This site is ever increasingly becoming a joke...

[KenHigg]

You're the one that just brought up the past - Why are you telling me to get over it? I'm just concerned that you feel the need to threaten the rest of the forum membership and micro-manage threads...

 

[boblarson]

You're the one that just brought up the past - Why are you telling me to get over it? I'm just concerned that you feel the need to threaten the rest of the forum membership and micro-manage threads...

Going around in circles on this one. Thread not closed (see Vassago's post later on).

 

[Vassago]

It's simple, if a member here feels like any of the moderators on this site, me included, have not done our job effectively or disagrees with a statement, they should refer to someone above us, DCrake. If they disagree with the conclusion that DCrake has come to, which seems to be the case based on what DCrake had posted in the restaurant thread stating his agreement with Bob's decision, they should take it up with Jon. No amount of bickering in this thread will resolve anything, but only escalate the issue. These old flames that have been going on are getting really old as well. What's the point of this thread? What exactly is hoping to be accomplished?

 

[Vassago]

Before this thread is closed, let's find out exactly what is wanted, what the point of this thread really is. If it's something one of us moderators can help with, then fine, otherwise it should be taken up with someone in "upper management."

 

[boblarson]

Before this thread is closed, let's find out exactly what is wanted, what the point of this thread really is. If it's something one of us moderators can help with, then fine, otherwise it should be taken up with someone in "upper management."

Totally fine with me. I am not optimistic in the results, however, given the previous posts.

 

[Vassago]

Totally fine with me. I am not optimistic in the results, however, given the previous posts.

If nothing is posted that a mod can help with, then the matter will be closed and should be escalated to the next level as stated above.

 

[Rich]

Before this thread is closed, let's find out exactly what is wanted,

How about "free speech" amongst consenting adults, has no one else ever heard or based their response and even thoughts on the phrase, "sticks and stones etc there is a conception running here at the moment that maybe some are just too sensitive on subjects or posts that can't possibly affect their real lives

 

[KenHigg]

Geeze... I thought this was a civil dialog. No idea why a 'fair' Bob would want to lock it?

 

[boblarson]

Free speech is one thing. Personal attacks on anyone should not be allowed as it degenerates into hatred and shouting matches. Intelligent conversation can be had without calling anyone names, etc.

If someone were standing right in front of you and started calling you names and saying you were an idiot, moron, etc. would you be fine with that? You may, but for most people it doesn't feel good and in some cases saying that to someone will get you punched, or worse.

Just because we are on the web doesn't mean we shouldn't act like unrestrained monkeys.

 

[boblarson]

Geeze... I thought this was a civil dialog. No idea why a 'fair' Bob would want to lock it?

Ken, that is just another personal attack. Do you wish a time out?

 

[KenHigg]

I simply wanted a civil dialog about the way Bob micro-managed the thread. His comments seemed a threat. Maybe it was just me? What in the world is wrong with letting everybody weigh in and talk about it?

 

[GaryPanic]

Eer..
well I was up for this discussion over restaurants - and I must admit the post that got pulled I did think had a slight overture tone to it - I ignored it but I can understand both sides of the argument -

the object of free speach does not allow verbal attacks- that is not free speach that is bullying - free speach is for a view a debate -slagging off a individual is wrong full stop - slagging off a football team isn't -
Knowing when to stop

Bobs comments in the first post were to keep it about restaurant - this has failed because someone took a swipe at another person and its gone off track - so the warning was clear and the result clear - te arguement about us all have the right to edit somes posts on their own thread - would cause havoc -

the Mods do a pretty good job - so cut them some slack

If the roles had been reversed what would of happened ..

 

[Banana]

I simply wanted a civil dialog about the way Bob micro-managed the thread. His comments seemed a threat. Maybe it was just me? What in the world is wrong with letting everybody weigh in and talk about it?

The problem is that with your past posts, it does not strike me as someone who is genuinely concerned about abuses of moderation power. Even granting that you were, there's no reasons or need to make sideswipes as you did, and doing just damages your credibility and sincerity.

Next, why not just assume others has the best of intentions? In your opening post, you basically called Bob arrogant. To me, this tells me you were in a mindset where you weren't interested in reaching a resolution but more to get one up. Maybe that's not what you want to do but your posts tell me otherwise. I bet you even could have had worked it out with Bob over PM but you chose to post publicly your displeasure with Bob's choice of words. Just kinds of strike me as bitter, in fact.

Want a civil dialog? Act the civil part out.

 

[KenHigg]

Ken, that is just another personal attack. Do you wish a time out?

What I want is for you to stop treating me and other members of this forum like children. If your 'time-out' comment isnt condescending and belittling then I have no idea what is...

'Do I wish a time out?' - You must think you're talking to a two year old Bob.

 

[Vassago]

How about "free speech" amongst consenting adults, has no one else ever heard or based their response and even thoughts on the phrase, "sticks and stones etc there is a conception running here at the moment that maybe some are just too sensitive on subjects or posts that can't possibly affect their real lives

Free speech is reserved for the world outside in public. These are private forums and are expected to be held to certain standards where posts made with an intention to harrass or annoy another member and not made in good natured humor are not welcome. Obviously, I've personally always allowed good humored (or humoured ) discusstion and debate, such as Colin's example of "You're a tit!" in response to a team's playing ability. Judgement calls on someone's true intention to annoy and harrass someone are subject to debate, but it become's a moderators job to determine where this lies. If someone harrasses or annoys another member intentionally without good humor as determine by the moderators, their post may be removed. If said member disagrees with the notion, it can be taken up with the admin and owner of the site in private. There's no need to degrade the forum and discourage new members from becoming active participants in all parts of the forum by posting such disagreements here.

If someone is determined to have made a post with the intention to annoy or harrass a moderator, it then becomes all OTHER moderators jobs and the administrator's job to determine this conclusion. Bob, myself, and all other members of staff here look to each other to determine the correct course of action when something is done against us. None of us have ever taken action since I have been moderator again (this year) that wasn't agreed upon after discussion in private forums or messaging between us. Perhaps Bob should not have been the one to delete the post that was made in the restaurant thread and it should have been me or DCrake, since we both agreed it should not have been there. This is something we can look at doing from now on so all member's know it was an agreed upon conclusion between other members of staff, not just one moderator deciding what should or should not be removed. Is this fair?

 

[Vassago]

Bob, Ken, please stop responding to each other so we can get to the bottom of this and move on.

 

[Rich]

Free speech is one thing. Personal attacks on anyone should not be allowed as it degenerates into hatred and shouting matches. Intelligent conversation can be had without calling anyone names, etc.

Just because we are on the web doesn't mean we shouldn't act like unrestrained monkeys.

I don't see any personal attacks, where are they

If someone were standing right in front of you and started calling you names and saying you were an idiot, moron, etc. would you be fine with that?

I'd walk away realising that the person aiming that at me was nothing more than an idiot, or then of course I could respond back with the same comments

 

[Vassago]

Free speech is reserved for the world outside in public. These are private forums and are expected to be held to certain standards where posts made with an intention to harrass or annoy another member and not made in good natured humor are not welcome. Obviously, I've personally always allowed good humored (or humoured ) discusstion and debate, such as Colin's example of "You're a tit!" in response to a team's playing ability. Judgement calls on someone's true intention to annoy and harrass someone are subject to debate, but it become's a moderators job to determine where this lies. If someone harrasses or annoys another member intentionally without good humor as determine by the moderators, their post may be removed. If said member disagrees with the notion, it can be taken up with the admin and owner of the site in private. There's no need to degrade the forum and discourage new members from becoming active participants in all parts of the forum by posting such disagreements here.

If someone is determined to have made a post with the intention to annoy or harrass a moderator, it then becomes all OTHER moderators jobs and the administrator's job to determine this conclusion. Bob, myself, and all other members of staff here look to each other to determine the correct course of action when something is done against us. None of us have ever taken action since I have been moderator again (this year) that wasn't agreed upon after discussion in private forums or messaging between us. Perhaps Bob should not have been the one to delete the post that was made in the restaurant thread and it should have been me or DCrake, since we both agreed it should not have been there. This is something we can look at doing from now on so all member's know it was an agreed upon conclusion between other members of staff, not just one moderator deciding what should or should not be removed. Is this fair?

Please ignore the other posts and someone respond to this. I think it's more important and to the point of what this thread is about.

 

[KenHigg]

Please ignore the other posts and someone respond to this. I think it's more important and to the point of what this thread is about.

I think, (drum roll....)

If somebody makes a dig at somebody else and it's unwarranted then the other users can harass the person that made the unwarranted remark. Kind of like reality. Us grownups don't need anyone baby sitting us. If Col makes snide remarks at me I simply ignore him, duh... Get it? In my mind the only thing a mod should do is zonk spam, keep the help forum going forward and maybe bleep four letter words. Just my 2 cents and keep in mind I do thank you all for doing that stuff, I wouldn't because I don't have the time...

 

[Rich]

Have you never heard the phrase "red rag to a bull" and of course it's worth while pointing out that the forum consits of THOUSANDS of members and not just a few members of staff