FREE SPEECH, BUT...

If you were a part of the "Banned From 2 Way" experiment, you know that we tried to run a room that, unlike many others, would play fair and not play favorites. The most important rules that I pushed for, and Mystic agreed with, were that people should feel free to criticize admin decisions, and that admins should not ego trip or retaliate against people they personally disagree with or dislike. As soon as admins start abusing their powers, it casts a pall over the room, and makes chatters fear that, if they are not docile or in the in-crowd, they will be punished.

Some owners and admins act as though any critcism of an admin has to be hushed, that to even breathe a word of rebellion must be silenced, crushed, buried. But what is there to fear if someone wants to know why a particular dot or bounce happened? It's a capital crime to be curious? Let someone ask, "Why dot him?" Then say, "He broke TOS, he went too long, he said XYZ, whatever..." Letting someone question a decision does not mean that decision will change. Plenty of times, I let people question one of my decisions for sometimes half an hour, person after person, on mic and in text, and guess what? Most of the time I didn't change my mind, but sometimes I did. And chatters felt like they had some measure of control in the room, that if they asked, someone would listen and answer. Is that such a crazy idea? I suspect sometimes, when an admin in one of these rooms cuts off debate, and comes down harshly on any hint of dissent, it is because they know that what they did was arbitrary and indefensible, and that they are using the power of their @ to silence any questioning of their actions, lest evidence of their bias come to light.

So what do we see going on in the top room right now but the very powertripping that drove people away the first time. Now, it's not my place or anyone's place to tell the room owner how to conduct his affairs, but just in the past day, I have personally seen admins dotting people they personally dislike, on the dubious excuse that they weren't "on topic." There WAS no particular topic at that moment, the chatter was dotted simply because that admin was annoyed. Is it really desirable that we be subject to the moods and whims of an admin, rather than be as free to speak as is possible?

This is about inconsistent application of the rules. In other rooms, some admins have taken the wording of the PalTalk Terms Of Service and interpreted them so broadly as to allow any insult, any harsh language or nasty comment, to be deemed a TOS violation and subject to sanction. And again, chatters see this behavior and recognize it for what it is: Ego tripping, selective application of the rules. The easiest thing to do when you are an admin is to allow your personal animosities to govern your behavior. When timing speakers on the mic, for example, how easy is it to allow people you approve of a few extra seconds of time, a slight indulgence perhaps? And, by all means, give ALL chatters leeway. I often started my timer program late, for everyone. But within the past day, I saw an admin in the top room dot a chatter she disliked, with virtually no warning at all. And people are not stupid. Especially in PT, chatters are acutely aware of admin bias. And I was not alone in thinking and saying, "This one, because she hates her. That dot, because she wanted her to leave." Be realistic here. You aren't fooling anyone when you try to slap a ridiculous excuse on top of a blatant injustice.

As a room owner, I can well understand feeling that your position allows you to make whatever decisions you choose. And it may well be amusing to see your lieutenants abuse people that you yourself dislike. All I can say is that if you think it's funny for your admins to dot and bounce at a whim, or for the slightest trespass, then at least be honest with yourself: You're not running a Free Speech room.

JC