Thinking of Leaving

[Cowher]

snip...We are governed by its provisions. It is our "good book."

Because of the fact that I can't see your face or hear tone of voice. What is ment by this comment? More precisely the last part.

[Jock Scot]

We have a saying:-"get two Scots in a discussion and you will get three opinions" and on the whole, that is a fair description!

A lot has been said on this thread and perhaps some of it needed saying, but after over a hundred posts and rising, not one would trouble a moderator too much.Well done.

Alright none of us are perfect and if something needs a "touch on the tiller",well lets do it. But before we do start to tinker with things let us all please remember that this website is still the best there is, in spite of its imperfections and there are some, which compared with some of the other websites that I have looked at, pale into insignificance! However that does not mean that there is room for any us to be complacent, neither does it mean that we make changes just for the sake of change.

I have no doubts that Steve and the Moderating team are reading these posts very carefully and we can only hope that they are taking note of what is being written to make appropriate adjustments that they see fit, for all our benefit.

[Zardoz]

It's been said that the current system of the mods reacting to member input is better than the "old system" where mods moderated proactively based on the preset rules.

I tend to disagree. Under the old system sometimes the moderation seemed a little arbitrary, but I think as we came to know the mods and where the limits were, and could police ourselves and new members pretty well.

My issue with the current "reactive" system is that it allows for abuse by people who may just want a topic shut down for whatever reason. It puts the initial act of interpreting the rules in the hands of the interested parties, instead of the neutral moderator. It's almost a feeling of "Mob rule" vs. "Moderation"...
A few times I've seen threads I've been following disappear and pop up in the cooler, but sometimes on review of the offending thread I personally just couldn't find the offense based on our rules.

As has also been said, I perceive that the forum has become less vital because folks are holding or watering down their comments for fear of offending the mob.

[sydnie7]

Sydnie7, I did not call you a whiner. If you look at the context of the post, I was referring to those who take offense at other's words, just for the sake of being offended. This is where creating a thicker skin comes in....

I know you did not call me a whiner. I was asking why you would call anybody a whiner for reporting a post that, in their opinion, violated the rules.

Ah, the joys of communication on the Internet, where words that seem clear when typed can so easily be misconstrued. . .

[Burly Brute]

All to true gentlemen, but keep in mind that most of us are Scots and as such we seem to be genitically inclined to disagree. We have disagreements with our friends in the real world, but we don't abandon them. Let us all agree to thicken our skins. If it appears, as speculated that there is one or two people who are taking offense at the littlest thing and creating problems for the rest of us, we should ostersize them and not abandon the rest.
A suggestion to the moderators: Keep a list of who complains, even if it is just to share between all of you. If one name comes up too frequently, you can deal with that person as a whiner, instead of interfering with the enjoyment the rest of us get from the treads.

How dare you! We do not disagree!!!!

Haha

[BEEDEE]

As an example for possible adjustment - not by the members, but by Steve who, as I have stated, bears the fiscal responsibility for the site, and with the advice of those whom he trusts, I would question, for example, the last part of Rule #5 which says that we can't compare political systems. As an example only, I will state right now that Canada has a Parliamentary Consititional Monarch, whereas the United States of America is a Republic.

Now technically that is a comparison, so I suppose that I should now be censured but I did not make any value judgement on either of those.

Bill, as one of the moderators during the transition to Steve's ownership I can only tell you that an agonizing amount of time and effort went into drafting the rules. Taking Rule #5 as a typical example:

Discussions espousing one particular religious belief or political system over another or comparison of one belief or system to another will not be allowed.

Note - there is no comma before ..or comparison... The rule specifically addresses Discussion so your statement does not contravene the rule. Nor does it espouse one particular system (espouse - to take up and support as a cause). Now if someone was to take your statement and turn it into a discussion that said the Canadian system is superior to the American (or any other) political system, then the rule would be in effect.

Take a look also at the reporting system. It is individual posts that get reported, not threads. Unfortunately, some get too quick with the Enter key and post follow on's that result in the entire thread or several posts being closed.

So my suggestion to all is be familiar with the rules, read them, understand them, and respect them for what they are, the laws that govern this fine forum.

Brian

[McClef]

Because of the fact that I can't see your face or hear tone of voice. What is ment by this comment? More precisely the last part.

I was making comment upon your words below:

I also was a mod at a forum. I found that using a guide that I learned from a really good book worked well. I can't say what good book because I don't want my post to be reported.

Mentioning a good book doesn't get one reported. Many books contain rules and guidelines and on X Marks our rules and guidelines are as I outlined. That does not preclude principles being applied from elsewhere that do not conflict with these.

Yes sometimes words need tones of voice and facial expressions but I didn't think when I posted that this would be required.

Guess that could be part of the problem as these discussions are showing too.

[Dale-of-Cedars]

If it appears, as speculated that there is one or two people who are taking offense at the littlest thing and creating problems for the rest of us, we should ostersize them and not abandon the rest.

Osterizer

[mookien]

bdkilted and Dale-of-Cedars: Not a bad idea. :-)

[McClef]

Ah but you wouldn't know whom to ostracise because we won't tell you who they were to begin with.

Not even several cases of Single Malt and/or Plymouth Naval Gin would make the majority of us break the seal of confidentiality!