So, how exactly does this work?

[Lena]

Does the thread gets locked by moderator just because she / he feels like it?

I am new here, so am trying to find out how this works.

Lena

 

[Cal]

I have to say that I found it interesting that in a thread where people were advocating that overweight people should show "some self-discipline" that those who were no longr interested in the discussion couldn't self-restrain themselves from reading the thread and asked for the thread to be locked. :

 

[brewer12345]

You had a whole chorus of people suggesting that the thread be declared "done", not just moderators. I am pretty darned sure you were out-voted, and one of the mods just did their job.

Sorry, but that's how it is in Dory's Benevolent Despotism.

If you are that unhappy about it, you can start a new thread where you can blame fat people for the world's ills. I hate them because rainbows don;t have pots of gold at the end. How about you?

 

[REWahoo]

Lena, although any moderator can lock any thread at any time, it isn't done that way. In this case, several posters requested the thread be ended. The moderators conferred and agreed it was time to call a halt to what, after 22 pages, had become a circular discussion.

As you said, you came late to the thread and although it might have been fresh to you, it certainly wasn't to anyone who has been reading the forum on a regular basis.

 

[Lena]

I would think that we are all big girls and boys around here and if the topic gets exhausted, the thread would just die on it's own.

I guess I was wrong.

Lena

 

[sgeeeee]

I would think that we are all big girls and boys around here and if the topic gets exhausted, the thread would just die on it's own.

I guess I was wrong.

Lena

Lena,

I disagreed with your obesity posts, but I agree with your point in this thread. I think we are often over-moderated here. It's usually not too offensive, and the moderators tolerate my continued sniping about their over zealous efforts. As a result, I still enjoy the forum most of the time and keep coming back. I hope I can join you again in the future with another plea for less moderation.

 

[Lena]

Sgeee,

at least we agree on something. I think it could be a beginning of a beautiful friendship.

Lena

 

[Nords]

I would think that we are all big girls and boys around here and if the topic gets exhausted, the thread would just die on it's own.
I guess I was wrong.

I disagreed with your obesity posts, but I agree with your point in this thread. I think we are often over-moderated here. It's usually not too offensive, and the moderators tolerate my continued sniping about their over zealous efforts. As a result, I still enjoy the forum most of the time and keep coming back. I hope I can join you again in the future with another plea for less moderation.

Hey, folks, other users just like you found the thread objectionable. I notice neither of you did much to improve the quality of the discourse but now you're all over the moderation.

As much as we love getting customer feedback, we don't seek to wade through cesspools of it. Walk a mile in our shoes... or go start a board filled with the people you feel happy with.

 

[Lena]

Nords,

You keep seeing things in my posts that are just not there. First, you accused me of attacking posters, yet didn't respond when I asked you to elaborate. Now you are suggestiing that I "all over the moderators". How, exactly?

Is it absolutly forbidden around here to question ideas and actions?

Lena

 

[Martha]

I think REWahoo covered it.

Rarely are threads locked. But this one was going around and around and around. I know it was rude to get the last word in, but heck, I started the thread by carving out Al's post.


Lena, you raised exactly the same points as Lets Retire and a few others did on the obesity thread more than a week ago. It could be you are feeling picked on because you were late to the thread and people had tired of hearing the same old thing over and over again. Both from me and from people who said things similiar to what you said.

Nevertheless, you aren't so innocent here either. In response to a person who encouraged us to be our brother's keeper you said: "it's good to know that people are OK with complete lack of personal responsibility. Can't wait to see where we'll be in the next 10-20yrs." That type of post doesn't, as Nords said, "improve the quality of the discussion." I see it as baiting. I don't see it as "questioning ideas and actions."

Also, it is no fun to present ideas to naysayers, who only want to say it won't work and who don't offer any ideas of their own.

 

[HFWR]

I have no issue with the moderators or the level of moderation.

As for banning posters or stopping/limiting discussions, I'm usually content to let the chips fall where they may. Let sleeping trolls dogs lie...

 

[donheff]

I didn't join in on the chorus but I welcome the closure. After 22 pages it was just too difficult to follow. As Brewer said, anyone who feels a topic isn't exhausted can raise it (or a slightly different offshoot) in a new thread. God knows we do it all the time with annuities.

 

[Lena]

Martha,

I didn't really feel picked on. My skin is way thicker than that.

I've been reading this forum for a few months, may be a bit more, and just didn't expect such reactions.

Anyway, my question has been answered, so thank you.

Lena

 

[azanon]

I would think that we are all big girls and boys around here and if the topic gets exhausted, the thread would just die on it's own.

I guess I was wrong.

Lena

(and)

I didn't really feel picked on. My skin is way thicker than that.

Sorry I came in on this thread late, but i was curious if the puns were intended Lena?

Azanon

 

[sgeeeee]

Hey, folks, other users just like you found the thread objectionable.

And some didn't. I find a lot of the threads objectionable. When I do I choose either to engage in the discussion or ignore it. I don't need a librarian burning books and I don't need a volunteer moderator deciding what is objectionable to me.

I notice neither of you did much to improve the quality of the discourse but now you're all over the moderation.

Your value judgement. I thought I got some clever comments in there. I guess I have different values than you. Maybe that shouldn't be allowed.

As much as we love getting customer feedback, we don't seek to wade through cesspools of it.

Then don't. I often choose not to wade through your long posts. I don't request that they get shut down.

Walk a mile in our shoes... or go start a board filled with the people you feel happy with.

Dory's board. Love it or leave it!!!

If you think the work is too hard, do less of it. That's all I'm suggesting. Stop trying to control the content and flow of the board and let it run it's own course.

 

[sgeeeee]

I think REWahoo covered it.

Okay. But that seemed like a weak reason to me.

Rarely are threads locked. But this one was going around and around and around.

And that was unacceptable because . . .?

I know it was rude to get the last word in, but heck, I started the thread by carving out Al's post.

So why be rude? Why not just walk away from the thread and leave it to someone else either to take the last word or keep on adding them? What did you save us from by shutting the thread down?

Lena, you raised exactly the same points as Lets Retire and a few others did on the obesity thread more than a week ago.

[sarcasm]Oh my god!! Repitition? That does need to be stopped by any means.[/sarcasm]

It could be you are feeling picked on because you were late to the thread and people had tired of hearing the same old thing over and over again. Both from me and from people who said things similiar to what you said.

Surely a smart attorney sees the fallacy of this line of reasoning. You had to protect us from this awful repetition. If you didn't put a stop to it, we would all be pulled into the thread and forced to read it forever. None of us who were tired of hearing the same thing over and over again would have had the sense to stop.

Nevertheless, you aren't so innocent here either. In response to a person who encouraged us to be our brother's keeper you said: "it's good to know that people are OK with complete lack of personal responsibility. Can't wait to see where we'll be in the next 10-20yrs." That type of post doesn't, as Nords said, "improve the quality of the discussion." I see it as baiting. I don't see it as "questioning ideas and actions."

This is very offensive. You and Nords apply your value judgements to other's reasoning and decide what "improves the quality of the discussion". If improved quality of discussion is what we're after, you need to withdraw a number of statements in this post.

Also, it is no fun to present ideas to naysayers, who only want to say it won't work and who don't offer any ideas of their own.

Ahh. That's the standard -- are we entertaining you and Nords?

In reality, none of this bothers me much. I do think that the moderators on this board often take themselves way too seriously. I find it a little offensive when one of them runs off a poster simply because he/she is less than polite and ticks off a regular poster or two. Based on that criteria, JohnGalt, CFB, Cutthroat and Brewer would have been run off thousands of posts ago. (me too, obviously). I also find it a little offensive when you shut down threads to save us from wasting out time or because the discussion is no longer fun for you and a few regulars. If people are posting, why does it matter if it entertains you? Your rationalizations for these actions seem pretty weak. Take less action and see what happens. My guess is the sky won't fall.

 

[Zathras]

I applaud the moderators. They rarely lock threads and that had just degenerated to the point of uselessness.
It was the same points over and over. Many responses were simply jokes at how the thread won't die

I think there are a few times where a good forum needs a little trimming. If I disagreed with that or a forum was having many threads locked I would simply move on.

 

[sgeeeee]

I applaud the moderators. They rarely lock threads and that had just degenerated to the point of uselessness.
It was the same points over and over. Many responses were simply jokes at how the thread won't die

I think there are a few times where a good forum needs a little trimming. If I disagreed with that or a forum was having many threads locked I would simply move on.

Well as long as you're happy . . . I suppose other's opinions just aren't important and can be ignored. Maybe we should have a poll and decide whose opinion matters and whose does not. Or is that priviledged information?

 

[azanon]

I agree with Zathras. If anything, the mods are sometimes a bit too lenient. Case and point; To my knowledge, I have yet to manage to get a thread locked by my posts.

 

[sgeeeee]

This reminds me of a book I read several years ago titled, "Changing the Bully that Rules the World". A major point that the book makes is that it is very difficult to change the policies and practices of those in power. It points out that those in power (the book refers to them as bullies) would have no power without supporters (the book refers to them as lackeys). But the world has far more supporters than independent thinkers. There are always lots of people willing to jump to the defence of the bullies because that is a quicker and more certain path to recognition than opposing those in power. In fact, opposing power often leads to being ostracized.

So, for example, if someone says to the bully, "I don't like it when you hit us over the head with a club," there will always be a number of lackeys who quickly point out that they don't mind being hit over the head. It doesn't hurt that much and they probably deserve it. Notice that their statement does nothing to negate the original claim that someone doesn't like it. The statement of the lackey is designed only to endear themselves to the bullies.

I don't know why this thread reminds of that book.

 

[HFWR]

Hey!! Us spineless jellyfish resent being called "lackeys"...

Take it back, you big brute...

I vote to lock this thread...

 

[maddythebeagle]

As OAP would say....there might be too many modulators.....

 

[Nords]

You keep seeing things in my posts that are just not there. First, you accused me of attacking posters, yet didn't respond when I asked you to elaborate.

I was content to drop the subject, but we'll pick it up again.

Your comments to Martha...

Is this what you are referring to? Interesting.
How are you going to get people to sign up? And if you do get people to sign up, what happens when they gain it back again? More deductions? More free stuff?
Martha, you are very respected on this board, your intelligence was mentioned by a few posters, and I've only been here two minutes, but how realistic are you ideas?

... strike me as a lot of critical questions about her proposal without any constructive alternatives or proposals of your own. IMO asking someone you hardly know "how realistic" their ideas are is an implication that you think their ideas aren't very realistic. It might even be construed as bordering on inflammatory.

Now you are suggestiing that I "all over the moderators". How, exactly?

I would think that we are all big girls and boys around here and if the topic gets exhausted, the thread would just die on it's own.
I guess I was wrong.

You & SG agreed with each other that the board is "over-moderated" despite, as we moderators pointed out, numerous "Report to moderator" alerts from other users. I think you're too quick to be critical of the moderators and of the other posters, especially if you're still "new here". If you're new here then perhaps it's better to sit back and watch for a while before jumping in and subsequently criticizing the results.

Is it absolutly forbidden around here to question ideas and actions?

I'll take that as rhetorical but I still feel it's provocative. Plenty of new members join in here with no problems. Based on the numbers, if you're having a problem with me then I suspect that the cause of the problem is not necessarily me.

You're new here so I won't be quick to judge, but I'll point out that the types of questions you're asking have, in the past with other posters, been associated with trolling behavior. Because of that I'm not going to discuss these particular questions again on the board. If you don't think we're done yet then you're welcome to continue the discussion with me via PM or e-mail.

And some didn't. I find a lot of the threads objectionable. When I do I choose either to engage in the discussion or ignore it. I don't need a librarian burning books and I don't need a volunteer moderator deciding what is objectionable to me. Your value judgement. I thought I got some clever comments in there. I guess I have different values than you. Maybe that shouldn't be allowed.

Hey, months ago when this place was turning into a Yahoo! clone I found a lot of the threads to be objectionable too. When the opportunity was offered to everyone, including you IIRC, I volunteered to be a moderator.

You may not need a flame-throwing librarian either but some of the posters feel it's necessary. We're going with the feedback we get, and if you choose not to participate and to not provide feedback then you get just as much out of it as you put into it. If you don't need moderation then... well... maybe you don't need this board either. Tough call. You bring up good points in your posts and you make a contribution here. I'd hate to see you more antagonistic or even leaving over a confusion between civil liberties & discussion boards.

The comments are/were clever. However our non sequiturs are pretty much the same value in all the threads, and this one had been clearly announced as a problem that didn't need more of that type of "contribution".

As for the values, well, I think Gene Hackman said it best in "Crimson Tide": "We're here to defend democracy, not to practice it!"

Dory's board. Love it or leave it!!!

You got it.

If you think the work is too hard, do less of it. That's all I'm suggesting. Stop trying to control the content and flow of the board and let it run it's own course.

The work's not hard-- it's the unappreciative criticism that I find unreasonable. I'm generally happy to be a moderator because I think it gives me an opportunity to support the board and to help keep it the kind of place I like to participate in. I get a lot of good information here, I can get a good answer to just about any question, and I feel that I've developed several close friendships. I'm not gonna let someone mess with that in the name of greater liberty for all. We can get all the liberties we want at M*, TMF, Yahoo!, and Usenet.

But, hey, you're welcome to appeal your user's agreement to Dory. I'm just a moderator!

A major point that the book makes is that it is very difficult to change the policies and practices of those in power.

Sure, especially if you choose to ignore what you object to or to not participate.

It points out that those in power (the book refers to them as bullies) would have no power without supporters (the book refers to them as lackeys). But the world has far more supporters than independent thinkers. There are always lots of people willing to jump to the defence of the bullies because that is a quicker and more certain path to recognition than opposing those in power. In fact, opposing power often leads to being ostracized.
So, for example, if someone says to the bully, "I don't like it when you hit us over the head with a club," there will always be a number of lackeys who quickly point out that they don't mind being hit over the head. It doesn't hurt that much and they probably deserve it. Notice that their statement does nothing to negate the original claim that someone doesn't like it. The statement of the lackey is designed only to endear themselves to the bullies.

Somehow when you set up the strawman like that and hurl hand grenades at it, the system seems so wrong!

But when you call it "majority rules", then IMO it becomes a "representational democracy".

SG, I spent the last half hour putting this together to make sure you understand where I'm coming from. I'm doing that because I respect your input and your choices, even if I think at least one of them is no basis for criticizing the moderation.

But if my choice is to see someone of your status & quality regrettably driven away by your feelings over that moderation, or to watch the whole board go downhill because someone like you objected to the moderation, then I'll favor the board over you every time...

 

[sgeeeee]

Hey!! Us spineless jellyfish resent being called "lackeys"...

Take it back, you big brute...

I vote to lock this thread...

Yes. Me too. I'm too weak willed and pathetic to simply stop reading and posting to this useless thread. Moderators, please save me from myself by locking this thread. And while you're at it, could you make me go on a diet?

 

[sgeeeee]

For those of you who read and moderate:

Carol Bly, "Changing the Bully Who Rules the World: Reading and Thinking about Ethics", Milkweed Editions, Minneapolis, MN, 1996.