Doesn't often sparkle here these days, does it?
Doesn't often sparkle here these days, does it?
Why can't the moderators just quit handing out infractions and quit composting threads? They are not paid employees of TS. They can deal with the spam and won't have to make judgement calls on the members.
Doesn't often sparkle here these days, does it?
It might be useful if mustang explained why he felt it necessary to close it in the first place. At the end of the day if free discussion is to be curtailed there is not a lot of point being on this forum.
Doesn't often sparkle here these days, does it?
gmc;1316586 wrote: It might be useful if mustang explained why he felt it necessary to close it in the first place. At the end of the day if free discussion is to be curtailed there is not a lot of point being on this forum.
It was a decission made by several mods and acted upon last night. No one moderator acts alone. When the remainder of the mods showed up this morning and the issues were discussed again, it was then decided to bring the thread back out onto the boards to appease members.
Some posts from this thread will remain in the compost pile which were considered off topic to this thread.
It was a decission made by several mods and acted upon last night. No one moderator acts alone. When the remainder of the mods showed up this morning and the issues were discussed again, it was then decided to bring the thread back out onto the boards to appease members.
Some posts from this thread will remain in the compost pile which were considered off topic to this thread.
Doesn't often sparkle here these days, does it?
Mustang;1316589 wrote: It was a decission made by several mods and acted upon last night. No one moderator acts alone. With all due respect, that didn't answer the question of why it was felt necessary to close it in the first place. GMC's comment that if free discussion is to be curtailed there is not a lot of point being on this forum is left unaddressed, and finding yourself having to "appease members" suggests an earlier error of judgement. I don't think it was a matter of appeasement at all, it was a matter of good sense prevailing. People will think the membership proposed invading Czechoslovakia if you're reduced to appeasing us - we're not all stormtroopers.
Some posts from this thread will remain in the compost pile which were considered off topic to this thread.Those few posts related to a simple question of fact. Why are they now in Compost rather than a split thread in General Chat?
Some posts from this thread will remain in the compost pile which were considered off topic to this thread.Those few posts related to a simple question of fact. Why are they now in Compost rather than a split thread in General Chat?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Doesn't often sparkle here these days, does it?
YZGI;1316582 wrote: Why can't the moderators just quit handing out infractions and quit composting threads? They are not paid employees of TS. They can deal with the spam and won't have to make judgement calls on the members.
I agree on the infractions as some seen infraction happy, or are just out to get certain members as everybody doesn't love everybody on a forum.
- I haven't seen many judgment calls, its always up to the member to report, and that seldom solves anything.
here yes, as Betty posted to stop insulting and bringing up personal crap.
then again, I'm not on all threads here either.
I agree on the infractions as some seen infraction happy, or are just out to get certain members as everybody doesn't love everybody on a forum.
- I haven't seen many judgment calls, its always up to the member to report, and that seldom solves anything.
here yes, as Betty posted to stop insulting and bringing up personal crap.
then again, I'm not on all threads here either.
Life is just to short for drama.
Doesn't often sparkle here these days, does it?
When someone is infracted, noone other than the moderators know they were infracted unless the member feels the need to announce it. Just because they are not banned immediately as the reporting member would sometimes like, does not mean they were not infracted.
Doesn't often sparkle here these days, does it?
YZGI;1316582 wrote: Why can't the moderators just quit handing out infractions and quit composting threads? They are not paid employees of TS. They can deal with the spam and won't have to make judgement calls on the members.The use of infractions here seems to be a method of telling members to 'shut up'. And its easier than actually keeping threads clean. As I was told, the moderators here don't want to be bothered with much other than spam, signatures, opening/closing threads and being babysitters. They just don't understand that keeping threads on topic by splitting threads and communicating with members would clear up a lot of problems.
Thats why i think Spot's suggestion of rotating moderators is a very good idea.
But I agree that this system of infractions is lame. Typically American form of controlling behavior with threats.
Thats why i think Spot's suggestion of rotating moderators is a very good idea.
But I agree that this system of infractions is lame. Typically American form of controlling behavior with threats.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
Doesn't often sparkle here these days, does it?
thanks to all who agreed to re-instate this thread:)
I would like to ask also,, what do the mods think of this? Not many at all joined in the discussion so far. Do you feel you can speak openly or do you feel guarded because of being a mod?
Its starting to look more and more as if TS has deserted FG, how do mods feel about that? am i totally wrong? do you feel you should be given more practical help and guidance? What do you think your duties should entail?
I would like to ask also,, what do the mods think of this? Not many at all joined in the discussion so far. Do you feel you can speak openly or do you feel guarded because of being a mod?
Its starting to look more and more as if TS has deserted FG, how do mods feel about that? am i totally wrong? do you feel you should be given more practical help and guidance? What do you think your duties should entail?
FOC THREAD PART1
In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.
Martin Luther King Jr.
Doesn't often sparkle here these days, does it?
Peg;1316598 wrote: When someone is infracted, noone other than the moderators know they were infracted unless the member feels the need to announce it. Just because they are not banned immediately as the reporting member would sometimes like, does not mean they were not infracted.If members understood infractions were not an option, they would not be lobbying for others to received them. Moderators here would have much more support, I think, if they would just keep thread clean and relevant. That doesn't mean they have to search for problems, they can work off reported posts only.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
Doesn't often sparkle here these days, does it?
Ahso!;1316602 wrote: The use of infractions here seems to be a method of telling members to 'shut up'. And its easier than actually keeping threads clean. As I was told, the moderators here don't want to be bothered with much other than spam, signatures, opening/closing threads and being babysitters. They just don't understand that keeping threads on topic by splitting threads and communicating with members would clear up a lot of problems.
Thats why i think Spot's suggestion of rotating moderators is a very good idea.
But I agree that this system of infractions is lame. Typically American form of controlling behavior with threats.
What you've never seemed to be able to grasp is that you don't own the threads you start. They are not for you to direct traffic in. Much as you may like to control them, once submitted they can veer off at any moment. They can just as quickly veer back.
But this is a fine example of the issues the moderators face.
No one wants heavy moderation - except for when it would benefit them. It's okay to play babysitter for things that matter to you.:rolleyes:
You folks need to commit to never hitting the report button on anything but spam and porn.
Thats why i think Spot's suggestion of rotating moderators is a very good idea.
But I agree that this system of infractions is lame. Typically American form of controlling behavior with threats.
What you've never seemed to be able to grasp is that you don't own the threads you start. They are not for you to direct traffic in. Much as you may like to control them, once submitted they can veer off at any moment. They can just as quickly veer back.
But this is a fine example of the issues the moderators face.
No one wants heavy moderation - except for when it would benefit them. It's okay to play babysitter for things that matter to you.:rolleyes:
You folks need to commit to never hitting the report button on anything but spam and porn.
I expressly forbid the use of any of my posts anywhere outside of FG (with the exception of the incredibly witty 'get a room already' )posted recently.
Folks who'd like to copy my intellectual work should expect to pay me for it.:-6
Folks who'd like to copy my intellectual work should expect to pay me for it.:-6
Doesn't often sparkle here these days, does it?
Ahso!;1316604 wrote: If members understood infractions were not an option, they would not be lobbying for others to received them. Moderators here would have much more support, I think, if they would just keep thread clean and relevant. That doesn't mean they have to search for problems, they can work off reported posts only.
I can't belive people even report posts. I have never reported a post or been infracted. If you don't like what someone posts, why worry about? Move on and quit whining about percieved insults. I laugh it off and move on. No big deal. Its a fricken internet forum.
On another note I would be interested if I have ever been reported for an offensive post. Surly I have offended someone. If not then I shall try harder.
I can't belive people even report posts. I have never reported a post or been infracted. If you don't like what someone posts, why worry about? Move on and quit whining about percieved insults. I laugh it off and move on. No big deal. Its a fricken internet forum.
On another note I would be interested if I have ever been reported for an offensive post. Surly I have offended someone. If not then I shall try harder.
Doesn't often sparkle here these days, does it?
YZGI;1316608 wrote: I can't belive people even report posts. I have never reported a post or been infracted. If you don't like what someone posts, why worry about? Move on and quit whining about percieved insults. I laugh it off and move on. No big deal. Its a fricken internet forum.
On another note I would be interested if I have ever been reported for an offensive post. Surly I have offended someone. If not then I shall try harder.
I offered to spank you once didn't i?:sneaky::yh_rotfl
On another note I would be interested if I have ever been reported for an offensive post. Surly I have offended someone. If not then I shall try harder.
I offered to spank you once didn't i?:sneaky::yh_rotfl
I expressly forbid the use of any of my posts anywhere outside of FG (with the exception of the incredibly witty 'get a room already' )posted recently.
Folks who'd like to copy my intellectual work should expect to pay me for it.:-6
Folks who'd like to copy my intellectual work should expect to pay me for it.:-6
Doesn't often sparkle here these days, does it?
flopstock;1316606 wrote: You folks need to commit to never hitting the report button on anything but spam and porn.
How about the moderators taking a unilateral decision not to infract anything but spam and porn? Setting your own moderator policy in the light of this week's discussion is well within your range of options. If it involves an eventual replacement of the mod team because admin decides it was a bad choice that's not exactly the end of the world, and to be honest I don't think that would happen anyway.
How about the moderators taking a unilateral decision not to infract anything but spam and porn? Setting your own moderator policy in the light of this week's discussion is well within your range of options. If it involves an eventual replacement of the mod team because admin decides it was a bad choice that's not exactly the end of the world, and to be honest I don't think that would happen anyway.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Doesn't often sparkle here these days, does it?
flopstock;1316606 wrote: What you've never seemed to be able to grasp is that you don't own the threads you start. They are not for you to direct traffic in. Much as you may like to control them, once submitted they can veer off at any moment. They can just as quickly veer back.
But this is a fine example of the issues the moderators face.
No one wants heavy moderation - except for when it would benefit them. It's okay to play babysitter for things that matter to you.:rolleyes:
You folks need to commit to never hitting the report button on anything but spam and porn.
I would never report a porn thread. In fact I would be hitting the star buttons fast a furiously.
But this is a fine example of the issues the moderators face.
No one wants heavy moderation - except for when it would benefit them. It's okay to play babysitter for things that matter to you.:rolleyes:
You folks need to commit to never hitting the report button on anything but spam and porn.
I would never report a porn thread. In fact I would be hitting the star buttons fast a furiously.
Doesn't often sparkle here these days, does it?
flopstock;1316610 wrote: I offered to spank you once didn't i?:sneaky::yh_rotfl
Uh, I'm not into that S & M stuff but we could negotiate something I'm sure.
Uh, I'm not into that S & M stuff but we could negotiate something I'm sure.
Doesn't often sparkle here these days, does it?
YZGI;1316608 wrote: I can't belive people even report posts. I have never reported a post or been infracted. If you don't like what someone posts, why worry about? Move on and quit whining about percieved insults. I laugh it off and move on. No big deal. Its a fricken internet forum.
On another note I would be interested if I have ever been reported for an offensive post. Surly I have offended someone. If not then I shall try harder.:DWhen a person puts thought behind an OP and is looking for genuine adult conversation and gets hit with off topic garbage and religious spam the thread suffers. Its disrespectful. Its a "frickin'" internet forum to you, but that doesn't mean its that to everyone. Some drift is expected and some wit, too. Whats wrong with expecting adult minded people to have adult conversations?
On another note I would be interested if I have ever been reported for an offensive post. Surly I have offended someone. If not then I shall try harder.:DWhen a person puts thought behind an OP and is looking for genuine adult conversation and gets hit with off topic garbage and religious spam the thread suffers. Its disrespectful. Its a "frickin'" internet forum to you, but that doesn't mean its that to everyone. Some drift is expected and some wit, too. Whats wrong with expecting adult minded people to have adult conversations?
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
Doesn't often sparkle here these days, does it?
Ahso!;1316615 wrote: When a person puts thought behind an OP and is looking for genuine adult conversation and gets hit with off topic garbage and religious spam the thread suffers. Its disrespectful. Its a "frickin'" internet forum to you, but that doesn't mean its that to everyone. Some drift is expected and some wit, too. Whats wrong with expecting adult minded people to have adult conversations?
Ahso, If there are people on the forum who would like to discuss a subject in a thread they will discuss it whether another poster has gone off topic or not. This is more of a control issue. I know I'm a bit of a drive by poster and actually have made an effort to try and not drift into your threads because I know it irks you, but sometimes I cant help myself. By the way I like you and enjoy reading your threads even if I don't participate in them.
Ahso, If there are people on the forum who would like to discuss a subject in a thread they will discuss it whether another poster has gone off topic or not. This is more of a control issue. I know I'm a bit of a drive by poster and actually have made an effort to try and not drift into your threads because I know it irks you, but sometimes I cant help myself. By the way I like you and enjoy reading your threads even if I don't participate in them.
Doesn't often sparkle here these days, does it?
Ahso!;1316615 wrote: When a person puts thought behind an OP and is looking for genuine adult conversation and gets hit with off topic garbage and religious spam the thread suffers. Its disrespectful. Its a "frickin'" internet forum to you, but that doesn't mean its that to everyone. Some drift is expected and some wit, too. Whats wrong with expecting adult minded people to have adult conversations?
The solution might well involve active moderation to split a thread, it's often been done. There isn't the slightest reason for it to involve infractions or bans.
The solution might well involve active moderation to split a thread, it's often been done. There isn't the slightest reason for it to involve infractions or bans.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Doesn't often sparkle here these days, does it?
flopstock;1316606 wrote: What you've never seemed to be able to grasp is that you don't own the threads you start. They are not for you to direct traffic in. Much as you may like to control them, once submitted they can veer off at any moment. They can just as quickly veer back.
But this is a fine example of the issues the moderators face.
No one wants heavy moderation - except for when it would benefit them. It's okay to play babysitter for things that matter to you.:rolleyes:
You folks need to commit to never hitting the report button on anything but spam and porn.Splitting threads and communicating with members is not difficult or heavy moderation policy. TOS should be changed if threads should not be kept on topic.
But this is a fine example of the issues the moderators face.
No one wants heavy moderation - except for when it would benefit them. It's okay to play babysitter for things that matter to you.:rolleyes:
You folks need to commit to never hitting the report button on anything but spam and porn.Splitting threads and communicating with members is not difficult or heavy moderation policy. TOS should be changed if threads should not be kept on topic.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
-
Peter Lake
- Posts: 1031
- Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2008 2:02 pm
Doesn't often sparkle here these days, does it?
theia;1316363 wrote: PLease send my regards to LC, Peter...I only occasionally pop in to read, I rarely post, but LC makes me very welcome there, she has a good heart. Are you Peter Lake over there or do you use another name? If I know, I can look out for you. My apolgies theia as i missed your post last night. I'm not Peter Lake on 24 but i'll look out for your posts in the future and let you know who i am there. I'll pass your best wishes on to Lady Cop also.
-
Peter Lake
- Posts: 1031
- Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2008 2:02 pm
Doesn't often sparkle here these days, does it?
spot;1316567 wrote: Demonstrated the consequence of the moderator policy, with figures to conclusively back the perceived decline of the posting volume.
As i have stated in other threads, i don't believe the problem on forum garden has been with the moderators. Since you stood down as a moderator for the reasons you gave, it appears you're now blaming the lack of interest here in the moderation. The forum didn't suddenly take a dive Spot but like any failing business the eco system was slowly being eroded chip by chip a long time ago and at a time when you were a moderator. How convenient now, after you've stood down to blame the moderation for the failure of this site when you were much of an instigator into those rules as any of the moderators here.
There seems to have been the idea that by banning the main contributers to this forum because some didn't like them, new members would join and replace them. That's like any business losing it's best customers, the bread and butter and do nothing to attract new customers.
As i have stated in other threads, i don't believe the problem on forum garden has been with the moderators. Since you stood down as a moderator for the reasons you gave, it appears you're now blaming the lack of interest here in the moderation. The forum didn't suddenly take a dive Spot but like any failing business the eco system was slowly being eroded chip by chip a long time ago and at a time when you were a moderator. How convenient now, after you've stood down to blame the moderation for the failure of this site when you were much of an instigator into those rules as any of the moderators here.
There seems to have been the idea that by banning the main contributers to this forum because some didn't like them, new members would join and replace them. That's like any business losing it's best customers, the bread and butter and do nothing to attract new customers.
Doesn't often sparkle here these days, does it?
Peter Lake;1316646 wrote: As i have stated in other threads, i don't believe the problem on forum garden has been with the moderators. Since you stood down as a moderator for the reasons you gave, it appears you're now blaming the lack of interest here in the moderation. The forum didn't suddenly take a dive Spot but like any failing business the eco system was slowly being eroded chip by chip a long time ago and at a time when you were a moderator. How convenient now, after you've stood down to blame the moderation for the failure of this site when you were much of an instigator into those rules as any of the moderators here.
There seems to have been the idea that by banning the main contributers to this forum because some didn't like them, new members would join and replace them. That's like any business losing it's best customers, the bread and butter and do nothing to attract new customers.
Are you saying the mods make up the rules? if not , what do you mean by this?
There seems to have been the idea that by banning the main contributers to this forum because some didn't like them, new members would join and replace them. That's like any business losing it's best customers, the bread and butter and do nothing to attract new customers.
Are you saying the mods make up the rules? if not , what do you mean by this?
FOC THREAD PART1
In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.
Martin Luther King Jr.
-
Peter Lake
- Posts: 1031
- Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2008 2:02 pm
Doesn't often sparkle here these days, does it?
kazalala;1316647 wrote: Are you saying the mods make up the rules? if not , what do you mean by this?
I'm of the belief that the rules are set by the site owner but i'm just pointing out that Spot went along with these rules when he was a moderator yet now speaks of change to those rules. It's rather like Goebbels undertaking Hitlers orders, standing down then critisising the Nazi party. This forum began to die long before Spot stood down and not a sudden dive as portrayed by some.
I'm of the belief that the rules are set by the site owner but i'm just pointing out that Spot went along with these rules when he was a moderator yet now speaks of change to those rules. It's rather like Goebbels undertaking Hitlers orders, standing down then critisising the Nazi party. This forum began to die long before Spot stood down and not a sudden dive as portrayed by some.
Doesn't often sparkle here these days, does it?
Peter Lake;1316649 wrote: I'm of the belief that the rules are set by the site owner but i'm just pointing out that Spot went along with these rules when he was a moderator yet now speaks of change to those rules. It's rather like Goebbels undertaking Hitlers orders, standing down then critisising the Nazi party. This forum began to die long before Spot stood down and not a sudden dive as portrayed by some.
hmm,, i will respectfully disagree with that.
hmm,, i will respectfully disagree with that.
FOC THREAD PART1
In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.
Martin Luther King Jr.
-
Peter Lake
- Posts: 1031
- Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2008 2:02 pm
Doesn't often sparkle here these days, does it?
kazalala;1316650 wrote: hmm,, i will respectfully disagree with that.
I just found it ironic that Spot was talking of bringing back past members to this forum now when they were banned during the time he was a moderator.
I just found it ironic that Spot was talking of bringing back past members to this forum now when they were banned during the time he was a moderator.
Doesn't often sparkle here these days, does it?
Peter Lake;1316649 wrote: I'm of the belief that the rules are set by the site owner but i'm just pointing out that Spot went along with these rules when he was a moderator yet now speaks of change to those rules. It's rather like Goebbels undertaking Hitlers orders, standing down then critisising the Nazi party. This forum began to die long before Spot stood down and not a sudden dive as portrayed by some.I doubt anyone banged heads with Spot any more than me my first time around. Not once did I ever receive a warning or infraction from him, others, yes, but not Spot. So your assertions are completely baseless as far as I'm concerned.
My point then was that being a very active and opinionated member, it could be thought Spot carried power and influence that those he argued with didn't. Though its possible that I was simply intimidated by the quality of Spot's ability to defend his positions, and I used that argument as a fall-back. Since I've returned I see this with a few members towards Spot. For the record, we both went after each other on occasion. We both faltered.
But you simply can't stay away from getting on Spot personally, can you?
I wonder why this charade continues.
My point then was that being a very active and opinionated member, it could be thought Spot carried power and influence that those he argued with didn't. Though its possible that I was simply intimidated by the quality of Spot's ability to defend his positions, and I used that argument as a fall-back. Since I've returned I see this with a few members towards Spot. For the record, we both went after each other on occasion. We both faltered.
But you simply can't stay away from getting on Spot personally, can you?
I wonder why this charade continues.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
-
Peter Lake
- Posts: 1031
- Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2008 2:02 pm
Doesn't often sparkle here these days, does it?
Ahso!;1316653 wrote: I doubt anyone banged heads with Spot any more than me my first time around. Not once did I ever receive a warning or infraction from him, others, yes, but not Spot. So your assertions are completely baseless as far as I'm concerned.
My point then was that being a very active and opinionated member, it could be thought Spot carried power and influence that those he argued with didn't. Though its possible that I was simply intimidated by the quality of Spot's ability to defend his positions, and I used that argument as a fall-back. Since I've returned I see this with a few members towards Spot. For the record, we both went after each other on occasion. We both faltered.
But you simply can't stay away from getting on Spot personally, can you?
I wonder why this charade continues.
The very answer of your questions is as you've written. As i understand it, you've not been around until your return recently giving you no position to comment on the ups and downs of this forum before you returned. I know no more of any problems you've had with other members and moderators than you have of mine although you seem to be reading much into something that isn't there.
My point then was that being a very active and opinionated member, it could be thought Spot carried power and influence that those he argued with didn't. Though its possible that I was simply intimidated by the quality of Spot's ability to defend his positions, and I used that argument as a fall-back. Since I've returned I see this with a few members towards Spot. For the record, we both went after each other on occasion. We both faltered.
But you simply can't stay away from getting on Spot personally, can you?
I wonder why this charade continues.
The very answer of your questions is as you've written. As i understand it, you've not been around until your return recently giving you no position to comment on the ups and downs of this forum before you returned. I know no more of any problems you've had with other members and moderators than you have of mine although you seem to be reading much into something that isn't there.
Doesn't often sparkle here these days, does it?
Peter Lake;1316652 wrote: I just found it ironic that Spot was talking of bringing back past members to this forum now when they were banned during the time he was a moderator.
That dont mean he banned them? i dont know if he did or not,, but it seems to me you are more interested in discrediting spot than discussing the issues here. and i really dont want ot be involved.
Even i can see spot isnt criticising the mods, but realises they are working off rules they must follow.
That dont mean he banned them? i dont know if he did or not,, but it seems to me you are more interested in discrediting spot than discussing the issues here. and i really dont want ot be involved.
Even i can see spot isnt criticising the mods, but realises they are working off rules they must follow.
FOC THREAD PART1
In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.
Martin Luther King Jr.
-
Peter Lake
- Posts: 1031
- Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2008 2:02 pm
Doesn't often sparkle here these days, does it?
kazalala;1316657 wrote: That dont mean he banned them? i dont know if he did or not,, but it seems to me you are more interested in discrediting spot than discussing the issues here. and i really dont want ot be involved.
Even i can see spot isnt criticising the mods, but realises they are working off rules they must follow.
He might not have banned them but he did follow the rules that led to some of the bannings here and i just find that for Spot to now want the rules changed to revive the foum rather like bolting the stable door long after the horse has bolted.
Equally as i've asked Spot why he badmouths past members here i was hoping Spot would answer my post.
Even i can see spot isnt criticising the mods, but realises they are working off rules they must follow.
He might not have banned them but he did follow the rules that led to some of the bannings here and i just find that for Spot to now want the rules changed to revive the foum rather like bolting the stable door long after the horse has bolted.
Equally as i've asked Spot why he badmouths past members here i was hoping Spot would answer my post.
-
littleCJelkton
- Posts: 1215
- Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2010 5:57 pm
Doesn't often sparkle here these days, does it?
Stars appear to sparkle when viewed in a clear night sky from earth, There are sparkle paper towels, Jewelry sparkles, Prisms sparkle, in a episode of the Simpson's Matsumura fishworks and Tamaribuchi heavy manufacturing concern made Mr, Sparkle the made up Japanese dishwashing detergent. I can think of a lot of things that are supposed to sparkle, but forums, chat rooms, social networking sites, and blogs are usually not things I expect to sparkle.
Doesn't often sparkle here these days, does it?
Ahso!;1316653 wrote: I doubt anyone banged heads with Spot any more than me my first time around. Not once did I ever receive a warning or infraction from him, others, yes, but not Spot. So your assertions are completely baseless as far as I'm concerned.
My point then was that being a very active and opinionated member, it could be thought Spot carried power and influence that those he argued with didn't. Though its possible that I was simply intimidated by the quality of Spot's ability to defend his positions, and I used that argument as a fall-back. Since I've returned I see this with a few members towards Spot. For the record, we both went after each other on occasion. We both faltered.
But you simply can't stay away from getting on Spot personally, can you?
I wonder why this charade continues.
Decisions to infract, delete, ban, warn, by moderators are discussed in the mod forum by as many moderators as are available at any given time. A majority or unanimous decision is made for a particular action, and one of the moderators will carry out the wishes of the majority/unanimous decision. Therefore it must be born in mind that the moderator name on any punishment is not down to that one moderator. The fact that spot has never had his name on any infraction/warning whatever, that applied to a member e.g. Ahso ! does not mean that spot had no hand in the final decision for that punishment. A mod has to actually 'do the deed' on behalf of the moderator team. It is always a team decision. Of course this may have been a deliberate ploy by spot, to avoid members thinking that he was always being the 'task master', but I doubt this very much, as I have seen him put his name to many infractions on members while he was a moderator. What I will say about spot is that he was nearly always the one to play 'devil's advocate' and fight the corner of the 'accused', and mostly tried to minimise any 'punishment'.
My point then was that being a very active and opinionated member, it could be thought Spot carried power and influence that those he argued with didn't. Though its possible that I was simply intimidated by the quality of Spot's ability to defend his positions, and I used that argument as a fall-back. Since I've returned I see this with a few members towards Spot. For the record, we both went after each other on occasion. We both faltered.
But you simply can't stay away from getting on Spot personally, can you?
I wonder why this charade continues.
Decisions to infract, delete, ban, warn, by moderators are discussed in the mod forum by as many moderators as are available at any given time. A majority or unanimous decision is made for a particular action, and one of the moderators will carry out the wishes of the majority/unanimous decision. Therefore it must be born in mind that the moderator name on any punishment is not down to that one moderator. The fact that spot has never had his name on any infraction/warning whatever, that applied to a member e.g. Ahso ! does not mean that spot had no hand in the final decision for that punishment. A mod has to actually 'do the deed' on behalf of the moderator team. It is always a team decision. Of course this may have been a deliberate ploy by spot, to avoid members thinking that he was always being the 'task master', but I doubt this very much, as I have seen him put his name to many infractions on members while he was a moderator. What I will say about spot is that he was nearly always the one to play 'devil's advocate' and fight the corner of the 'accused', and mostly tried to minimise any 'punishment'.
I'm a Saga-lout, growing old disgracefully
Doesn't often sparkle here these days, does it?
Peter Lake;1316646 wrote: As i have stated in other threads, i don't believe the problem on forum garden has been with the moderators. Since you stood down as a moderator for the reasons you gave, it appears you're now blaming the lack of interest here in the moderation. The forum didn't suddenly take a dive Spot but like any failing business the eco system was slowly being eroded chip by chip a long time ago and at a time when you were a moderator. How convenient now, after you've stood down to blame the moderation for the failure of this site when you were much of an instigator into those rules as any of the moderators here.
There seems to have been the idea that by banning the main contributers to this forum because some didn't like them, new members would join and replace them. That's like any business losing it's best customers, the bread and butter and do nothing to attract new customers.
Peter Lake;1316649 wrote: I'm of the belief that the rules are set by the site owner but i'm just pointing out that Spot went along with these rules when he was a moderator yet now speaks of change to those rules. It's rather like Goebbels undertaking Hitlers orders, standing down then critisising the Nazi party. This forum began to die long before Spot stood down and not a sudden dive as portrayed by some.
Peter Lake;1316652 wrote: I just found it ironic that Spot was talking of bringing back past members to this forum now when they were banned during the time he was a moderator.
Peter Lake;1316656 wrote: The very answer of your questions is as you've written. As i understand it, you've not been around until your return recently giving you no position to comment on the ups and downs of this forum before you returned. I know no more of any problems you've had with other members and moderators than you have of mine although you seem to be reading much into something that isn't there.
Peter Lake;1316658 wrote: He might not have banned them but he did follow the rules that led to some of the bannings here and i just find that for Spot to now want the rules changed to revive the foum rather like bolting the stable door long after the horse has bolted.
Equally as i've asked Spot why he badmouths past members here i was hoping Spot would answer my post.
You've made your point, you don't like Spot, we get it.
There seems to have been the idea that by banning the main contributers to this forum because some didn't like them, new members would join and replace them. That's like any business losing it's best customers, the bread and butter and do nothing to attract new customers.
Peter Lake;1316649 wrote: I'm of the belief that the rules are set by the site owner but i'm just pointing out that Spot went along with these rules when he was a moderator yet now speaks of change to those rules. It's rather like Goebbels undertaking Hitlers orders, standing down then critisising the Nazi party. This forum began to die long before Spot stood down and not a sudden dive as portrayed by some.
Peter Lake;1316652 wrote: I just found it ironic that Spot was talking of bringing back past members to this forum now when they were banned during the time he was a moderator.
Peter Lake;1316656 wrote: The very answer of your questions is as you've written. As i understand it, you've not been around until your return recently giving you no position to comment on the ups and downs of this forum before you returned. I know no more of any problems you've had with other members and moderators than you have of mine although you seem to be reading much into something that isn't there.
Peter Lake;1316658 wrote: He might not have banned them but he did follow the rules that led to some of the bannings here and i just find that for Spot to now want the rules changed to revive the foum rather like bolting the stable door long after the horse has bolted.
Equally as i've asked Spot why he badmouths past members here i was hoping Spot would answer my post.
You've made your point, you don't like Spot, we get it.
Doesn't often sparkle here these days, does it?
I think PM should be abolished. The backstabbing would then be forced off site.
I will take this opportunity to list the folks I'd like to see around more.....
accountable, far, BR, bullit:yh_drool, wolverine, LC, snooze, clancy, marie, taterguy.... granted, half of these folks can't stand me, but i never minded that, I like who I like and could care less if they like me back...
I will take this opportunity to list the folks I'd like to see around more.....
accountable, far, BR, bullit:yh_drool, wolverine, LC, snooze, clancy, marie, taterguy.... granted, half of these folks can't stand me, but i never minded that, I like who I like and could care less if they like me back...
I expressly forbid the use of any of my posts anywhere outside of FG (with the exception of the incredibly witty 'get a room already' )posted recently.
Folks who'd like to copy my intellectual work should expect to pay me for it.:-6
Folks who'd like to copy my intellectual work should expect to pay me for it.:-6
Doesn't often sparkle here these days, does it?
flopstock;1316664 wrote: I think PM should be abolished. The backstabbing would then be forced off site.
I will take this opportunity to list the folks I'd like to see around more.....
accountable, far, BR, bullit:yh_drool, wolverine, LC, snooze, clancy, marie, taterguy.... granted, half of these folks can't stand me, but i never minded that, I like who I like and could care less if they like me back...
I like your back...
I will take this opportunity to list the folks I'd like to see around more.....
accountable, far, BR, bullit:yh_drool, wolverine, LC, snooze, clancy, marie, taterguy.... granted, half of these folks can't stand me, but i never minded that, I like who I like and could care less if they like me back...
I like your back...
-
Peter Lake
- Posts: 1031
- Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2008 2:02 pm
Doesn't often sparkle here these days, does it?
YZGI;1316662 wrote: You've made your point, you don't like Spot, we get it.
So is it assumed because a member questions another, they don't like them? I come to any forum for general discussion not to particularly form opinions of the members. I'm sure if you looked back you'd see many times i've agreed with Spot's posts in a debate but here it's just the case that i don't agree with badmouthing past members when they can't defend themselves and to blame the site owners rules when they undertook those rules for a considerable amount of time. Nothing to do with not liking a member at all.
So is it assumed because a member questions another, they don't like them? I come to any forum for general discussion not to particularly form opinions of the members. I'm sure if you looked back you'd see many times i've agreed with Spot's posts in a debate but here it's just the case that i don't agree with badmouthing past members when they can't defend themselves and to blame the site owners rules when they undertook those rules for a considerable amount of time. Nothing to do with not liking a member at all.
Doesn't often sparkle here these days, does it?
flopstock;1316664 wrote: I think PM should be abolished. The backstabbing would then be forced off site.
It's unenforceable since PMs only form a part of the channel, there's phones, skype, all the IMs not to mention email. Kill PMs and you merely change the mechanics.
It's unenforceable since PMs only form a part of the channel, there's phones, skype, all the IMs not to mention email. Kill PMs and you merely change the mechanics.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Doesn't often sparkle here these days, does it?
flopstock;1316664 wrote: I think PM should be abolished. The backstabbing would then be forced off site.
Your treading on shaky ground now.
Your treading on shaky ground now.
I AM AWESOME MAN
Doesn't often sparkle here these days, does it?
Peter Lake;1316670 wrote: So is it assumed because a member questions another, they don't like them? I come to any forum for general discussion not to particularly form opinions of the members. I'm sure if you looked back you'd see many times i've agreed with Spot's posts in a debate but here it's just the case that i don't agree with badmouthing past members when they can't defend themselves and to blame the site owners rules when they undertook those rules for a considerable amount of time. Nothing to do with not liking a member at all.
You, Peter? "many times i've agreed with Spot's posts in a debate"? You're thinking of oscar, surely. Before her banning your post count here was around 400 and believe me, very few of those 400 posts involved any agreement with me in "debates".
"to blame the site owners rules when they undertook those rules for a considerable amount of time" I dealt with four days ago. You'll need to find someone who was there to remember ForumGarden's history, since it's all third hand for you. What I wrote about my resignation was that "having signed on to a process of light moderation and subsequently been instructed by the administrator to impose heavy moderation, and finding the administrator unwilling to change his stance, I had little choice". You're treating the history as though positions have remained constant throughout and, believe me, that would be a very inaccurate perception.
As for "banned during the time he [spot] was a moderator", the reality is that most of those we're discussing either asked for their accounts to be closed or deleted or merely stopped posting, they weren't banned. Various subsequent duplicate accounts were banned, people who'd asked for account deletion were considered non-returnable because of the damage they'd caused to the threads they'd participated in but few bans have ever ended any first-time account other than spammers.
You, Peter? "many times i've agreed with Spot's posts in a debate"? You're thinking of oscar, surely. Before her banning your post count here was around 400 and believe me, very few of those 400 posts involved any agreement with me in "debates".
"to blame the site owners rules when they undertook those rules for a considerable amount of time" I dealt with four days ago. You'll need to find someone who was there to remember ForumGarden's history, since it's all third hand for you. What I wrote about my resignation was that "having signed on to a process of light moderation and subsequently been instructed by the administrator to impose heavy moderation, and finding the administrator unwilling to change his stance, I had little choice". You're treating the history as though positions have remained constant throughout and, believe me, that would be a very inaccurate perception.
As for "banned during the time he [spot] was a moderator", the reality is that most of those we're discussing either asked for their accounts to be closed or deleted or merely stopped posting, they weren't banned. Various subsequent duplicate accounts were banned, people who'd asked for account deletion were considered non-returnable because of the damage they'd caused to the threads they'd participated in but few bans have ever ended any first-time account other than spammers.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Doesn't often sparkle here these days, does it?
Nomad;1316679 wrote: Your treading on shaky ground now.
I find that most ground is shaky when I tread it these days...:sneaky::yh_rotfl
I find that most ground is shaky when I tread it these days...:sneaky::yh_rotfl
I expressly forbid the use of any of my posts anywhere outside of FG (with the exception of the incredibly witty 'get a room already' )posted recently.
Folks who'd like to copy my intellectual work should expect to pay me for it.:-6
Folks who'd like to copy my intellectual work should expect to pay me for it.:-6
Doesn't often sparkle here these days, does it?
flopstock;1316681 wrote: I find that most ground is shaky when I tread it these days...:sneaky::yh_rotfl
Neat trick.
Neat trick.
I AM AWESOME MAN
-
Bill Sikes
- Posts: 5515
- Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:21 am
Doesn't often sparkle here these days, does it?
littleCJelkton;1316659 wrote: forums, chat rooms, social networking sites, and blogs are usually not things I expect to sparkle.
You are either being obtuse, or purposefully too literal. You must have heard of "a sparkling personality". or "a sparkling wit", I'm sure.
You are either being obtuse, or purposefully too literal. You must have heard of "a sparkling personality". or "a sparkling wit", I'm sure.
-
Bill Sikes
- Posts: 5515
- Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:21 am
Doesn't often sparkle here these days, does it?
flopstock;1316664 wrote: I think PM should be abolished. The backstabbing would then be forced off site.
I very much agree with this, and AFAIR have said similar before. However, I think it would just reduce the problem, rather than eliminate it. There are always ways and means.
Personally, I keep my "PM box" full all the time, so that it can't be used. I have PM'd myself on occasion to keep it full, after having left room for a specific purpose. I do not often often look at the e-mail account in my profile. Perhaps I should soon! I do notice that "Moderators" can send PMs even if my "PM box" is full - at the moment, it's got 21 messages in it!
I very much agree with this, and AFAIR have said similar before. However, I think it would just reduce the problem, rather than eliminate it. There are always ways and means.
Personally, I keep my "PM box" full all the time, so that it can't be used. I have PM'd myself on occasion to keep it full, after having left room for a specific purpose. I do not often often look at the e-mail account in my profile. Perhaps I should soon! I do notice that "Moderators" can send PMs even if my "PM box" is full - at the moment, it's got 21 messages in it!
Doesn't often sparkle here these days, does it?
Bill Sikes;1316718 wrote: I do notice that "Moderators" can send PMs even if my "PM box" is full - at the moment, it's got 21 messages in it!
Finally, after all these months... that's the answer to a niggle I was puzzled by and never solved when my PM count went past 5000 without borking.
Finally, after all these months... that's the answer to a niggle I was puzzled by and never solved when my PM count went past 5000 without borking.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Doesn't often sparkle here these days, does it?
Bill Sikes;1316718 wrote:
Personally, I keep my "PM box" full all the time, so that it can't be used. I have PM'd myself on occasion to keep it full, after having left room for a specific purpose. I do not often often look at the e-mail account in my profile. Perhaps I should soon! I do notice that "Moderators" can send PMs even if my "PM box" is full - at the moment, it's got 21 messages in it!
my PM box is turned off, nothing I hate worse than being bombarded with them.
they can use my email address, when I have time, I will answer.
Personally, I keep my "PM box" full all the time, so that it can't be used. I have PM'd myself on occasion to keep it full, after having left room for a specific purpose. I do not often often look at the e-mail account in my profile. Perhaps I should soon! I do notice that "Moderators" can send PMs even if my "PM box" is full - at the moment, it's got 21 messages in it!
my PM box is turned off, nothing I hate worse than being bombarded with them.
they can use my email address, when I have time, I will answer.
Life is just to short for drama.
-
littleCJelkton
- Posts: 1215
- Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2010 5:57 pm
Doesn't often sparkle here these days, does it?
Bill Sikes;1316715 wrote: You are either being obtuse, or purposefully too literal. You must have heard of "a sparkling personality". or "a sparkling wit", I'm sure.
Yes I have heard the use of sparkle's adverb form to describe such things, but I was being purposefully too literal for the purpose of making the point that when sparkle is used in it's adverb form sparkling to get the full effect of the afore mentioned noun that is sparkling you have to be physically there to witness it, a personality can not be fully understood without really meeting the person. Wit on the other hand i have not heard as sparkling as it is a bit redundant, as the sentence "His/Her conversation sparkled all evening" shows in itself the conversation flashed with wit. Now I am not to say some of the threads on here did not have sparkling conversations but being there are so many post, threads, blogs, chat rooms, and IM's out there the majority of which show little if any wit, ]I have not come to expect wit in them, nor do i expect them to sparkle and shine out when compared with all the others.
Yes I have heard the use of sparkle's adverb form to describe such things, but I was being purposefully too literal for the purpose of making the point that when sparkle is used in it's adverb form sparkling to get the full effect of the afore mentioned noun that is sparkling you have to be physically there to witness it, a personality can not be fully understood without really meeting the person. Wit on the other hand i have not heard as sparkling as it is a bit redundant, as the sentence "His/Her conversation sparkled all evening" shows in itself the conversation flashed with wit. Now I am not to say some of the threads on here did not have sparkling conversations but being there are so many post, threads, blogs, chat rooms, and IM's out there the majority of which show little if any wit, ]I have not come to expect wit in them, nor do i expect them to sparkle and shine out when compared with all the others.
Doesn't often sparkle here these days, does it?
Bill Sikes;1313471 wrote: Hm. I wonder why. Just one of those things, I suppose.
is it any better yet?:yh_rotfl
is it any better yet?:yh_rotfl
Life is just to short for drama.
Doesn't often sparkle here these days, does it?
I have enjoyed reading this topic.
Interesting comments.
Good to read all the opinions:-6
Interesting comments.
Good to read all the opinions:-6
It's nice to be important,but more important to be nice.
Doesn't often sparkle here these days, does it?
mrsK;1316793 wrote: I have enjoyed reading this topic.
Interesting comments.
Good to read all the opinions:-6
sadly it seems its not really going to make any difference though:( I think this thread is also dead now, ah well. its a shame. I miss what this place used to be, but i spose i'll get over it:):driving:
Interesting comments.
Good to read all the opinions:-6
sadly it seems its not really going to make any difference though:( I think this thread is also dead now, ah well. its a shame. I miss what this place used to be, but i spose i'll get over it:):driving:
FOC THREAD PART1
In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.
Martin Luther King Jr.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Doesn't often sparkle here these days, does it?
I've returned on the invitation of a very dear friend whom I would refuse nothing (Hi Theia! ). I'm stunned that anyone's left here at all. This used to be my home. I'm pretty sure I said as much several times before. I even said I'd never leave. Naivete.
I'll lurk occasionally, and even post now & then, but the crap that Mustang et al pulled in this thread, with his ominous warning :yh_nailbi, is the kind of disrespectful parental nonsense that would turn off any self-respecting visitor trying to decide if Forumgarden is for him.
Now if you will excuse me, I'm off to poach some FG'ers to come to my new hangout.
I'll lurk occasionally, and even post now & then, but the crap that Mustang et al pulled in this thread, with his ominous warning :yh_nailbi, is the kind of disrespectful parental nonsense that would turn off any self-respecting visitor trying to decide if Forumgarden is for him.
Now if you will excuse me, I'm off to poach some FG'ers to come to my new hangout.
Doesn't often sparkle here these days, does it?
Accountable;1316939 wrote: I've returned on the invitation of a very dear friend whom I would refuse nothing (Hi Theia! ). I'm stunned that anyone's left here at all. This used to be my home. I'm pretty sure I said as much several times before. I even said I'd never leave. Naivete.
I'll lurk occasionally, and even post now & then, but the crap that Mustang et al pulled in this thread, with his ominous warning :yh_nailbi, is the kind of disrespectful parental nonsense that would turn off any self-respecting visitor trying to decide if Forumgarden is for him.
Now if you will excuse me, I'm off to poach some FG'ers to come to my new hangout.
You have made my day, probably my year, dear acc :-4
Please hurry up with your poaching and get back here toute suite :wah:
I'll lurk occasionally, and even post now & then, but the crap that Mustang et al pulled in this thread, with his ominous warning :yh_nailbi, is the kind of disrespectful parental nonsense that would turn off any self-respecting visitor trying to decide if Forumgarden is for him.
Now if you will excuse me, I'm off to poach some FG'ers to come to my new hangout.
You have made my day, probably my year, dear acc :-4
Please hurry up with your poaching and get back here toute suite :wah:
Live the questions now. Perhaps you will then gradually, without noticing it, live along some distant day into the answers...Rainer Maria Rilke