You decided who was "right" and who was "wrong". Your decisions on suspensions therefore became tainted by the rightness or wrongness of the users opinion
I thought sentences or even paragraphs would provide enough separation that you couldn't parse words selectively from them and combine them into a meaning like that.
But I'd have to guess you weren't a member or even observer at SI, so it's somewhat understandable that you wouldn't know that I agree with the point your raise about the admin remaining neutral.
My standard response to "He's lying about our company" has always been "I don't know that and even if I did, I wouldn't and couldn't take action based on that."
In fact, I'm quite certain that I posted on this very thread some months back that I wouldn't allow a moderator to delete a post with "it's a lie" as a reason because once that becomes an allowable reason for deletion, one can make a strong case that goes something like "I bought the stock because every non-deleted post is true, so the post saying Microsoft was buying them had to be true."
An admin can *never* use the veracity of statements as a reason for deleting a post. The ramifications are horrendous. I can't believe you thought for even a second I would support doing that.
When I talk about "right vs wrong", that's not the same thing as "true vs correct". And I'm old enough to know that difference.
