Ilija, Bill, and thread closings.

[Flanny]

Warning, this is primarily to Ilija but made public so those referenced can read it (i.e. I'm not "talking behind anyone's back") Everyone else who choses to respond PLEASE keep it civil . This is not an argument or debate. It's a statement of facts and personal opinions that should have otherwise been a private conversation.

If anyone is already sick of this then please go to another thread without reading any further .

Ilija,

I was going to post this via PM but I don't want it said that I'm talking about anyone behind their back or that I'm afraid of others' responses:

That's why private messages are generally exempt from ignoring administrator/moderator comments. You warn them with a private message or with an announcement feature within a thread. Some BBS applications have the ability to post an "ADMINISTRATIVE ANNOUNCEMENT" on any thread and it overrides the ignore feature. Moderators can easily use that feature to warn the person they feel the need to 'admonish'.

Bottom line is the ignore feature is there for a reason which equates to nothing less than necessity by human nature. It's not a tool to be used against the person being ignored. This is a critical self-moderation tool for the person placing the "ignore".

The argument that someone doesn't have to read your posts doesn't hold water. That's like saying I don't have to be human, or a crack head doesn't have to do crack when free crack is sitting on the table next to him/her. Human nature will most usually fall to temptations even when the results are most assuredly disastrous, regardless of the temptation or circumstance. I'm trying to practice good morals but if a hot woman walks by in a bikini that shows me all her stuff I'll likely fall to temptations and drool. I may catch my self between one and 1900 minutes later but I still fail, then spend the next month in the 'dog house' while my wife cools down. (and that's a completely different discussion)

If you're going to offer to be a moderator it would help to balance your moderator "contributions" with your need/desire to socialize. If you're going to make non-moderator posts then it's only considerate to allow people the right to use the ignore feature to avoid exactly what happened on other threads.

Closing the thread about Bill is easily seen as an abuse of power, regardless of its legitimacy. You have the ability to close a thread when it's not going your way and you did, (again regardless of any legitimacy). In that same thread you've "insinuated" insults against Bill with your "begging" comments (I don't believe that was your intent, just pointing it out) but close the thread when the responses don't necessarily support you. It presents as a conflict of interest.

I'll be first in line to support your privilege of posting non-moderator posts. I'll also be first in line to say that if you choose to do so you shouldn't take away the average user's ability to ignore those posts. Why? Because the average user knows his/her potential reactions to you and your views/opinions that any moderator does. Don't take away a key tool in the user's ability to moderate him/herself If you feel the need to admonish a user that has you on ignore then do it via private message, administrative announcement, or have another moderator intervene.

Personally I can understand where Bill's frustration comes from. Joe constantly insinuated insults by comparing peoples' opinions to criminal behavior. He compared me to a Nazi and I let it slide but it was completely out of line, ESPECIALLY for a moderator. Thankfully he resigned his moderator post. You personally DO tend to post on virtually every single thread here. At least every thread I've read. That's your privilege, but if I find it annoying I should be allowed to block it so I can have a peaceful experience here with out falling to my human nature and offending you or others.

If a moderator cannot curb his/her feelings enough to stay out of the fray then allow an ignore that doesn't interfere with moderator responsibilities or, for the good of the board, that moderator should step down (as Joe did).

Look at Josh, I don't agree with about 60% of his views and about 90% of how he presents but the one thing I give him major credit for is his continued effort to be considerate of others when stating his views. It's not perfect but it's obvious he tries. He probably does a better job than I do in that area. That fact alone goes a long way in making me be able to tolerate and even enjoy his posts that I disagree with.

I'm sure I've probably rubbed quite a few folks here the wrong way but I do want to try to be considerate. That's why I posted a warning at the beginning of this and why I do continue to make efforts, however imperfect to consider others' reactions/feelings. I think I've unfortunately PO'd Lynn at least once and probably more but I do try to rectify things when I can.

Glen F

PS Sorry for this being public but I don't want it said that I'm talking behind peoples' backs. This would have otherwise been better suited for a private discussion, I know.

PPS Let me be the first to say that I think pretty much ALL the staff working on this board are doing a wonderful job, especially considering the time that's donated free of charge. This observation does not mean I do not see that. It's simply pointing out an area that can easily be rectified via available BBS features or personal maturity.

[Blade Wielder]

Just thought I'd...stick this in here.

[xman]

Glen,

Thank-you for your insightful comments and thoughtful intrperetation of the recent situations. If more people followed your suggestions this would be an even better place to hang around.

I think you're right. Regardless of an individual's opinions or ideas if they are presented with respect for differences we are contunuing to act gentlemanly. That is one of the traits we admire and encourage around here. Childish name calling, insinuations, acusations and derogatory remarks are designed to insite and that is bad behaviour which should be discouraged. If it can't be curbed then those members should be given their walking papers before they ruin our good thing.

Once again, thank-you so much for saying what needs to be said and putting it so eloquently. I, for one, appreciate it very much.

X

[LX_Emergency]

Just thought I'd...stick this in here.

I don't get the fork...I'm sorry but I don't. Can anyone explain that.?

[sensei_kyle]

I think he's saying it's time to stick a fork in it, it's done.

[LX_Emergency]

ah...right

[Redwoood]

Gee,

I know, guys, I haven't been around much lately (work,work), but this used to be such a friendly place. Especially compared to other internet forums out there, I always considered SRP to be the most friendly and civil, and not by a narrow margin either.

So, yeah, I hope even when there are a few misunderstandings here and there, everybody's still friends!

Where's the bunny with the pancakes? We've got the fork already, I'll bring the



Redwoood

[sensei_kyle]

Pancakes are served!

[Wildtim]

Fud

First of all let me state that I am not offended by anything in your post and there are many things in it that I agree with.

Here is the reason for my post.
I thought I would share some of my experience with other message boards. In particular the one where my wife is one of the Administrators. This board gets five times as many posts as this one but it has at least ten times as many moderators. The reason for this is because it allows moderators to discuss problem threads and to have each thread closed by a moderator uninvolved in the discussion at hand if necessary. Here we do not have that luxury, or thankfully the need. However I do think that makes it difficult for us to accept it when the closure of a thread is necessary as one of the moderators is likely to be involved. We as users also need to separate in our own minds when a moderator/user is moderating and when they are speaking and have the maturity to accept their authority as moderators no matter how heated our disagreements in a thread.

I do at times wish I could silence some voices when they become annoying or don't agree with me but the key idea behind a moderator is not to close threads and boot users it is to intervene as a discussion goes into dangerous territory and be the voice moderation gently nudging the thread back to safe territory. I have seen that done on this board by all the moderators past and present sometimes skillfully enough that the main participants appeared to be unaware of what had just been averted. For this to be able to function we need to be unable to not hear them when they must speak in this capacity and it must not be an obvious announcement, from on high as it were.

I hope this helps, I don't mean to seem confrontational if this sounds that way I am sorry, I just wanted to perhaps share some relevant experience and information ans hopefully neither offend or spark debate.

[xman]

We as users also need to separate in our own minds when a moderator/user is moderating and when they are speaking and have the maturity to accept their authority as moderators no matter how heated our disagreements in a thread.

Perhaps it is appropriate to have a dissemination between the two. For example, when a member who happens to be a moderator wishes to participate at a personal level, they absolve themselves of the right to 'moderate' including closing threads. A simple heads up to other Moderators could be enough to let them know that omeone else will need to be responsible for taking over the professional reins. I know I recently got irked whern a moderator closed a thread they appeared to be participating in. It was explained to me that they were following recently initiated procedures (hopefully ones that continue to evolve), but it would have been easier for me to accept if it were a different noderator stepping in.

X