Oh...man....maybe this will help or maybe this will just be enlightening to us....
The hard fact are:
A rule of ours is:
This is a public forum. Once you make a thread, be prepared for other people to post in it, and possibly ask questions or bring up topics that may seem tangential. You DO NOT own a thread simply because you are the thread starter.
Now deleting a meaningless thread may not be a big deal (such a for sale thread or want to buy thread).
But his thread, not only had his time in it, but the time of others.
A member--especially a mod, more especially a super mod--needs to observe this rule of ours and not delete a thread.
No forum is perfect! This forum is not perfect, was never perfect, will never be perfect, and NO other forum out there is perfect either!
If one were to have such an expectation, one will only be disappointed.
The more a person is on the site, the more the "imperfections" will get to them.
(More time around something that gives you peeves means more aggravation will happen.)
Cool off periods are something everyone should take if they are on a lot and start to get annoyed.
He is a man. He could not only communicate in our forum, but communicate his wishes in the mod forum. Present yourself the best you can, go to those that make the decisions, and work out what you need to be worked out.
This site has some awesome admins. They are willing to hear you out.
In any relationship, there will be a time when people just can't see things the same way. It is up to the person in distress to communicate the importance of the proposed changes/stance. After that, just accept the way things go.
And I hate to say it, but this is not the first time this has happened.
I was a mod in the General Discussions section.
There was a case where IJ. and simann went at it.
From that case on THAT thread, it was clear that siman did not start that quarrel.
Trying to be a non-corrupt decision maker, I could NOT favor a person for being more of a contributor.
Keep in mind, that favortism is the main ingredient to corruption.
Here is an example/analogy: If you were a judge overseeing a case, would you allow--let's say a mayor--to run over a kid, and then judge the case based on who is more important? In my assessment, our standards should apply to everyone. I was expected to side with who was more important rather than what really happened in that case and on that thread.
Because I did not do that, I came under fire.
False accusations came my way and I then had to defended myself against some propoganda that was going on.
He left and blamed it on me.
Then I left the moderatorship.
So from my experience, this is the second time he left.
And both times were for invalid reasons.
If you don't get your way, do something that requires people to give you attention and beg for you to come back.
For me, my wits are all I need for my suggestions and for defending my stance.
If we were in a board room discussing how a company should be run, would you depend on your intelligence to see the company move in the direction you want it to go or would you use the "I'll leave if you don't do this" card.
