Moderation queries.

[G-Unit]

LOL at vomplaining, great new word.   

I'm glad my mistakes (caused by my cataract) are keeping you amused.

[Venturi Swirl]

I'm glad my mistakes (caused by my cataract) are keeping you amused.

I’m glad you’re glad.  It was a terrific new word and I thank you for it.

[G-Unit]

I’m glad you’re glad.  It was a terrific new word and I thank you for it.

No need for thanks, I had no intention of creating a new word. Noticing, drawing attention to and laughing at other's mistakes is an unattractive trait in my opinion, but you obviously think it's acceptable.

[Miss Taken Identity]

No need for thanks, I had no intention of creating a new word. Noticing, drawing attention to and laughing at other's mistakes is an unattractive trait in my opinion, but you obviously think it's acceptable.

I have been a mod on two forums, I have to say only one had a McCann thread. That was very different as its visitors  were mature, and presented a good agrgument. Hypothosis and opinions were acceptable but out right accusations were not. I only ever deleted two types of posts. 1 being nasty to other posters, making personal jibes and on the McCann thread for out right libel= direct accusation of killing.hurting their child. they could opine and have a theory- unpleasant as it was to read in some occasion but none the less interesting.

I do get it,how difficult it is to be a mod- to be fair, however I had respect as I never gave in to bullies. on either side of the argument.

This is a debating forum- Some cannot grasp how to conduct themselves in a debate on this McCann thread- when someone mentions an annomoly about parents story it is met with snipes (even encouraged by certain mods)  about the poster and no real effort to argue why the annomoly could be wrong- apart from it is every one elses fault.

I have also observed much to my personal annoyance the book burning attitude to some theads and posters. Sensorship is never a good thing- it is a fascist trait and should never be allowed to enter a free speech.

This type of post from VS is a cancer runing through the forum on some threads. I would delete this insulting,childish,bulllying behaviour on site, whether he is supporter or sceptic!
 
LOL at vomplaining, great new word.   


It would be an improvement if mods didn't add their little 'comments' about posters THAT is not their job.

some things to improve this forum:
1. stop the sensorship
2. remove personal jibes and snipes
3. impose the 'cites' request for all ,or remove that from the 'rules'

I am not going to dismiss the role of the mods- it is important and I appprecaite it- I have said this to John on  many occasions. It is the quality and having mods with integrity that is required. Something for one or two to work on with help from John  perhaps.


Just as an aside  do mods take on the role of admin OR is there am actual admin person who isn't also a mod?

[Venturi Swirl]

No need for thanks, I had no intention of creating a new word. Noticing, drawing attention to and laughing at other's mistakes is an unattractive trait in my opinion, but you obviously think it's acceptable.

Blimey, sense of humour failure on an epic scale.   I do think it is wholly acceptable to laugh at a funny mistake, and you’re welcome to laugh at any of mine, I promise not to vomplain.

[Venturi Swirl]

I have been a mod on two forums, I have to say only one had a McCann thread. That was very different as its visitors  were mature, and presented a good agrgument. Hypothosis and opinions were acceptable but out right accusations were not. I only ever deleted two types of posts. 1 being nasty to other posters, making personal jibes and on the McCann thread for out right libel= direct accusation of killing.hurting their child. they could opine and have a theory- unpleasant as it was to read in some occasion but none the less interesting.

I do get it,how difficult it is to be a mod- to be fair, however I had respect as I never gave in to bullies. on either side of the argument.

This is a debating forum- Some cannot grasp how to conduct themselves in a debate on this McCann thread- when someone mentions an annomoly about parents story it is met with snipes (even encouraged by certain mods)  about the poster and no real effort to argue why the annomoly could be wrong- apart from it is every one elses fault.

I have also observed much to my personal annoyance the book burning attitude to some theads and posters. Sensorship is never a good thing- it is a fascist trait and should never be allowed to enter a free speech.

This type of post from VS is a cancer runing through the forum on some threads. I would delete this insulting,childish,bulllying behaviour on site, whether he is supporter or sceptic!
 
LOL at vomplaining, great new word.   


It would be an improvement if mods didn't add their little 'comments' about posters THAT is not their job.

some things to improve this forum:
1. stop the sensorship
2. remove personal jibes and snipes
3. impose the 'cites' request for all ,or remove that from the 'rules'

I am not going to dismiss the role of the mods- it is important and I appprecaite it- I have said this to John on  many occasions. It is the quality and having mods with integrity that is required. Something for one or two to work on with help from John  perhaps.


Just as an aside  do mods take on the role of admin OR is there am actual admin person who isn't also a mod?

Oh dear oh dear oh dear.  What ridiculous sanctimonious humourless  hyperbole is this?  So, now I’m like a cancer for laughing at “vomplaining”?  . And all this from a poster who herself delights in making rude, sneery sarky facetious posts herself!
Some of your many spelling mistakes in the above post raised a little chortle too you’ll be thorughly outraged and indignant to know.  Sorry.  My bad.  Naughty cancer, me. 

[G-Unit]

Oh dear oh dear oh dear.  What ridiculous sanctimonious humourless  hyperbole is this?  So, now I’m like a cancer for laughing at “vomplaining”?  . And all this from a poster who herself delights in making rude, sneery sarky facetious posts herself!
Some of your many spelling mistakes in the above post raised a little chortle too you’ll be thorughly outraged and indignant to know.  Sorry.  My bad.  Naughty cancer, me.

Was it really so amusing? I suspect there was another motive for highlighting my typing error.

[Brietta]

Just ruminating or even chewing the cud ... is it fair to have a thread questioning moderation without the balance of one for questioning members?

Anyway ... this one appears to be a great success ... NOT !!!

How many valid on topic questions of anything at all referring to moderation or by definition moderators have actually been posted?

[Eleanor]

Just ruminating or even chewing the cud ... is it fair to have a thread questioning moderation without the balance of one for questioning members?

Anyway ... this one appears to be a great success ... NOT !!!

How many valid on topic questions of anything at all referring to moderation or by definition moderators have actually been posted?

That wouldn't be allowed while Moderators are fair game.

[G-Unit]

Just ruminating or even chewing the cud ... is it fair to have a thread questioning moderation without the balance of one for questioning members?

Anyway ... this one appears to be a great success ... NOT !!!

How many valid on topic questions of anything at all referring to moderation or by definition moderators have actually been posted?

You sound like you've taken to living in a field and eating grass, Brietta. 

You mention fairness, but surely you realise that the relationship between members and moderators isn't one of equality?  Moderators have powers which give them an advantage over members.

I think some valid points have been raised, even if they haven't been answered.

1. Deletions
2. Restoring deleted posts.
3. Moderator Bias
4. Cites
5. Rules
6. Too much moderation?
7. Public/off topic arguments

I think that's pretty good for a thread covering just 5 pages.

[Eleanor]

It sounds to me as though you all would rather not have any moderators at all.

[G-Unit]

That wouldn't be allowed while Moderators are fair game.

Moderators have volunteered to ensure that all members keep to the rules of the Forum. If you poke your head above the parapet you should expect to be shot at in my opinion. As long as you are confident that your moderating is fair, unbiased and in accordance with forum rules there's no need to feel like anyone is attacking you personally. 

[Brietta]

You sound like you've taken to living in a field and eating grass, Brietta. 

You mention fairness, but surely you realise that the relationship between members and moderators isn't one of equality?  Moderators have powers which give them an advantage over members.

I think some valid points have been raised, even if they haven't been answered.

1. Deletions
2. Restoring deleted posts.
3. Moderator Bias
4. Cites
5. Rules
6. Too much moderation?
7. Public/off topic arguments

I think that's pretty good for a thread covering just 5 pages.

1. Deletions. … Which of your posts have been deleted unfairly?
2. Restoring deleted posts. … Which of your posts have been restored?
3. Moderator Bias. … Please give examples or an example of moderator bias.
4. Cites … What is your problem?
5. Rules … Haven’t you read them?
6. Too much moderation? … Please give examples or an example illustrating your concerns
7. Public/off topic arguments … Please give examples or an example illustrating your concerns.

[Brietta]

It sounds to me as though you all would rather not have any moderators at all.

I don't know if I would quite go as far as that Eleanor.  I don't think there would be any objection to a board balanced to suit any particular complainant's bias ... but I think gunit would shed no tears for me and thee did we decide to quit and apply to Jill Havern's with our CV's for a home.

[G-Unit]

It sounds to me as though you all would rather not have any moderators at all.

One member seems to want a free for all, but I'm sure most accept that moderation is necessary. Preferably of the highest quality with clear unbiased enforcement of the rules.