Unless things has changed... you cannot PM a moderator. SEE HERE.

Quoting Alien Redrum:

Quote:
While I think Antares' new suggested guidelines is too lenient, I'm comfortable in knowing that I'm in the minority, and it's not that big of an issue for me to hash it out for stronger punishments. As long as some sort of moderation, moderation that is desperately needed is kicked in and followed through with, I'm happy.

There's a lot of back and forth here of who's to blame and such, but the bottom line is ~90% of the people who participated in the poll think that moderation is needed, regardless of who did what or said what.

+1

I'm not a big fan of "Me Too!" posts, but since the above pretty much sums up my feelings on the new proposal and some of what's going on, I figure I'll make an exception.

Maybe start a new thread and poll with this proposal? Just so we can get a feel for whether people feel this new one is closer to the mark.

Requesting this one to be locked at the same time would probably be a good idea too.

Quoting Astrakan:

Quote:
Maybe start a new thread and poll with this proposal? Just so we can get a feel for whether people feel this new one is closer to the mark.

Requesting this one to be locked at the same time would probably be a good idea too.

If you would like to do it, go right ahead. 

I'm done with it. Ken obviously is not going to weigh in on it, so I'm done wasting my time.

Quoting scotthm:

Quote:
Actually, that was a legitimate question.  The avatar referenced is in fact no less than trolling and would result in a warning as such on many forums.

By the way, though I support more stringent moderation, your proposal is too severe.

---------------

Actually, if he would have only posted the question then it would have been legitimate. But by adding the angry smiley, it became bait for hijacking the thread.

Valid point. However, let me also state that when i flag an insulting, attacking or in some other way opffensive remark and no action is taken on the remark. Well, then if I personally aggrieved i feel little choice but to defend MYSELF, and that may include an in kind response. I have even seen some cases where the response gets moderated while the original offender stays, now don't get me wrong, I know you are going to say two rongs don't make a right and that is absolutely correct. But, sometimes moderation as I have described also gives the impression of a double standard.

But as you have noted, Double, different people see things differently, blocking users is not an answer, it only harbors ill will and is simply a cowards (or a child's, your choice) way of avoiding an issue and actually trying to resolve. What one views as an offense someone else may not, then we have the problem (as I see it) with users who put much stake and energy into carrying a grudge..

I think in my own experience of 60 years and here in these forums, those that actually take the time to get to know me, and sometimes that includes phone conversations, will find me opinionated (always) but I think in general I am very easy to get along with. Or as I used to tell people that worked with me in a subordinate position, I can be your best friend or your worst nightmare and the choice is yours. Now some would say that sounds like an unfriendly person, and that could be correct, but while it sounds that way my employee turnover rate was always exceedingly low and i do mean low somewhere between 10 and 25% per year on staffs as big as 100 people. Typical turnover is a good bit higher than that. Lie I said the choice is yours, you can jump to conclusions and I promise you will be wrong

I am still amazed that Ken tolerates these kind of threads, since the people who start them are, in my view, some of the very worst offenders. But then it goes along with their desire to stifle what they view as bad behavior while ignoring their own.

Quoting LDH:

Quote:
Same thing again 8 pages of the same 10 or 12 users saying the same old crap and pounding down on one user.

Will it ever change NO, every week got to jump on someone and its always the same person. Of course most of you don't see it because your too busy planning your next attack.  

Well said Larry

Quoting Mark Harrison:

Quote:
Quoting Prof. Kingsfield:

Quote:

Why not Mark, people do it to me all the time. Big red arrow for Skip, is not the same thing. Have you ever condemned anyone for saying so...answer NO you have not. There is waord for your post.

It's OK for others but not Ok for you Skip, Mark that sis blatant hypocrisy. Havbe you condemend a anyone for any of the posts fired at me, oh hell no, not once, in fact you have taken few. Sorry, pal I don't buy into that game. If it's good for one it is good for all.

Mark:

As long as you believe that then we will get no where, Stalemate. I have not hammered you until recently when you took a bad turn. I have tried unilaterally disarming before, to no avail, it changed none of SNERT behavior. Thus I am no longer willing to disarm unilaterally, you people have caused far too much personal pain with your absolutely crass behavior. There are many users that are exempt from this, so I won't include everyone, but all too sadly from my point of view they get to watch the result of a bunch of users, like yourself, mark, who want to participate in a rugby with one user at the bottom of the pile.
For those of you that have played rugby you probably understand the simile, a rugby scrum can get very ugly.

Quoting Prof. Kingsfield:

Quote:
Quoting DoubleDownAgain:

Quote:

You say that you have my reviewed my posts and it appears that you still think they contain 'Personal Attacks', but then you go on to describe them as 'Respectful'?  I'll agree to the latter, I've tried to discuss what you posted, not you directly because like you said I don't know you.  I think you are reading into what I have posted a bit too much.  I've been a member for a long time but never posted until recently, but I've been lurking for years.  So while my posts may be new to you, I've seen yours for quite awhile.

I don't know that I would necessarily call them attacks, Double. But for someone like yourself and with out trying to insult, I think they are at the very least confrontational, paticularly since you have very limtted information upon which to make any kind of jdgement, let alon one that will anywhere near valid.

I don't think they're attacks either, Skip, and I do think that DoubleDownAgain has been sincere and as objective as a person can be in his comments.  That's not to say that his comments are perfect, but I do believe they are open, well-intended and minimally judgmental (on all sides).

As to his status as a poster and having limited information upon which to make judgments, I think that's debatable.  Like him, I've lurked on these boards for ages.  I made a small handful of contributions back in the InterVocative days (remember when only two contributors were listed and when crew meant Director?).  I remember your then-name "skipnet50" (if I remember right) on tons of contributions.  Accurately or otherwise, I have long seen you as one of the people that has helped make some aspects of this program much more sophisticated.  That's valuable, and to one degree or another I am therefore indebted to you and would not apologize to anyone for that. 

Regarding our own interactions, you responded briefly to one post I made a few days ago.  A couple years back I had a simple question and you were very helpful and PM'd me a response.  Since PMs cycle out, of course, I can't look it up to give a specific.  I appreciated the help and I thanked you in kind.

I'd say I check the "today's activity" in the forums compulsively several times a day (Note to Ken:  that's how badly I want the iPhone app).  I see all manner of behavior.  There are folks on here whose tones I don't approve of -- some of them are those who you perhaps correctly say are "against you" and some are "for you" and, truthfully, some ARE you.  Since I'm on the sidelines, though, I feel like I'm watching a bit through a telescope.  I don't memorize avatars, I don't memorize nicks/handles/whatever.  I've sometimes found myself wildly disagreeing with a statement and then wondering if this person is one I often disagree with.  In the real world I'm pretty worn out from judgmentalism -- my own and others'.

Such is such.

I've been troubled for the last few days, though, as all this bubbles over.  As I see it, I come from a similar place as DoubleDownAgain -- I've been around, but not in the fray.  It's' a personal choice, but I prefer it that way.  That said, I'm not in the dark.  I'm a fully functioning adult with pretty strong perception.  In the real world I'm generally seen as middle-of-the-road and open-minded.  Maybe those people are kidding themselves -- that's for me and my shrink to work out.  (Insert some sort of smiley there). 

Why does any of this matter here? 

Well, I want to make a comment on this matter.  I'm not in any camp, I have limited stake.  At the same time, I don't want to be misunderstood:  my motive is simply because this is on my mind.  A sharp response from you (or anyone here) will likely not get much response from me because, well... to quote a favorite Dylan tune:  "I hurt easy, I just don't show it / you could hurt someone and not even know it."

Skip, some of the people on here really aren't on any sides.  I'm not the only one.  Some of us -- maybe many -- are such habitual lurkers that we don't even know there are others around.  I don't know.  What I do know (or believe,  I suppose) is that some of the criticism that seems pointed at you is pointed at a number of posters.  Yes, you are a focal point, but perhaps because you respond vocally and a touch reflexively.  Sometimes your words -- whether you are right or wrong -- are abraisive.  You may not mean to be hurtful or condescending, but what you imply and what others infer are two separate things.  They are just as right in their minds as you are in yours.  When they sense they are being devalued, of course they may respond with hostility.  It's kind of how we're wired. 


There are some inconsistencies on all sides of this issue right now.  And while it seems this is about you, it isn't strictly, though through your unyielding tone it is becoming more and more about you on the surface.  I'm a big fan of words.  My only degrees are in the use and appreciation of them.  THe word "moderator" has been thrown around a lot.  Looking at the word it's hard not for me to focus on other variants of said word:  "moderate" and "moderation".  We often say "everything in moderation."  It's so much about neutrality or at least striving towards neutrality.  Lord knows objectivity is a goal, not a state of mind.  Forget for a moment about double standards -- whichever way they may or may not be directed.  Isn't the point of having a moderator very much to help remind people to be mindful of their tone?  I for one like the idea.  I don't like the idea that because I only have forty-some posts despite my decade using the program (or app, as the kids say these days) I may be devalued.  I'm saddened that some other people who I genuinely believe mean well are now appearing because we want to avoid putting more water under the bridge.

To segue out of here before I change my mind and not post this, let me rely on another quote from that same song:  "Lot of water under the bridge, lot of other stuff too. / Don't get up gentlemen, I'm only passing through".

Sorry this went on so long and if I mis-spoke.  I'm resisting the compulsion to edit.  Man, I love to edit.