Yes, let's just lock everything up

[papsrus]

I almost got locked inside a thread once. Got out just in time. Close one.

[Jazzmoose]

In the past there usually has been a comment from Jim to the effect that "I think we've talked about this enough," etc., usually when it was quite clear that a topic had run its course, or that a poster or group of posters were simply running on in a way that was very counterproductive and/or irrelevant--or that the thread itself had become utterly toxic and destructive to the larger purposes of the board.

I didn't get that feeling this time around. It seemed to me more of a "I don't want to hear the criticism". Nothing was talked through.

As for the post of Allen's that was deleted, I never saw it. I was just disturbed by the fact that talking about the action of the moderator was forbidden.

[Chuck Nessa]

I think it all sucks big time. I see no "good guys".

typo correction

Edited May 2, 2010 by Chuck Nessa

[Christiern]

I still think it's the Hoffman Forum influence—not at all a good model to follow.

Now, about Kate Smith....

[7/4]

nothin' but good times!

[Tim McG]

Why is it that at least one of the moderators is so quick to lock up a thread? Can't we have discussions any more? Talk about abuse of authority! I'm close to quitting this place, and I would if I didn't use the buying/looking for thread to sell stuff. Plus I want to keep up with some friends. But this board is about bad vibes right now.

I'm a little steamed right now.

Fucking Liberal.

Don't you know by now that astringent conservatism is all the rage?

Yet "the Dan" gets to cuss all he wants without impunity and [most assuredly] without repercussion.

BWTFDIK?

[Aggie87]

It's a lot easier to criticise than it is to actually perform a job.

I agree with this. I think Hans is a reasonable person. I think alot of us would have a difficult time having to judge other's posts and threads and decide what is "right" for the community. And the answer isn't 100% freedom to post anything you like, either.

I don't think it adds any value to the board to post drawings of people having sex. It doesn't reflect well on this community, and it doesn't reflect well on Jim and the band. And that's at least part of why this board exists. We could all stand to think a bit more about what we're doing/saying/sharing, prior to posting, IMHO.

I don't really get the point of the sexy women threads either. There are plenty of sites on the web to look at that stuff - why bring it here solely for the point of sharing pictures on this site.

[AllenLowe]

well, as I said, it wasn't that the picture was deleted, it was the way the deletion was labeled.

As for being a provocateur, I plead guilty with several explanations - because truly anyone here with strong opinions knows they are open-season for disagreement (a reasonable and expected thing) and personal attacks - still expected but much less reasonable.

A good moderator leaves his personal feelings at the door, like a judge.

Edited May 2, 2010 by AllenLowe

[Tim McG]

well, as I said, it wasn't that the picture was deleted, it was the way the deletion was labeled.

As for being a provocateur, I plead guilty with several explanations - because truly anyone here with strong opinions knows they are open-season for disagreement (a reasonable and expected thing) and personal attacks - still expected but much less reasonable.

A good moderator leaves his personal feelings at the door, like a judge.

Nah.

A good moderator applies his logic and expected behavior over an impossible grid of overly conservative expectations.

That way nobody wins except the moderator. I have a fair amout of experience in this area. Trust me.

Call me spoiled.

[AllenLowe]

well, in that case they should call him the extreme-erator.

just to add, I actually am in somewhat of an agreement with Aggie 87 about the sexist stuff that shows up here on some threads -

however, I need to ALSO add that the picture I posted was not at all sexist. Sexual, but not sexist - there is a difference.

Edited May 2, 2010 by AllenLowe

[Aggie87]

well, as I said, it wasn't that the picture was deleted, it was the way the deletion was labeled.

As for being a provocateur, I plead guilty with several explanations - because truly anyone here with strong opinions knows they are open-season for disagreement (a reasonable and expected thing) and personal attacks - still expected but much less reasonable.

A good moderator leaves his personal feelings at the door, like a judge.

I don't think Hans' feelings toward you (whatever they may be - I don't know or care what he thinks of you) have anything to do with his removal of an unnecessary sexual image.

I see no point in being a provocateur for the sake of provoking either. Yawn.

[AllenLowe]

"I see no point in being a provocateur for the sake of provoking either. Yawn."

ahh, there you go - the strategic 'yawn' becomes the means of slight (and thus deniable) nastiness. And once again you respond to my post without actually having read it. And by citing something which has not actually been said here.

Edited May 2, 2010 by AllenLowe

[Tim McG]

well, in that case they should call him the extreme-erator.

just to add, I actually am in somewhat of an agreement with Aggie 87 about the sexist stuff that shows up here on some threads -

however, I need to ALSO add that the picture I posted was not at all sexist. Sexual, but not sexist - there is a difference.

Good point.

"I see no point in being a provocateur for the sake of provoking either. Yawn."

ahh, there you go - the strategic 'yawn' becomes the means of slight (and thus deniable) nastiness. And once again you respond to my post without actually having read it. And by citing something which has not actually been said here.

No worry, Allen.

That's Aggie's calling card: All talk, no substance.

Same old same old.

[Aggie87]

That's Aggie's calling card: All talk, no substance.

Same old same old.

You know, I responded to Allen's comment about him willfully being a provocateur. I didn't call him a name.

And yet here you come along insulting me. Nice, real nice. I've said nothing to you or about you in this thread whatsoever, and yet you feel like attacking.

I can see why Conn would be thinking about quitting the board. There's alot more bad vibes around here than I remember in a long time too.

Edited May 2, 2010 by Aggie87

[Son-of-a-Weizen]

A good moderator leaves his personal feelings at the door, like a judge.

A good moderator puts the kibosh on flame wars and periodically deletes spam plus a smattering of comments or pictures deemed inappropriate. The Hoffman gorts take it a step further and tend to bring down the hammer when threads get off track. A good run-of-the-mill, so-so moderator also has the ability to check in on a forum at 11:39 EST...have a quick look around .....take note of Goodie, Agg & Allen trading a few wee bitsy minor shots.....and then say 'screw all you people and your petty squabbling, I need to catch some quality sleep time!'

Allen, this is not a strategic yawn....just a snoozing sheep.

[Tim McG]

A good moderator leaves his personal feelings at the door, like a judge.

A good moderator puts the kibosh on flame wars and periodically deletes spam plus a smattering of comments or pictures deemed inappropriate. The Hoffman gorts take it a step further and tend to bring down the hammer when threads get off track. A good run-of-the-mill, so-so moderator also has the ability to check in on a forum at 11:39 EST...have a quick look around .....take note of Goodie, Agg & Allen trading a few wee bitsy minor shots.....and then say 'screw all you people and your petty squabbling, I need to catch some quality sleep time!'

Allen, this is not a strategic yawn....just a snoozing sheep.

OK.

I see how it goes.

Nothing new here.

My fault for caring.

Peace out.

Edited May 2, 2010 by GoodSpeak

[Van Basten II]

I went out to see the PPV fight and it turns out that if I wanted to see one, I just had to read this board

[Jazzmoose]

Now, for example, if this thread was to get locked, I'd understand totally...

[7/4]

Now, for example, if this thread was to get locked, I'd understand totally...

no, no, no.....let this one rant for a few days at least.

[BERIGAN]

Now, about Kate Smith....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TtV3lx4eT5w

[AllenLowe]

GoodSpeak made more sense here than 10 Weizens - especially as Aggie87 said, inaccurately as usual, "Allen's comment about him willfully being a provocateur."

I never said any such thing. I merely said that, in my case, provocation comes about because I give my opinions strongly - and people respond in like manner, as is their right. End of story - or it would be if people understood that their own anger is often provoked by strong disagreement, not inappropriate comment.

My posting of that pic on the Kate Smith was intended purely as humor - I had not a clue, given what I see around here, that it would be cut or cause trouble. And I was not, as I will say for the 87th time, upset so much by the deletion as by the commentary on the reason for deletion.

[JSngry]

Now, about Kate Smith....

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=TtV3lx4eT5w

[AllenLowe]

lost in all of this, of course, was the fact that Kate Smith was a good singer before she became a symbol.

[Aggie87]

Aggie87 said, inaccurately as usual, "Allen's comment about him willfully being a provocateur."

I never said any such thing.

As for being a provocateur, I plead guilty...<snip>

Yep, I'm inaccurate.

[AllenLowe]

aggie, that's a real shitty thing to do - read the rest of the sentence as I actually wrote it -

once again, and I don't know if this is a language issue - since you are from Texas, and Jsngry has the same problem - but provocation in and of itself is NOT THE SAME THING AS PROVOKING FOR THE SAKE OF PROVOKING.

As I said, I have strong opinions - and they provoke people because they are strong opinions. Not the same thing as yelling "theater" in a crowded fire.

Edited May 2, 2010 by AllenLowe