So, how exactly does this work?

[Mr._johngalt]

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?

Damn fine! Damn fine! Wish I had written it. I was thinking it but the
"moderators" already have me on their watch list.

JG

 

[Mr._johngalt]

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

Your comments to Martha...... 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.
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.
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.
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!"
You got it.
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!
Sure, especially if you choose to ignore what you object to or to not participate.
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...

With all due respect, I think you wasted your "half hour".

Seriously, I recognize the need for some sort of "moderator" system,
and you all know I love this board. However, locking a thread
(any thread) because a few people think it has "run on too long"
is pretty ridiculous. It's like the library saying: "Let's get rid of this book.
Too many people are reading it and it's a dumb book anyway."

JG

 

[azanon]

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.

I've been on both sides of the fence chief and trust me, you have far more power when you're not a moderator. As a moderator, you have to set an example. Read: there are a whole list of things you cannot do. We want to give them that power in the spirit of throwing them a bone so that these boards are maintained by someone else, and taken care of by someone else.

Step out of the box and try thinking beyond one dimension. We're the ones in the driver's seat.

 

[dory36]

We very seldom lock a thread -- probably less than once a year. This only happens when we get lots of complaints. We have only ever banned 3-4 participants (as opposed to spammers), and then after repeated pleas to be reasonable. Those who were here recall that the first to be banned was even given his own section of the forum for a while, and we bent over backwards to avoid what proved to be inevitable.

This is over-moderation?

Here is a quote by one poster:

Getting (insulted) posting something inocuous turns me off quickly, not only to the poster but to the thought of even bothering to come around here. I don't want to spend any of my energy dealing with it, have lots of better things to do.

Like it or not, sooner or later, it sometimes becomes necessary for the hosts of a party to ask someone to hold it down, or change the subject.

My thoughts...
http://early-retirement.org/forums/index.php?topic=9951.0

 

[brewer12345]

FWIW, when I lose interest in a discussion that goes in circles or simply isn't an interesting subject, I will often click on the most recent page of posts a few days later just to see where the discussion has gone. Most of the time, it has taken a big non-sequitur jump to another topic, and sometimes the morphed discussion is interesting. Occasionally, these lengthy threads have devolved into an increasingly nasty downward spiral of vcutting remarks, insults, and sniping (all of which I have been guilty of in the past). The obesity thread was one of the latter.

 

[Mr._johngalt]

We very seldom lock a thread -- probably less than once a year. This only happens when we get lots of complaints. We have only ever banned 3-4 participants (as opposed to spammers), and then after repeated pleas to be reasonable. Those who were here recall that the first to be banned was even given his own section of the forum for a while, and we bent over backwards to avoid what proved to be inevitable.

This is over-moderation?

Here is a quote by one poster:
Like it or not, sooner or later, it sometimes becomes necessary for the hosts of a party to ask someone to hold it down, or change the subject.

My thoughts...
http://early-retirement.org/forums/index.php?topic=9951.0

Hi Dory. I agree with you and it all sounds quite benevolent. It's
partly a "skin thickness" issue. Some people's feelings are easily hurt
and they take all criticism to heart. Others (like your faithful
correspondent here) are almost totally immune to any slings and
arrows. In other words, it's kind of like life and you can't protect everyone.
I don't think the board is "over moderated". I do believe there is a danger that the moderators will start to act like congress and believe they must
do "something" or they are not doing their job. Often the best course is to do nothing, as several other posters have pointed out.

JG

 

[dory36]

...I do believe there is a danger that the moderators will start to act like congress and believe they must
do "something" or they are not doing their job. Often the best course is to do nothing, as several other posters have pointed out.

I think we all agree with you, and I don't think we are at risk.

Other than moving the occasional ads for viagra and similar spam, the moderators have moved perhaps a dozen or so messages that were out of line -- out of over 175,000 posts. They have locked perhaps 4-5 threads, out of over 9750 threads.

That is less than 1 in 10,000 posts, and less than 1 in 2000 threads -- and never been because the topic was controversial or unpopular.

 

[Mr._johngalt]

I think we all agree with you, and I don't think we are at risk.

Other than moving the occasional ads for viagra and similar spam, the moderators have moved perhaps a dozen or so messages that were out of line -- out of over 175,000 posts. They have locked perhaps 4-5 threads, out of over 9750 threads.

That is less than 1 in 10,000 posts, and less than 1 in 2000 threads -- and never been because the topic was controversial or unpopular.

Well, based on those numbers, kudos appear to be in order.

JG

 

[azanon]

Some people's feelings are easily hurt
and they take all criticism to heart. Others (like your faithful
correspondent here) are almost totally immune to any slings and
arrows.

That was sarcasm, right? You were one of those that left.

 

[Mr._johngalt]

That was sarcasm, right? You were one of those that left.

Now my feelings ARE hurt if folks can't recognize my sarcasm, as
I use it a lot. Assuming it's a real question (and even though I already answered it - see my posts since my return). My feelings were not hurt
(almost literally impossible to do). I was bored. The hiatus renewed my interest
in the forum. I know the people here will view that as a mixed blessing.

JG

 

[azanon]

Now my feelings ARE hurt if folks can't recognize my sarcasm, as
I use it a lot. Assuming it's a real question (and even though I already answered it - see my posts since my return). My feelings were not hurt
(almost literally impossible to do). I was bored. The hiatus renewed my interest
in the forum. I know the people here will view that as a mixed blessing.

JG

I know what you said previously. I don't buy it though. Don't take it as some kind of serious accusation though; people get their feelings hurt sometime, and people sometime act on that. Its human nature and nothing to be ashamed about. I'm not being condesending either.

 

[Martha]

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

SG, Lena also asked why Nords said she wasn't contributing to the quality of the discussion. I gave my opinion. That opinion is separate from why the thread was locked. REWahoo described why the thread was locked.

 

[Martha]

Occasionally, these lengthy threads have devolved into an increasingly nasty downward spiral of vcutting remarks, insults, and sniping (all of which I have been guilty of in the past). The obesity thread was one of the latter.

Yes! You nailed it. And it was time for it to stop.

 

[Mr._johngalt]

I know what you said previously. I don't buy it though. Don't take it as some kind of serious accusation though; people get their feelings hurt sometime, and people sometime act on that. Its human nature and nothing to be ashamed about. I'm not being condesending either.

Okay. Here is the (ugly?) truth. I seldom get my feelings hurt
(not talking just here) because I put so little value on others
mental abilities/opinions generally. I know I am a polarizing
influence wherever I go on the earth. Hell, I've had people
I never even met in person (just e-mailed or phoned) decide
I was "difficult, overpowering, arrogant, domineering, pushy"
(these are actual comments folks).
It's like I said, when you dish it out like I do, you have to be able to take a punch.

JG

 

[brewer12345]

Okay. Here is the (ugly?) truth. I seldom get my feelings hurt
(not talking just here) because I put so little value on others
mental abilities/opinions generally.JG

Wow, you and Az appear to have an awful lot in common...

 

[donheff]

Wow, you and Az appear to have an awful lot in common...

Maybe they are alter egos of some third, as yet undisclosed, guy.

 

[sgeeeee]

It doesn't really matter how many moderators or how many posters were bored with this single thread. It doesn't really matter how many people thought the arguments uninteresting. Clearly, some posters did find the thread worthwhile and were spending their time reading and posting. Is the new criteria for allowing a thread to exist that a majority of posters still find it interesting? I think there are plenty of candidates for lock-down if that's the threshold for thread survival.

If you don't find a thread interesting, don't read it. How hard is that? How weak and pathetic are you? And why would you choose to support the action of lock-down? Is it because you were bored with the thread and didn't want anyone else to post? Do you believe that only your views should be represented? If other's were posting, then someone was interested. If their arguments were circular and boring, that's their business . . . isn't it? You can choose to ignore it. What about the thread required any of you to read the arguments you found so uninteresting and unworthwhile?

The moderators better lock this thread or come up with a more reasonable justification for this action. Otherwise, I fear this thread will turn into a circular argument that is uninteresting to many.

 

[brewer12345]

If you don't find a thread interesting, don't read it. How hard is that? How weak and pathetic are you? And why would you choose to support the action of lock-down? Is it because you were bored with the thread and didn't want anyone else to post? Do you believe that only your views should be represented? If other's were posting, then someone was interested. If their arguments were circular and boring, that's their business . . . isn't it? You can choose to ignore it. What about the thread required any of you to read the arguments you found so uninteresting and unworthwhile?

Its because we are all obese and therefore inclined to blame others for our problems. We love hHitler and Kim Jong Il, too.

 

[Sarah in SC]

Thank you SG, I agree on this point with you. I found the thread interesting.

I don't find any of the political threads interesting and I don't read them.
I would not suggest that they be censored. Similar to how I feel about the annuity threads, since I don't really need any new information on annuities, I skip them.

I generally ignore the rude and obnoxious posts and concentrate on the useful ones. It was, I must confess, rather motivating to hear from the sincere posters on the subject of obesity. It is a shame that it has turned into such a big, hairy deal.
Sarah

 

[sgeeeee]

Quote from: sgeeeee on October 10, 2006, 09:35:59 PM

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

Nords: You got it.


Sorry. I won't accept that one. My fealing is

Dory's board: Love it? Improve it.

I'll keep trying to do that until you force me off or I find I don't love it anymore. Don't expect me to stop complaining about over moderation when things like this happen.

 

[cube_rat]

I was one of those "pathetic" individuals who requested a padlock be thrown on the thread. Page 18 of the conversation was delivering the same message as page 10. The continous yammering on and on and on about points already stated numerous other ways was a waste of bandwidth. That's my opinion, which is OBVIOUSLY shared by others here.

 

[Cool Dood]

SG, maybe you need to develop a thinner skin.

 

[cube_rat]

SG, maybe you need to develop a thinner skin.

I actually enjoy reading sgee's posts. He appears witty, smart and knows how provide a good argument when provoked.

 

[sgeeeee]

I was one of those "pathetic" individuals who requested a padlock be thrown on the thread. Page 18 of the conversation was delivering the same message as page 10. The continous yammering on and on and on about points already stated numerous other ways was a waste of bandwidth. That's my opinion, which is OBVIOUSLY shared by others here.

I just hope you're sorry now.

OBVIOUSLY there are others that share my opinion too. Is this really a case where we want only majority opinion to be heard? Did it hurt you in some way to have others who disagreed with you continue posting?

As much as Martha was shocked and surprised by the attitudes being expressed on the obesity thread, I am shocked and surprised by the attitudes about this form of censure. I really don't understand the attitude some are expressing that seems to be: I was bored with the thread and did not find the arguments stimulating, so I wanted to make sure nobody else could post there.

Then there is the added attitude: Since we are in the majority (at least by post count) you have no viable argument to the contrary. That is really shocking.

Come on, folks. There was no good reason to lock the thread. Admit it and promise to try to better next time.

 

[brewer12345]

OBVIOUSLY there are others that share my opinion too.

Great. Then stop bitching and moaning and start an "Obesity II" thread. Then we can see all those people who were having a good time ranking on fat people. Then we can all laugh at the moderators and get on with life.