Apparently you forget your stated position regarding how you go about the business of being a HL. You've been an HL I believe longer than anyone else. Unless your position has changed (and I believe it has), your stated position is that you will not act (as HL) on a post unless it directly affects you personally, and that everyone else is on their own. Maybe not your current position, but that was your position for years. So it is IMO unwise to open any doors to discussion along these lines. And after years of you and your HL cohorts IMO abusing your power, you have a problem with my HL performance? Please note that for a long time in my "early period" as HL, I went out of my way to be as even-handed as possible, nailing violating posts regardless of source. That went by the wayside when I found myself alone in that effort.

The problem with this forum is NOT the fact that there are Rules of Use, installed for good reason. The problem is that the Rules are not uniformly enforced. With that, the majority of problems/dysfunction would go away. Can we get there from here?

I'll happily commit, if all other HLs will also, and then follow through. And I'm talking strict enforcement when appropriate (warnings, and ban if the user refuses to relent) while being open to input from any user as long as they don't violate the rules. I'm open to reading anyone's opinion, and then seeing a constructive argument, merits and flaws, particularly about possible future events/outcomes. And this can be done in a civil manner. IMO, that IS what the forum is supposed to be about. It isn't - not even close.

What is amazing to me is that IMO such a commitment is implied when accepting the responsibility of being a HL, yet it doesn't happen. Heck, within an hour of being appointed, one HL came right out and said that she had no intention of ever acting on Bash posts!

FWIW,

SGE