|
1591. Absensia - 4/19/2002 9:30:30 AM Ms. No,
Thanks for responding, I know there have been "other" issues around here. My point re moderators and spam, was to say that if thread hosts abuse power or if the masses yell "off with his/her head" and it's becoming an issue that is quite devisive, then I think a moderator should warn, even if a host has warned, and and if it still continues, then the person is suspended.
Wabbit, I do like your comment about spam...hahaha, I do thing the Rof E should list it, and while I don't want to pose any unnecessary duties on the Moderators, I would like to see clearer Rules of Engagement. That's my opinion only...but this all (not Jex) was an issue last August in this threat raised by several people. Seem to me it's still an issue.
Ms. No...when I said "talk to one another," I was talking about the recent time when Pelle was going to remove certain threads without notice, and you disagreed and reinstated them, as most wanted to be done...and then Pelle announced he was an exmoderator. Such comments are not good to be aired in front of the "children," inter alia. You bother were here at the mote at the same time that day. I don't think all three of you must agree regarding discipline, etc. Maybe someone could set out what things required an agreement by all three of you, what can be done by a majority, and those that can be done by one moderator.
I do understand the work you do and also know what a hassle it can be to do it, inspite of the huge monetary rewards...heh.
I think thread host autonomy sometimes has merits. : ) Of course we can then get into a discussion of what is "abuse." I think mosts hosts have different visions of abuse, whether it be that by a poster or a thread host.
And, I hear no one complains about Indy because he is so cute. ; )
I do appreciate you talking the time to respond, I know it takes a lot of time. 1592. Absensia - 4/19/2002 9:32:13 AM Oops...sorry for the double post. And, btw Ms No, I am not going to even ask you how it is you know about Georgia's oral sex laws. Hahahahahaha. 1593. CalGal - 4/19/2002 9:46:09 AM Um, because they were the subject of one of the most notorious Supreme Court decisions? 1594. Absensia - 4/19/2002 10:11:23 AM Ummm, I was joking with Ms. No...you know...JOKING. There are still several states with such laws...and I was JOKING, as might be determined by the "Hahahahahah" following my second sentence. 1595. betty - 4/20/2002 9:19:35 AM Oh and Pelle, if you continue to be needlessly abusive (I mean betty, who is a sophisticated lady does cross a line doesn't it?) I will file a formal complaint against you.
I think this is the second time that I have let you know that sophisticated and lady and such silliness are completely inappropriate in reference to me. 1596. zojak quafeth - 4/22/2002 5:59:01 AM ah. So when you said you thought I was one beer away from a COPS episode you were really reaching to try to pick me up eh? shocking. 1597. betty - 4/22/2002 6:20:56 AM zoj,
I was asking, and of course I was trying to pick you up...I love Mediterranean Men...Israeli, Moroccan, Italian, Spanish, and yes, even Greek. As long as they don't speak. once they start talking it all goes to hell. 1598. rubberducky - 4/22/2002 11:07:18 AM but that is true of any man... 1599. vw - 4/22/2002 10:18:05 PM What if there are three paragraphs of crap about someone and one sentence that is relevant to the discussion, should that post stand as contributing to the thread?
I think wabbit has presented a good example that demonstrates why thread hosts should be the given a fairly long leash to make these kinds of decisions.
In my little corner of the Mote, I would allow a post with three paragraphs of crap and one relevant sentence to stand. Why? Because social issues often touch upon intimate aspects of the human condition and many people get very heated in the discussion of them.
So early on I decided and stated that posts devoid of any relevance and that seemed to only have been posted to make personal indults or to agitate would be removed. Therefore “You F*#@ A$& mother-doinking wanker, you’re never correct” would be removed while “You F*#@ A$& mother-doinking wanker, you’re incorrect. The Supreme Court declined to hear that case in 1987, not 1982!” would remain.
If I were hosting another a Gardening thread, they would both be deleted immediately just because posting about treating a gardenia for black spots is different than posting about abortion.
Requiring that a conversation about abortion be carried on in the same tone and conform to the same rules as a conversation about gardenias is unworkable. Allowing hosts to set the acceptable tolerance levels for “heated discussion” in each thread allows different types of conversation to occur.
1600. vw - 4/22/2002 10:19:32 PM "If I were hosting another a Gardening thread" was supposed to read, "If I were hosting a Gardening thread"
(more caffeine please)
1601. wabbit - 5/2/2002 3:03:27 AM vw, post 1599, well said.
Meanwhile, please see RoE, section 3 on Needless Abuse, for additional small blurb about spam.
Comments requested. 1602. Ms. No - 5/6/2002 4:03:50 AM I never realized that red on yellow was hard to read until I read it in blue. That was soooo soothing.
...although, I don't suppose that's the kind of comment you were looking for.
I like the addition. 1603. rubberducky - 5/7/2002 3:17:21 AM Don't be a pest, please.
this says it all, really. 1604. vw - 5/10/2002 4:40:49 AM I'm getting a Page Not Found error for both the Proposed RoE and Proposed Thread Hosting Guidelines. 1605. Ms. No - 5/13/2002 12:54:49 AM vw,
yeah, me too. I think those links are rillllly old. The link in 1601 works, however. I think Wabbit's traveling at the moment but I'll drop her a line to let her know about the links. 1606. rubberducky - 6/12/2002 3:03:26 AM i don't like the idea of restricting thread hosts by taking away the renaming ability. if the host can not be trusted to run his/her thread, that host should be removed.
i think it is an all-or-none game, really. 1607. CalGal - 6/12/2002 3:13:01 AM I agree. 1608. PelleNilsson - 6/12/2002 3:15:06 AM Well, my next move would have been (and might still be) to remove marj as host.
1609. rubberducky - 6/12/2002 3:19:22 AM i think he should be, Pelle. he has completely disregarded what the thread was to be and, imho, lied to the moderators, the general mote population about this whole fiasco – not thread host material to be mild. 1610. Ms. No - 6/12/2002 3:25:45 AM Ducks,
It isn't a permanent decision, But after three days of watching folks abuse their power as hosts to take shots at other Moties by changing thread titles it was deemed better to suspend a little used priveledge than to suspend a bunch of posters.
|
