This site is ever increasingly becoming a joke...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Remove the water cooler section all together and make it an all access forum?

Then it'd be no longer a community. The whole point of watercooler was to encourage people to continue to participate in the forum instead of just asking and going away once the answer is had.

Unfortunately, some people feel that watercooler is also a license to attack others' characters and wallow in old grudges that nobody else cares about instead of bantering away. I hope that eventually, it will be realized that not everybody has to get along but they shouldn't go out of their way to create discord and tension.
 
I'm sure in this specific case, such a consensus would not lead to such a one-sided result as some would imagine.

Plenty of people, yourself included, responded positively to that opening post with no complaint.

Not sure I follow.

My position is I am against moderators making up their own rules for their threads just because they can enforce it. Unless moderators are going to extend this right to all thread authors and make any edits requested by the thread author.

As far as I am aware there are board rules that all should abide by, not rules for moderators and rules for ordinary users.
 
Not sure I follow.

My position is I am against moderators making up their own rules for their threads just because they can enforce it. Unless moderators are going to extend this right to all thread authors and make any edits requested by the thread author.

As far as I am aware there are board rules that all should abide by, not rules for moderators and rules for ordinary users.



I thought you were against it, because it would hinder your ability to ruin threads, in the eye of the thread starter?
 
I thought you were against it, because it would hinder your ability to ruin threads, in the eye of the thread starter?

Well if you're going to make uninformed assumptions about my motives you should expect to be wrong a lot.
 
Well if you're going to make uninformed assumptions about my motives you should expect to be wrong a lot.

So you agree - I should have the right to delete your posts, on my threads?
 
Then it'd be no longer a community. The whole point of watercooler was to encourage people to continue to participate in the forum instead of just asking and going away once the answer is had.

Unfortunately, some people feel that watercooler is also a license to attack others' characters and wallow in old grudges that nobody else cares about instead of bantering away. I hope that eventually, it will be realized that not everybody has to get along but they shouldn't go out of their way to create discord and tension.

No I agree with you, but I see no other way for people to stop this crap!
 
Not sure I follow.

My position is I am against moderators making up their own rules for their threads just because they can enforce it. Unless moderators are going to extend this right to all thread authors and make any edits requested by the thread author.

As far as I am aware there are board rules that all should abide by, not rules for moderators and rules for ordinary users.

Personally I think you saw nothing wrong with the opening post until there was a bandwagon to jump on.
 
Too many retired people here. Have no work to do, and trying to avoid the nagging wife, so they come on here and nag someone else.

Seriously, so many of these issues are unimportant.
 
You can answer this as simply as yes or no if you want?

I missed that originally. No I don't agree. While you may have correctly interpreted my actual postion the reasons you gave are incorrect.
 
I missed that originally. No I don't agree. While you may have correctly interpreted my actual postion the reasons you gave are incorrect.

Since you are taking part i this thread - perhaps you could elaborate as to what you reasons are.

And you are taking back, that its OK what Bob is up to as long as its extended to all.


"My position is I am against moderators making up their own rules for their threads just because they can enforce it. Unless moderators are going to extend this right to all thread authors and make any edits requested by the thread author."
 
Since you are taking part i this thread - perhaps you could elaborate as to what you reasons are.

And you are taking back, that its OK what Bob is up to as long as its extended to all.

My preference is for removal of posts that the author doesn't approve of not to be removed. BUT if the decision is taken that this should be permitted then it should be applied to all thread authors and not just threads where the moderators are the the thread authors.
 
Ha ha, you guys are all super funny. This site is great! It's helped me enough, and it's allowed me to help others who are at a similar level with Access. The rules are fairly easy to stick to, and really, they don't cause THAT much of a problem do they? All you've got to do is either help people in the Access-related threads, or post your opinions on a subject that doesn't involve slagging the other posters off. (I choose my expletives carefully - that one has been on the BBC pre watershed a few times :))
 
My preference is for removal of posts that the author doesn't approve of not to be removed. BUT if the decision is taken that this should be permitted then it should be applied to all thread authors and not just threads where the moderators are the the thread authors.

But why - the first bit. Why shouldn't Bob, have the right to kick people out of his conversation piece (thread) , who can't play by his , or the threads rules, no matter whether you agree with the rules or not.
 
But why - the first bit. Why shouldn't Bob, have the right to kick people out of his conversation piece (thread) , who can't play by his , or the threads rules, no matter whether you agree with the rules or not.

If it was decided that this was the thread rules then no problem I would abide by them, I wouldn't agree with them but I would abide by them. The more important popint is that it is not the thread rules it is Bob's rules that he has made up. Setting a precedent for moderators to make up rules as they go along is a bad thing in my opinion.

In general I think the watercooler would suffer if the thread author is entitled to remove posts he doesn't like and ultimatley this is akin to censorship.
 
If it was decided that this was the thread rules then no problem I would abide by them, I wouldn't agree with them but I would abide by them. The more important popint is that it is not the thread rules it is Bob's rules that he has made up. Setting a precedent for moderators to make up rules as they go along is a bad thing in my opinion.

In general I think the watercooler would suffer if the thread author is entitled to remove posts he doesn't like and ultimatley this is akin to censorship.

I'm with Bob on this one - I think the majority would be quite fair in how they used it. Those that weren't, would soon be avoided, and those constantly being deleted , would behave better, or find somewhere else to go. Or if freedom of speech was important (mostly its just spoiling neagtive posts that are the problem), they could open up a new thread of their own.

It more akin with the real world - where we dont have to tolerate anything thrown at us. Its why the real world is so much more pleasant than here.
 
Much as I like him, Bob is known to be a bit volatile sometimes. Perhaps his comments in the restaurant thread are over the line a little. On the other hand, I understand why he would be frustrated, what with all the folks who hijack threads to a different purpose. Let's also be honest... how many of us would bother to dump a post (someone else's) we didn't like on a thread that had gotten rather large and hard to review?

There is also THIS to consider. If Bob chooses to dump a post, it is better than dumping a user account. A more measured response, I would say. My thought is that if you don't want Bob or other moderators to whack your account, but you want to abuse Bob, as an issue of fairness you have to give him some sort of middle ground response. Dumping a post is a lesser response than dumping a user. We already know that in the past, Bob has dumped a user outright. Does the vBulletin s/w have a way for the thread creator to mark a box that says "The author of the thread expressly dislikes this answer" ? I've seen some noise about removing reputation flags. What else is left to do when you can't "do nothing" but have no responses other than dump the user or dump the post?
 
The administrator of this site doesn't seem to have a problem with what Bob posted in that thread. I don't have a problem with what Bob posted either. This is a basic rule of ALL threads. Just because he explicitely stated it on one thread, it doesn't mean it does not apply to all threads. If you personally attack someone, your post may be removed in ANY thread.

Should we make some rules and post them at the top of the forum? Would that ease everyone's concerns about one rule being posted in a thread?
 
In general I think the watercooler would suffer if the thread author is entitled to remove posts he doesn't like and ultimatley this is akin to censorship.

Total nonsense. The site owner and by his permission the moderators have as much right to delete content as Walmart does for kicking me out of their store for campaigning against child labor.

This forum is privately owned. I abide by their rules or get booted, simple as.

The forum is popular because said rules are very relaxed. It's just that a pain in the ass few have taken advantage of this for their own selfish amusement and finally steps seem to be being taken to address it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom