None of this is about me, Stef, Freedomain Radio, or donations.
I'm curious to know what you mean by "this." What I've quoted is usually said at FDR in the wake of a person angrily lashing out at you, Stef, or FDR, but from my perspective Jeg hasn't done that. In case you didn't watch the videos, here's a super brief summary:
- He didn't have much negative to say about Stef, and in fact he praised Stef in a number of places.
- I don't recall him saying anything negative about you, either. He said that he believes his original banning was illegitimate (i.e. he didn't break a forum rule, and Stef did not request that he be banned), that it was based on a whim of yours and buoyed by support from others here. With the limited amount of information I have about the events that took place, this seems like a reasonable interpretation. If I'm missing an important part of the story, I'd love to hear it.
- He didn't even speak ill of FDR, as in the people who listen to the show, post on the forums, and maybe make donations. What he said was that FDR is committed to the spread of something beyond just adherence to the NAP: FDR pushes an aesthetic agenda. Which, if you think about it, is true, and isn't necessarily a bad thing. Jeg seems to have different aesthetic preferences than people here. During his time here he (largely unsuccessfully) tried to start dialog about this, to create space for alternative aesthetics, etc, which I think is a healthy part of philosophical discourse. Now, being banned, he has no choice but to take his presence elsewhere. I see nothing wrong with using attention-grabbing titles for the videos. They weren't abusive. Stef does that sort of thing all the time.
If you're interested in my take on forum administration as someone who
did it for a number of years, here it is. I was pretty young at the time and I learned a ton from the experience. (Note: the "you" I use in the following is generic and mostly means "me" since I am writing about my experience. But if others find it useful, great!) To the extent that you are
attempting to enforce and uphold the forum rules in a impartial
manner, there is no need to feel personally slighted if someone gets upset at an action you have taken in your role as forum administrator. You are playing a role and you are upholding rules that they agreed to follow. In fact, tendency to take these things personally can make you afraid to act and can thus negatively impact your performance as an administrator. On the other hand, it is very important to try to keep your personal preferences out of it and just enforce the rules (amending them if deemed necessary). In my experience, the urge to moderate according to personal preferences (to feel that you have "become one" with the forum rules and can moderate based on intuition rather than with reference to explicit rules) can sneak up on you if you don't guard carefully against it. And marching right alongside it is the urge to not admit when you've done this, so as not to appear weak. It doesn't work out so well in the long run, as forum members can see what's going on and they lose respect for you and start acting out or leaving. I had to learn this one the hard way. I think the best way to foster a stable community is to have a stable set of rules that you uphold. That means not springing new rules on people you don't like, and also not favoring people and letting them get away with breaking rules. I've seen firsthand the negative effects of not following both halves of that piece of advice.
I also know that being an administrator is hard work, and overall I think you're doing a great job! But like I said above, I do think it's regrettable how this Jeg situation turned out.