'advisory board' suggests that a Mod responds in a way that you don't approve of. Regardless of whether the decision is made by an individual or a committee, your reaction would be exactly the same.

The only difference is that with your way of doing things there's a pretense of a discussion about the matter behind closed doors. But if the final outcome is still something you don't agree with then you will still make your demands and threats to get them to change their minds! Therefore we don't gain anything at all by having this "committee", except for additional bureaucracy.

[julesstoop]

@Fridger and Malenfant, I urge you both to stop this, now nothing good will come from this thread...

I tend to agree. Your discourse is getting grimmer which might probably lead to unpleasant results.

It might be a good idea to agree on some things now and look for a constructive solution with the rest of the community (starting with Selden!) which might mean both of you'll probably have to add a trifle water to the wine.

[Malenfant]

@Fridger and Malenfant, I urge you both to stop this, now nothing good will come from this thread...

I tend to agree. Your discourse is getting grimmer which might probably lead to unpleasant results.

It might be a good idea to agree on some things now and look for a constructive solution with the rest of the community (starting with Selden!) which might mean both of you'll probably have to add a trifle water to the wine.

Eh, I'm tired of arguing about this with Fridger now anyway. My points are that

(a) he would cause a scene if and when things are done in a way that he doesn't approve no matter who makes that decision or how that decision is made.

(b) his "committee" is a not remotely appropriate or practical way to run an publicly accessible, open, and NON-PROFESSIONAL online forum with dozens of active members. I have no idea why he insists that the time-honoured way of having a Mod or Admin run a board based on explicitly stated rules is not appropriate here, given that it's appropriate everywhere else and this forum is no different to any other.

It's like talking to a brick wall with him though, and I'm sick and tired of it. I've been pretty patient with him lately, but he's really taking the biscuit now. I'm buggered if I'm going to watch him get away with blackmailing the community again though.

But since he is completely pig-stubborn and refuses to listen to people who know better than him, I'm just wasting my metaphorical breath.

[hank]

It seems that my moderation style may not be what you're used to or what you'd like. I regret that, but that's the way it is.

I'm generally very satified with Selden's light touch. I think I would be very unhappy with the heavy-handed approach some are suggesting. (Unless, of course, I was in charge!) I also appreciate the fact that Selden has been willing to perform this role. I don't think we could do without him. That said...

I refuse to be a censor except in extreme cases. People are free to make statements or post in styles that I disagree with. The times I'll take some kind of action, like locking a thread or moving it to a different forum, is when the subject matter is one that tends to be or has become disruptive or the topic clearly should be in a different forum. Personal attacks are, of course, also unacceptable. (Attack the subject material, not the person.)

But this isn't about censoring anyone. It's just about whether P&A is the right place to post a quiz. If not, then it ought to be a simple matter to just move it to an appropriate place. What am I missing?

Personally I think this particular case (a quiz) is borderline -- which, of course, is the kind of thing that will cause the most discussion.

I don't think it's a borderline case. Or at least, it doesn't have to be. My impression is that most people have agreed that guessing games don't belong in P&A. Yes, the point can be argued. But why argue the point? There's been a lot of discussion, but very little of it has been about the substantive issue. What are the objections to putting quizzes in a separate forum?

So long as people are courteous in their disagreements, I don't mind. So far this thread has been that way. I do fear I'm seeing some trend toward more antagonistic wordings, though, which disturbs me. Please be sure to take the time to think over your responses and don't respond "in the heat of the moment."

But it's a huge waste of everyone's time when the problem could easily be resolved simply by agreeing to put quizzes in a separate forum from P&A.

- Hank

[t00fri]

@Fridger and Malenfant, I urge you both to stop this, now nothing good will come from this thread...

I tend to agree. Your discourse is getting grimmer which might probably lead to unpleasant results.

It might be a good idea to agree on some things now and look for a constructive solution with the rest of the community (starting with Selden!) which might mean both of you'll probably have to add a trifle water to the wine.

Well you and Christophe are right of course! I am pausing since ~ 3 hours, at least . Slowly my forces are coming back and I am looking around for another "friendly" fight with someone ....ahem

Slightly more seriously. From my side everything has been said (several times, unfortunately ) . Selden has already announced that he's presumably not going to change his decision. Chris is somewhere in the mountains training for Bolivia, I suppose.

Probably just nothing is going to happen as usual. For me this is perfectly fine, as I have stated also several times. I think a (small) advisory board could serve a useful function e.g. in connection with future decisions about science (P&A) and education strategies. Originally, I had in mind to propose Malenfant as a (scientist) member for such an advisory board. But since he has been fighting against this like mad, this is surely not a good idea, it seems...


If Chris does'nt like an advisory board, that's also fine.

The only option that wouldn't be fine concerns Malenfants "rules".
Because then I would have to leave, which I have no particular desire to do...Another good reason was phrased by Christophe in charming French, ahem English:

it's the only way to keep things under control when you have 50k users between 15 and 25 years old... BUT I'm sure we can deal without such rules here because the community is not so big and because we are supposed to be educated persons.

So let's see how this is all going to work out. Back to work...

Cheers,
Fridger

@Selden:

could you please be so kind and REMIND Malenfant NOT to break his beloved "rules" all the time by offending myself, e.g. like so

since he is completely pig-stubborn

There are more such unjustifyable attacks on my person to be found in his recent posts.

Thanks!

[Malenfant]

The only option that wouldn't be fine concerns Malenfants "rules". Because then I would have to leave, which I have no particular desire to do...Another good reason was phrased by Christophe in charming French, ahem English:

You still haven't actually given us a valid reason why you object so much to any kind of rules at all. I don't really care that you don't like being told what to do or how to behave - that's what rules are for, tough luck. But the fact that you wouldn't even be affected by the rules anyway (so long as you behaved) means that your objections are meaningless.

it's the only way to keep things under control when you have 50k users between 15 and 25 years old... BUT I'm sure we can deal without such rules here because the community is not so big and because we are supposed to be educated persons.

Apparently that logic is not working so far... and education has little to do with maturity either.

Also, the number of users is irrelevant - you can have a forum with 10 people on it but if there are continual arguments and arbitrary decisions then you darn well need rules that everyone can agree on. This *is* a big community too - it may not have thousands of users but it sure isn't just a handful of people either. As it grows and expands we need rules put in place so that everyone is on the same page about how to behave and act.

since he is completely pig-stubborn

There are more such attacks on my person to be found in his post.

Oh, get over yourself, Fridger - you ARE stubborn as hell. That's not an attack or insult, it's a statement of fact and it is completely justified by your behaviour here. There's no other reason why you'd be digging your heels in and insisting that you know better when you've already admitted yourself that you clearly do not since this is the only forum you've been on.

[hank]

I'm buggered if I'm going to watch him get away with blackmailing the community again though.

That, I'm afraid, is the crux of the matter. And what's hilarious about it is that it was Malenfant who objected to the quiz in P&A in the first place!

This discussion went off-track early on, as soon as people started attacking Fridger for simply indicating that he would choose not to participate in P&A if quizzes were included there, rather than addressing the substantive issue of whether quizzes should be put in another forum. Had that issue been constructively addressed, most of this pointless debate could have been avoided.

- Hank

[Malenfant]

That, I'm afraid, is the crux of the matter. And what's hilarious about it is that it was Malenfant who objected to the quiz in P&A in the first place!

Well, in my defence I only objected to it there after Fridger starting making a fuss in the Users forum .

This discussion went off-track early on, as soon as people started attacking Fridger for simply indicating that he would choose not to participate in P&A if quizzes were included there, rather than addressing the substantive issue of whether quizzes should be put in another forum. Had that issue been constructively addressed, most of this pointless debate could have been avoided.

I think that point did get addressed and dealt with though. The quiz was locked pretty early on by Selden. Whether or not it's moved out of the forum after that is really irrelevant - either way it's neutralised. That specific 'threat' is thus dealt with.

Obviously there's a lot of people (myself and Fridger included) arguing that such quizzes shouldn't be in P&A to start with. Selden's on record as saying that he'd prefer that such things be posted outside of P&A in future though. Until another quiz comes along we won't know what he's going to do about it though.

The reason I proposed some rules for people to abide by is that it would make it clear to anyone on the board what is and isn't acceptable. That way before a user posts a quiz they can read the rules and realise they shouldn't do it there - and if he's called to task about doing so then we have some rules there to point at and say "see, it says that isn't allowed here". And more to the point, the moderator can look at that and say "aha, he's breaking the rules" and do something about it. There's nothing wrong, or oppressive, or totalitarian or "paramilitary" about that whatsoever - that's how things are done on every other forum with some kind of explicit etiquette document and it works fine.

[BlindedByTheLight]

I haven't been to the boards in a while and have tried to catch up but, could someone please clarify for me....

As far as I can tell, all this ESSENTIALLY boils down to which forum the Quiz should have been posted in - Purgatory vs. P&A.

No matter how I see it, I don't see it any other way. On the other hand, I truly, absolutely simply cannot believe all these words have been typed by so many compentent fingers just to argue about THAT. Sure, several are making the case about the deeper meanings for the Celestia forums. But it all seems to come back to where the post should have been filed (i.e. if the Quiz was posted initially in Purgatory no one would be complaining, right?).

So someone... please correct me. I have to be wrong about this. I just HAVE to be.

[Malenfant]

So someone... please correct me. I have to be wrong about this. I just HAVE to be.

The initial cause of the discussion was that. I think most of us here agree that quizzes aren't appropriate to P&A and should be posted in Purgatory if they're posted anywhere on the forums at all.

A good chunk of this thread has been a big tangent on how the forum should be run though - i.e. by implementing and enforcing explicit rules (which is how most other forums are run), or by setting up some kind of "academic committee" to "advise" Mods and Admins (which is not how any forums are run at all), or by carrying on with the arbitrary chaos with unwritten rules that we have at the moment (which is how forums are run when there's no other organisation to them). That's a somewhat deeper issue than the matter of where quizzes should be posted.

[rthorvald]

A good chunk of this thread has been a big tangent on how the forum should be run though - i.e. by implementing and enforcing explicit rules

Malenfant, those boards implement such rules because they need them. We aren??t anywhere near.

I have been an admin and/or sysop on a great deal of online forums over the years, both professionally and as a result of my hobbies - i have probably more experience managing online communities than anybody else here. And, you are right about one thing: an advisory board is not usual practice on internet forums, probably because it would just add an extra layer of policy makers where the community itself should be able to fill this role (either via moderators or via "peer pressure", to call it that. If the board is big enough, it has several moderators, in practice performing a role somewhat similar to Fridger??s committee but at the same time effecting the policies they themselves help evolve.

On the other hand, your rules proposal is a dramatic overkill solution to the relatively benign issues concerning us here at shatters: It would quite probably be different if the issues we discussed was political or religious, where people tend to get very agitated, but here, all we need is a moderator that takes care of the newbies, to help them ease in to our particular culture, and to stop the very few threads that go overboard: if you look back, it is really extremely seldom that more sinister goings ons than that has needed to be dealt with.

The moderator gets his mandate from either the Admin or the users, and every user hold all the power he needs to kick the moderator, as Fridger has just demonstrated. That is sufficient. Anything more is just bureacracy that will not change how people think or behave here, because participation is voluntary and we aren??t sheep, as someone pointed out.

someone... please correct me. I have to be wrong about this. I just HAVE to be.

No, you are entirely correct i am afraid...

- rthorvald

[Malenfant]

A good chunk of this thread has been a big tangent on how the forum should be run though - i.e. by implementing and enforcing explicit rules

Malenfant, those boards implement such rules because they need them. We aren??t anywhere near.

I think the fact that we keep having arguments about how things should be done means that we DO need them.

I certainly have no intention of serving on some pointless "advisory committee" and wouldn't take that even if it was offered to me. IMO there should be admins, moderators, and that's all.

If the board is big enough, it has several moderators, in practice performing a role somewhat similar to Fridger??s committee but at the same time effecting the policies they themselves help evolve.

That's about as close as it gets - but in that case each moderator has equal standing in the discussion. In the end, often a vote is taken on a course of action if there is discord among the moderators and the course that wins the majority is the one that is implemented.

On the other hand, your rules proposal is a dramatic overkill solution to the relatively benign issues concerning us here at shatters

Has anyone even READ the rules I proposed? I really don't see anything extreme about them at all, and there's absolutely nothing there that hasn't already been implicitly agreed on anyway. We don't like quizzes on the P&A board, we don't like pointless circular metaphysical discussions on that board either, we don't like crazies posting their own pet theories there either, and we don't like anyone talking about space science politics there. That's all I'm saying is unacceptable, based on what's happened on the P&A board in the past. Come on - can anyone actually argue against any of those points?

I mean, I don't care if people adopt MY rules, I just would like SOME explicit rules to be in place so we can avoid this sort of debate/argument in future. if you don't like the rules that I propose then why don't you propose some alternative rules that can be discussed?

It would quite probably be different if the issues we discussed was political or religious, where people tend to get very agitated, but here, all we need is a moderator that takes care of the newbies, to help them ease in to our particular culture, and to stop the very few threads that go overboard: if you look back, it is really extremely seldom that more sinister goings ons than that has needed to be dealt with.

But how do you propose that a moderator should deal with problem cases if there's no explicit definition of what is or isn't a problem? That's what the rules would be there for.

We already have rules saying "no politics or religion" and I don't see people storming out of the forums because of that. People are basically saying that they want a rules that games and quizzes shouldn't be allowed on the P&A board. The rules I proposed add some more things that we generally haven't tolerated in the past. So why would these rules be any different?

If you don't want any rules, then we should just let people post quizzes to the P&A board. In fact, we should let people talk about anything they like anywhere on the boards. But of course we don't do that - why?Because we already have a framework of rules in place.

So it can't be that people are complaining about the existence and enforcement of rules. I suspect that people aren't even really complaining about the content of the rules that I proposed, since they're generally what has already been agreed on in practice anyway. What I suspect people are balking at is the fact that the moderator is the ultimate arbiter and should be obeyed and respected when he makes a decision.

The moderator gets his mandate from either the Admin or the users, and every user hold all the power he needs to kick the moderator, as Fridger has just demonstrated. That is sufficient. Anything more is just bureacracy that will not change how people think or behave here, because participation is voluntary and we aren??t sheep, as someone pointed out.

The moderator gets his mandate from the Admin actually. The users can kick up a fuss if he makes a universally hated decision, and perhaps the Admin will listen to them and 'fire' the unpopular Moderator and bring in a new one. But also, the Admin may tell the users that they're going to have to shut up and live with the Moderator's decision if he supports that. But certainly an individual user - like Fridger - should have no power whatsoever to kick out a moderator... if that is the case then the admin is catering to the whims of specific individuals and it turns into a clique-run environment, which is unacceptable and unfair to general users.

[rthorvald]

I think the fact that we keep having arguments about how things should be done means that we DO need them.

The fact that a few users wants more rules does not mean the rules are neccecary. It just means those users aren??t comfortable with what is already in place.

I really don't see anything extreme about them at all
[...] Come on - can anyone actually argue against any of those points?

Perhaps not, but the objection is to the extreme detail more than what it says. It just isn??t neccecary. This is a very small village.

I mean, I don't care if people adopt MY rules, I just would like SOME explicit rules to be in place so we can avoid this sort of debate/argument in future. if you don't like the rules that I propose then why don't you propose some alternative rules that can be discussed?

I don??t need more rules. I know my way around here, just as you do. Sometimes someone makes an error, but that is fine, too, it is usually recognized and does not really disrupt the mechanics of the board.

But how do you propose that a moderator should deal with problem cases if there's no explicit definition of what is or isn't a problem? That's what the rules would be there for.

Common sense, precedence, by popular vote, by demand from the Admin... We *have* rules: it is just that you feel the need for more, and i don??t.

The rules I proposed add some more things that we generally haven't tolerated in the past. So why would these rules be any different?

They aren??t. They are just superfluous, for now.

we should let people talk about anything they like anywhere on the boards. But of course we don't do that - why?Because we already have a framework of rules in place.

Exactly.

What I suspect people are balking at is the fact that the moderator is the ultimate arbiter and should be obeyed and respected when he makes a decision.

I don??t balk at that. I am happy and grateful that someone does the job.

certainly an individual user - like Fridger - should have no power whatsoever to kick out a moderator

You misunderstood. We all have the power to leave. On a board such as this, it is all the power you need.

- rthorvald