I guess its hi time to have sum real introspection done into the role of mods nd their autocratic ways…I tried this earlier, but of no avail. (None of the mods had the courage to stand up and answer, instead the thread was closed). Lets take substantive review on the accountability and the role of our mods. Having said so, I rqst all like minded Jatlanders to substantiate their thoughts on this thread. At the same time I request mods not to luk at this thread contemptuously with disdain…an active participation wud b highly appreciated.
A person is banned frm JL to score their personal vendetta’s/grudges. w/o assigning any reasons or a chance for him to spk his mind. Moreover the mods didn’t even have the courtesy or courage to inform the member of its ban thru a PM…forget abt the warning or reasons thereof. Don’t u think tht its imperative on the part of mods to inform the reasons of the ban, if not the reason, then at least shud hv the courtesy to inform him/her personally…nd how abt sumthin’ called…public WARNING to the member b 4 inflicting this ban or taking sum other extreme step.
Pls. don’t take this as my choleric outburst following my ban frm JL. Our so called altruistic mods, in possession of good intelligence and values nevertheless simply cannot abuse their power by making certain decisions for fellow JATlanders/members. However, when they think they can, and there’s no recourse to those of us on the outside of the process (being banned)…trouble seems to be inevitable. This straightaway indicates the problem of power distribution. The moment someone has inordinate power nd no accountability, the stage is set for abuse. It has happened in the past nd will keep on happening time nd agn…unless few proper guidelines r issued nd implemented.
“True autocrats are not controlled by those they serve”
…btw to whom they r serving…but obviously their own fellow members…all brothers nd sisters…all JATS. guess they hv sufficient grey cells to realize this, if not they hv no right to moderate nd be a moderator…to me it seems they r quite obsessed with the ruling “its my way or no way”. On the contrary they shud understand tht a democratic approach requires conscious fostering and advocacy, and even defense at times, for its survival…if at all it exists on JL.
Its hi time tht a set of guidelines to be issued for the mods as well as for members…on the role they ought to play, thereby not abusing their power. I wud also like to know the selection criteria of a mod? nd wat is the time frame he is suppose to serve? 1 yr, 2 yrs or as long as hi wish…if the proximity to the owner of JL is the criteria, then it shud b discarded straightaway. A unanimous, public candidate is the best person to serve as a mod...i guess narwal ji was picked up like this (m not sure, correct me if I’m wrong).
To substantiate my views…here r sum comments/posts wch I picked up frm my brief existence on JL…no offense to anyone, but these quotes r picked up just to elaborate the growing dissent for our mods.