|
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.
1611. Ms. No - 6/12/2002 3:28:52 AM With all the squabbling going on I haven't had a chance to check in on Marj's thread, but from what I've seen of his behavior in the Islamism thread he's out of line.
I would prefer that no one be suspended, but when I got on this morning I was ready for mass suspensions just to get a little order. 1612. rubberducky - 6/12/2002 3:37:32 AM Re: Message # 1610, Ms. No.
fair enough and i can completely understand. i just hope it doesn't become permanent. 1613. PelleNilsson - 6/12/2002 4:00:09 AM Ms No
You don't need to suspend people. Just use the maintenance tools to remove them as hosts. 1614. Ms. No - 6/12/2002 4:37:06 AM Pelle,
I know, but it wasn't a question of suspending the priviledge or susending the host it was a question of suspending the priviledge in order to stop a chain of events that would eventually result in the suspension of posters. If someone is adamant enough about causing a ruckus to keep abusing his hosting priveleges, then he's adamant enough to get wild when those priveleges are revoked at which point he'll likely do something to get himself suspended......like try to derail his nemesis' thread by spamming it continuously. We've seen this behavior before.
Halting the escalation of hostilities caused by the changing thread titles was a small move that will hopefully have a widespread calming effect.
(And just how long was everyone going to sit around and let me misspell priviledge?)
|
