Originally posted by RagnorakI don't understand how the actions of a person called 'Cackhead' have a bearing on this discussion i.e. why you bring this into the discussion. 'Who he' is an expression made famous by a British magazine called 'Private Eye'...it means I don't know who this 'Cackhead' person is ('Who (is) he?'😉.
I said that Phlab has to deal with idiots. You decided that the shoe fit yourself, so who am I to argue?
As for asterisks. Cussing using them was never allowed, a blind eye was turned to it. Russ has reiterated that using them to hide a cuss word isn't allowed. Scan through the forums and you'll notice that there are a lot of words hiding behing as ...[text shortened]... o keep in mind grammar and sentence structure this time. Cheers.
All the best,
D
What was hard to understand about that, and why the hostility?
Originally posted by darvlayI don't want to cause the moderators more work than necessary, so why should I contact all of them? What I had hoped for was that either one of those I approached would be the one who had banned me, or they would point me to the one who had.
I would call it approachable. The fact that the other mod replied and assisted you shows an approachable characteristic. You admit you've never spoken with the other moderators so maybe we already have a bunch of semi-approachable moderators but you just don't know it because you're too busy splitting hairs.
Originally posted by RagnorakI'm not sure people are calling for tighter moderation. I think the point is being made that it's either black or white - no moderation vs. tightly controlled moderation. I find the current 'compromise' solution a little unpredictable and inconsistent.
I'm mostly posting because I don't agree with people calling for tighter moderation
D
I would very much prefer no moderation - I think that's what a lot of us advocate. I can't emphasise enough that I do *not* want tighter moderation.
I repeat: I do not want tighter moderation. I would like to see no moderation. Then we can all, as adults, assess the post. If I read a post littered with profanity in a crass, unclever, unamusing way it would inform my assessment of that post.
Originally posted by ivangriceNo moderation is not an option as far as the Site Admins are concerned. So, by saying it's black or white between no moderation and tightly controlled moderation, you are, in fact, pushing the Site Admins to a policy of more moderation.
I'm not sure people are calling for tighter moderation. I think the point is being made that it's either black or white - no moderation vs. tightly controlled moderation. I find the current 'compromise' solution a little unpredictable and inconsistent.
I would very much prefer no moderation - I think that's what a lot of us advocate. I can't emphasis ...[text shortened]... profanity in a crass, unclever, unamusing way it would inform my assessment of that post.
Got it??
Originally posted by no1marauderOnly as far as you state no moderation is not an option 'as far as the Site Admins are concerned'.
No moderation is not an option as far as the Site Admins are concerned. So, by saying it's black or white between no moderation and tightly controlled moderation, you are, in fact, pushing the Site Admins to a policy of more moderation.
Got it??
As far as I'm concerned it's an option for me, and its peremptory rejection is disappointing.
Got that?
Originally posted by ivangriceYou've been told it over and over and over again; believe what you want. We've been here before and the result of stubbornness like yours is more moderation, as you've already helped acheive so far as "profanity" is concerned. Nice work.
Only as far as you state no moderation is not an option 'as far as the Site Admins are concerned'.
As far as I'm concerned it's an option for me, and its peremptory rejection is disappointing.
Got that?
Originally posted by no1marauderAlternatively I've opened up a debate on the nature of the moderation here.
You've been told it over and over and over again; believe what you want. We've been here before and the result of stubbornness like yours is more moderation, as you've already helped acheive so far as "profanity" is concerned. Nice work.
If we've been here before then why is this issue cyclical? The hoo-ha must die down until the issue of moderation inconsistency arises again.
Isn't it time address the underlying issues rather than periodically treat the symptoms?
1 edit
Originally posted by ivangriceYou're absolutely right. Let's moderate the hell out of this place and delete any thread which questions the moderators actions.
Alternatively I've opened up a debate on the nature of the moderation here.
If we've been here before then why is this issue cyclical? The hoo-ha must die down until the issue of moderation inconsistency arises again.
Isn't it time address the underlying issues rather than periodically treat the symptoms?
Problem solved.
Originally posted by ivangriceI quite frankly don't much care about "moderation inconsistency" as you call it; in a system regulated by human beings there will ALWAYS be some inconsistency. I don't think that greater "consistency" if it leads to less speech is a desirable state of affairs.
Alternatively I've opened up a debate on the nature of the moderation here.
If we've been here before then why is this issue cyclical? The hoo-ha must die down until the issue of moderation inconsistency arises again.
Isn't it time address the underlying issues rather than periodically treat the symptoms?
And one thought does spring to mind - there are many people here who want to see some form of moderation, however inchoate it is. But many of these same people are so downright uncivil in the way they communicate on these Forums, I wonder why they are so against the use of profanity...
No.1, is profanity that much worse than constantly belittling *every* person who holds a different opinion to you? Does this approach improve the Forum environment you appear to be so keen to protect?
(Awaits belittling reply).
1 edit
Originally posted by darvlayNo, no, I think you're right - let's keep the current fudge where people don't know what they can and can't say - it seems to be working so well.
You're absolutely right. Let's moderate the hell out of this place and delete any thread which questions the moderators actions.
Problem solved.
Originally posted by no1marauderOf course, no moderation at all would not reduce speech at all...quite the reverse.
I quite frankly don't much care about "moderation inconsistency" as you call it; in a system regulated by human beings there will ALWAYS be some inconsistency. I don't think that greater "consistency" if it leads to less speech is a desirable state of affairs.
Originally posted by ivangriceTHAT IS NOT AN OPTION as far as the Site Admins are concerned. You are simply being pigheaded to keep bothering to make such an "argument".
Of course, no moderation at all would not reduce speech at all...quite the reverse.
Your other post is what is wrong with your approach. I refuse to accept that the only options for the forums are Sesame Street or Lenny Bruce.