Thread closing and reasons for it

[Mark]

There's arguments for both. Yes we can let them run and close if they become a problem, but it usually means a lot of work for myself and the moderators and a lot of upset and more often members deciding they don't want to post any more.

Or just close from the get go and avoid all the grief and then get stung for stifling debate.

[Mark]

Fair point. Perhaps we need better procedures. However much of the time myself and other mods are catching up in a spare 30 seconds so we don't always have the time.

[Mark]

But there's also the point that if two members are being insulting to each other they are often both deserving of points. Even if they are the ones using the reported posts function. This is how Daniel ended up leaving.

[airshifter]

Mark,

Just a suggestion that may work for some of the forums. I'm not sure how many issues you have in all the forums as I usually just read the F1 and Chit Chat sections, but I know both of them get heated at times.

Many years ago a forum I frequented went to using "anonymous" forum moderators. They were dealing with the same accusations of bias that are happening here, and IMO just as unwarranted. It seemed that going to anonymous moderators stopped that, the problem being that people took it personally when warned or given a vacation.

It also allowed the moderators to go about their normal activities on the forum without hearing a bunch of crap that they were biased due to their personal position on things. They even appointed moderators "behind the scenes" so in several cases nobody had any idea who the moderators were.



I'd like to think that as adults we could discuss any topic and remain reasonable and civil. Maybe as a forum we should help the moderators and become more self policing? I would personally have no problem with someone calling me out if they felt I had violated any forum rules or if they thought I was intentionally insulted someone. If we started banning certain topics, my gut instinct is that certain members would find a reason to argue about something else and start hurling insults regardless.

[slorydn1]

Mark,

Just a suggestion that may work for some of the forums. I'm not sure how many issues you have in all the forums as I usually just read the F1 and Chit Chat sections, but I know both of them get heated at times.

Many years ago a forum I frequented went to using "anonymous" forum moderators. They were dealing with the same accusations of bias that are happening here, and IMO just as unwarranted. It seemed that going to anonymous moderators stopped that, the problem being that people took it personally when warned or given a vacation.

It also allowed the moderators to go about their normal activities on the forum without hearing a bunch of crap that they were biased due to their personal position on things. They even appointed moderators "behind the scenes" so in several cases nobody had any idea who the moderators were.



I'd like to think that as adults we could discuss any topic and remain reasonable and civil. Maybe as a forum we should help the moderators and become more self policing? I would personally have no problem with someone calling me out if they felt I had violated any forum rules or if they thought I was intentionally insulted someone. If we started banning certain topics, my gut instinct is that certain members would find a reason to argue about something else and start hurling insults regardless.

Although I agree with your premise, and I appreciate the fact that you are looking out for us, I don't believe that would be such a great idea, in the long run i don't think the silent assassin model would work out for us.

I am thinking back to when I was just a member and the crew we had moderating back then. Some are still moderators today and are top notch, some, well, I'm not so sure I'd want to post something then get a message that I got points, or even ban and not know where it came from.

Keep this in mind. I could ban anyone I want to, at anytime, silently, and not even Mark would know it without going to look for it. And why would he go look unless the banned poster sent him a message wanting to know why he was banned. When he did go look, who would he come see to find out why the person was banned? Was it justified? Etc etc etc.

Not long after I first came here I got banned by a so called admin person who only had the level of authority he did because of the website he runs/ran (not sure if his site is even still in operation, I stopped caring when they started charging to read info I could readily obtain other places). Anyway what happened was we were having a spirited debate about something that happened in a particular Nascar race and he didn't like the way the thread was going (his fave was the topic of discussion). He started getting particularly ugly with a few members and you know what ALWAYS happens when one person starts throwing out a bunch of manure, it starts coming back his way. Keep in mind that he had NO tag by his name or in his profile that denoted that he was any more powerful than any other poster. All of a sudden I (and several others) found ourselves banned. Our moderator finally had to step in (along with Mark) and we all got unbanned forthwith, but it was ridiculous. So no, I am not in favor of moderators being anonymous.

Often times things can be resolved easily when someone sends a mod a pm and a mod can go look into the situation without having to go the whole deal, and if y'all didn't know who we were then Mark and Pino would be getting flooded with messages from people (as if they aren't already) just wanting simple information.

As for the main topic of this thread, here is my .02:

We, as moderators, are members just like the rest of you, but with a bonus. We get to have deal with the adults who want to act like babies. Not complainin, just stating a fact. When Mark made me moderator, I didn't trade in my opinion, nor my right to post them. I do take moderating very seriously and I have felt the need to tone down my method of discussing things I didn't agree with so that people wouldn't think I was abusing my authority. That sucks sometimes, because there are times the rest of you would be in for a real treat if you knew what I was REALLY thinking on a certain matters. Y'all may very well disagree with me, but y'all would be laughing (either at me or with me).

I stay out of chit chat, for the most part. Why? Because if I was there regularly we'd have a lot less people still eligible to post as I'd have banned alot of them. This is coming from a mod that (not including the spamming autobots) has banned maybe 2 people since becoming a mod 2 years ago. Hell, I'd probably have to ban myself as mad as I get at some of the lunacy I see in there.

Sorry I got so long winded, but I guess I just had to get it out there.

[Mark]

I'm not sure hiding ourselves away is a good idea but indeed the reality is that a forum like this which doesn't have any paid staff at all pretty much must be self policing. There simply isn't the resources to hold peoples hands or settle petty disputes all day.

[race aficionado]

People should complain at least once . . . maybe twice . . . but please don't whine.

Then leave if your too pissed off and come later if you wish. *We are still waiting for Daniel to finally pop up again, it's in his DNA.

Bottom line is that we are not paying one cent to be here, we have our free will to participate . . . or not, and for people like me, that have made this forum a part of our lives, I say thank you Mark and Co. for making this public space possible.

So now I go back to other things that are important in my life: watch some footy (Go Barca!) and then check to see how long it takes for my man Juan Pablo to maybe probably do something good in todays NASCAR race.

mokin:

[janvanvurpa]

But there's also the point that if two members are being insulting to each other they are often both deserving of points. Even if they are the ones using the reported posts function. This is how Daniel ended up leaving.

The question is "How should one respond to a snarling, possibly rabid dog?" Are we really expected to respond to some of the more notorious people with all sweetness and kind words? And my Estonian friend Studiose, if you think of the viciousness of what many of the "usual suspects" comments mean, "kill them all' "make the whole place into a glass parking lot (the place the entire Mid-East" etc what they are saying is inherently offensive, not just to the millions they suggest liquidating, but to any normal human with any sense of empathy..
No words to a person suggesting these sort of things can possibly be too much, it is not "Pot, meet Kettle when one says "Kill millions" and somebody else says "You are insane"..

I was raised and still believe we should treat others as we would wish to be treated and I can only presume that those who in every post express their hate, their xenophobia, their racism, and in general their contempt for the opinions and the person of others MUST want to be treated that way themselves, indeed I would be crazy not to.

In this last thread there was talk of the victims of gun violence, and the OP did not turn that thread into one more tired rant about "MY RIGHTs!!!!"

The heavily biased moderator Starter made numerous comments implying contempt and insults and about "inability to reason" and, obviously not cognizant of the callousness of what he was saying brushed off the death of innocent gun victims with "there'll always be accidents, you can't cure stupid"..
Starter equated being killed by a madman with "accident" and can't cure stupid"..

Are we supposed to respond to such callousness politely?

Shirley, you can't be serious.

[BDunnell]

The poster below has accused me of acting in a biased manner. I'd just like to clear a couple things up. It is true that I did delete two things from one of his posts. Both were obscenities which are against forum rules (and using **** in a word where the word is still easily recognizable is still not allowed).

I have on occasion done so and never been censured.

[slorydn1]

The question is "How should one respond to a snarling, possibly rabid dog?" Are we really expected to respond to some of the more notorious people with all sweetness and kind words? And my Estonian friend Studiose, if you think of the viciousness of what many of the "usual suspects" comments mean, "kill them all' "make the whole place into a glass parking lot (the place the entire Mid-East" etc what they are saying is inherently offensive, not just to the millions they suggest liquidating, but to any normal human with any sense of empathy..
No words to a person suggesting these sort of things can possibly be too much, it is not "Pot, meet Kettle when one says "Kill millions" and somebody else says "You are insane"..

I was raised and still believe we should treat others as we would wish to be treated and I can only presume that those who in every post express their hate, their xenophobia, their racism, and in general their contempt for the opinions and the person of others MUST want to be treated that way themselves, indeed I would be crazy not to.

In this last thread there was talk of the victims of gun violence, and the OP did not turn that thread into one more tired rant about "MY RIGHTs!!!!"

The heavily biased moderator Starter made numerous comments implying contempt and insults and about "inability to reason" and, obviously not cognizant of the callousness of what he was saying brushed off the death of innocent gun victims with "there'll always be accidents, you can't cure stupid"..
Starter equated being killed by a madman with "accident" and can't cure stupid"..

Are we supposed to respond to such callousness politely?

Shirley, you can't be serious.

I just went back through and read through the shootings thread again. I cant see the edits Starter made anymore but if he says they were insults than they were. Period. Case Closed.

So that only leaves the remaining posts and the only one I saw making implied insults was YOU.

Man, you guys never tire of repeating tired, worn out, platitudes with jack booted precision, do you?
Lett's be more precice;
Guns don't kill people, but they sure make it easier for PEOPLE to EASILY and RAPIDLY kill people, even insane people, even incompetent people, even drunk people GUNS MAKES IT EASIER for a stupid, drunk, insane, twisted WHIM to turn into a tragedy...

No if all the gun whack jobs would ONLY kill themselves when they get depressed or angry, then OK...

But for anybody to suggest there is not a deep and vast problems in USA with a murder rate 10 to 20 times most other civilised countries, shows the inability of many to reason..
And the use of cliches shows further disconnect from thinking...and a potential irrational person...

Let's see simplistic thinking, reliance on cliches, add firearms...... doesn't sound like a good mix to me.

Simplistic. Hmmm lets see. I am gun carrying citizen of the United States of America, the second ammendment gives me the RIGHT to do so (no rant, just fact). So now I am simplistic (I take that to mean "simple minded" which is a euphemism for "dumb" or "stupid."

I won't even go there about terms like "whack jobs" (since I really don't believe you were calling people like me, so therefore me a whack job) and how people who have to repeat "cliches" because they other people don't listen before going off on a tangent of their own means that they are somehow disconnected or in your words "irrational".

SO lets set aside that I completely disagree with you on the argument. In just 1 post you have managed to insult me (in your defense- without knowing it) several times over.

Yet you're going to come here and whine about an "implied insult" when some one uses the term "lets look at reality" in their post. REALLY!?!?!?!?!?!?!? <Slo scratches his head>


And please, don't call me Shirley....