No longer a question specifically for Jock

[Steve Ashton]

Jock,


Within the current controversial thread in the General Kilt Talk forum you yet again suggest that an additional or different forum section is needed on X Marks.

In looking back on your posts I find that you have made this same suggestion multiple times.

I was also struck with the fact that you have not once brought your ideas to the Forum Staff nor posted your ideas to this, The Comments and Suggestions section.

I seems that you only bring this issue up within other threads that deal with an action by the Staff that you feel limits the rights of members to post.

If this is such an important issue with you I am at a loss why you have never brought it before the staff.


So I’m going to give you the benefit of doubt and offer you an opportunity to present your case here on the open forum.


Would you please tell me what issue you feel is so important to the members of this kilt forum, so missing from this forum that it should have a new forum section created.

[Jock Scot]

Actually Steve, I far as I can recall given a fallable memory, I have never once asked for a new forum,(on reflection, I may have done by asking for a seperate weapons forum, if I did not, I certainly supported the idea, even though it falls short of what it could be) and in the just recent thread if you care to read my posts there, I most certainly have not asked for a new forum. What I have done in the past and just recently, is ask for an adjustment in the present forums rules so as not to stifle an interesting,or, important topic that I considered, as did others, that the conversation, went beyond the xmarks rules. I note in that recent thread that a couple of times a mod and I think you yourself hinted that perhaps "war crimes" could have been discussed in the misc. section within the present rules and funilly enough I was going to check my facts(I have not), before contemplating a question about it ,as there does seem some confusion over what we can and cant discuss in that particular section.

I have indeed discussed privately with a mod in the past about a particular issue, I cannot remember whether I started the conversation or he did, but many lengthy conversations were had over that matter. I would like to think that I was of minor assistance to the website even though I did not get many suggestions taken up! There were a couple of other issues that in the dim and distant past where I have had similar private discussions with mods over a couple of other issues and again, I hope that my imput may have been helpful.

Off the top of my head, the only other topics that I have publicly been involved with suggestions, twice I think, was about traditional kilts where the conversation flowed about how to define "traditional" and weapons from time to time and most certainly I had more than a fair bit to add to those conversations! But of course there may be more that I have become involved with, but I honestly cannot remember.

Let me assure you I do not go out of my way to cause you or the website angst, but on an opportunistic basis, when I can see that the wording of a rule is stifling the conversation, and if I can see that a wee touch on the tiller could make things better, then indeed I do suggest and even ask if the mods and you, to consider a rule change---------within the existing forum-----------, exactly as I did in the war crimes thread(see my post 36"war crimes" thread and particularly can I draw your attention to the last four words). I see nothing wrong in asking and "striking whilst the iron is hot" as it were. I can't honestly say that I recall ever considering the members rights aspect. After all, when we become a member here we do surrender some of our rights, by agreeing to the forum rules. That does not mean that we cannot find a way to improve those rules though.

Whilst typing this, I seem to recall that I did indeed make a suggestion in the appropriate place, there may be more, I don't know. In Hanks time, I think, there was a proposal that was indeed actioned briefly, to axe the then vintage(?) pictures section. I think, I could be wrong, it was me that started a plea for it to be reinstated which indeed it was.

Frankly I don't know what else I can say, I have tried to give honest answers to honest questions and if it helps then I shall be pleased. If you need answers to more questions, or clarification, then I will do my best to oblige. I have to say, I do get the distinct feeling and I have had it for some time that either you do not understand what I am saying, or you fail to read properly what I have said and your last question does appear to confirm it. If its the former, then I must try harder and of course you could just ask me to clarify my position. Just as you are now.

[tripleblessed]

While I am not Jock Scot, therefore by my very personhood possibly construed as off-topic, I feel moved to say
here that often I have been assailed, reviled, or castigated here in terms which made it clear that although the person
clearly had my words in front of their eyes, they had not READ them. Or at least, had not processed the actual
English, or American English, at least (having performed Shakespeare and having friends in the UK, I agree there
is room, at times, for confusion) meaning of those words. Jock has been kind enough to work through with some
of us our misunderstandings of something he has said. I think at least part of what is relevant here is that occasionally,
further discussion is required to determine what was meant. If someone jumps immediately into offended mode,
it may become impossible to determine through the haze of verbiage that that wasn't said, or even "yes, that's
what I said, but in light of your response , it's not what I intended or attempted to say".

[tripleblessed]

Steve, I would be sadly remiss here if I did not point out how very aware I am and others here are of your seeming virtually
infinite patience, and ongoing genial nature under pressure. The joy we have in participating here is directly downstream
of your indulgence. You have said you love your job, and I will always be grateful for what you have made possible in
my life. The forum adds to all of my life. Thanks.

[TheOfficialBren]

This post was not addressed to me. Pardon my intrusion.

[Father Bill]

Bren, if you flag that thread, I'm sure it will be dealt with. Telling us that there is one and pointing us to it are very different things.

Father Bill for the Forum Moderators

[Steve Ashton]

I really wanted to have a conversation with Jock about forum sections but as other issues have been brought up I need to answer them

Bren.

Yes, the two posts did reference the same youtube video. Please consider that there is more to a post than just an embedded link.
What did the author of the post say? What words did they use? How did they phrase their comments?

It is very possible to have two different posts that both contain the same embedded link but one also contains profanity, or denigrates someone or any of 12 other things that would bring it, via a flag, to the attention of the staff.

Please remember and consider that the reason one post may not be suitable, while another is, may not have anything to do with the obvious bubject of the post.

[TheOfficialBren]

This post was not addressed to me. Pardon my intrusion.

[Steve Ashton]

So there is no confusion I am going to quote you Jock.

"then indeed I do suggest and even ask if the mods and you, to consider a rule change---------within the existing forum-----------"

How do, or would, you envision such a change? What rule would you change and how?

[Jock Scot]

No problems and no confusion there Steve.

I am afraid that I am a bit tied up at the moment and will not be able to reply until tomorrow-----late tomorrow probably, but rest assured I am on the case.