ForumGarden

koan;1383106 wrote: I started to care when a former member told me he was being blackmailed by another member who had coaxed him into admitting he was homosexual.


When I first joined back at the end of 2005, there was a very hot and heavy discussion about Brokeback Mountain and we lost several intelligent and witty new posters due to the really angry and homophobic comments. That thread got sliced and diced so you can't really see what the fuss was about but I remember being outraged by many of the comments.

I can't imagine how a gay member would feel reading that bile. I haven't seen much racism here though.

jones jones;1383034 wrote:

In my opinion without this kind of visible moderation no small Social Forum will survive. “Self-moderation” is hopeless, simply because most people are followers as opposed to leaders. As a result they do not want the responsibility that goes with it.


I personally find your assessment insulting and arrogant.

I currently belong to at least 6 forums,some are for a specific reason, and have belonged to several more over time.

Some forums are strictly moderated and some have no moderation at all.

If I don't like the flavour of a forum I move along and find another.

SnoozeAgain;1383116 wrote: When I first joined back at the end of 2005, there was a very hot and heavy discussion about Brokeback Mountain and we lost several intelligent and witty new posters due to the really angry and homophobic comments. That thread got sliced and diced so you can't really see what the fuss was about but I remember being outraged by many of the comments.

I can't imagine how a gay member would feel reading that bile. I haven't seen much racism here though.
I prefer to know if I'm talking to someone who is a gay-basher. Anyone reading that thread, which I don't remember specifically, would also have seen that some members were standing up for gay rights.

Here, have a peek when you have some time:

http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/films ... ntain.html

OSCAR--I see since I started answering your post a lot of space passed, you were asking if I were in Martine's:

Not me. Visiting Bloomingdales? Were you a tourist? I hope you had a wonderful time. I always get a thrill in Manhattan, even when I lived there as a younger woman. I can't believe how much building there has been since Bloomburg became mayor. That kind of stuff always ends up hard, super hard, on lower income people. But I digess.

AnneBoleyn;1383123 wrote: OSCAR--I see since I started answering your post a lot of space passed, you were asking if I were in Martine's:

Not me. Visiting Bloomingdales? Were you a tourist? I hope you had a wonderful time. I always get a thrill in Manhattan, even when I lived there as a younger woman. I can't believe how much building there has been since Bloomburg became mayor. That kind of stuff always ends up hard, super hard, on lower income people. But I digess.


I was joking about you being the woman who was giving out samples In Martine's but Yes, I was In New York that year with my brother. Yes, I had a wonderful time... I loved New York, loved the people and I love America.

SnoozeAgain;1383122 wrote: Here, have a peek when you have some time:

http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/films ... ntain.html
I think that thread did a nice job showing homosexuals that they have friends. They already know they have enemies.

Just like so many threads here this one has traveled quite a bit. We started with one’s opinion on forum moderation to coat trailing to pm stats, homosexuality then making friends and having cake and a visit to NY. Then back to homosexuality…..Wow! What a ride!

Back to topic~

I don’t feel that the coat trailing started with JJ thread nor Oscar’s reply, it started with Spot inviting/inciting the attack. It is very obvious that spot and JJ don’t see eye to eye, which is fine.

Having different opinions is what makes the world interesting; it is how people present them that can be harmful.

spot;1383049 wrote: Oddly enough, that's the way I see it. You and oscar are debilitating blights. While you may not agree, your voluntary departure would be a cause for celebration. Perhaps other areas of the Internet would welcome you as assets.


jones jones;1383079 wrote: Could somebody explain to me what "coat trailing" means?


spot;1383080 wrote: Try the footnote on Seven Types of Ambiguity — A Study of Its Effect in English Verse by William Empson, An On Writing ARJ2 Review by Bobby Matherne - "Footnote 1. To trail one's coat means to invite attack".


Perhaps it is a lack of knowledge to debate the topic properly or it could be a lack of interest. Maybe it is just someone who wants to be involved but doesn’t know how unless they use trolling.

It is the phenomenon of trolling, bashing and flaming that reduces awareness of other people’s feeling and is harassing and degrading, and in my opinion blurred out by those with very little wisdom on the topic or perhaps no real interest in the topic but in order to be involved will say anything; even untrue and hurtful remarks.

I know, it is a ridiculous attitude but it is here none the less.

Did you know that “ Internet laws generally regard any message or post that threatens, harasses, or degrades another user as cyber harassment.” (Wikipedia)

Hmmmmm ~ maybe we should call in the Cyber Cops!

Then that would end the problem of who stays and who leaves….but then would there be anyone left?

Lady J

How revealing that you chose "trolling" as the true topic of the thread. I had previously been trying to give JJ the benefit of the doubt that it was about intensifying moderation on the site. Thanks for clearing that up, J's Lady.

jones jones;1383086 wrote: Would you believe me if I told you that when I wrote that thread "coat tailing" was the furthest thing from my mind?

In fact I seriously believed that I was making a positive contribution.


koan;1383129 wrote: How revealing that you chose "trolling" as the true topic of the thread. I had previously been trying to give JJ the benefit of the doubt that it was about intensifying moderation on the site. Thanks for clearing that up, J's Lady.


How did you come to that conclusion? Do you know what trolling is?

Troll (Internet) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

His post was not inflammatory, he was posting his view and not disrupting normal on-topic discussion.

As I said, civil debate of subjects seems to be a wash here in the Gardens.

Make what you like of it Koan....."and in my opinion blurred out by those with very little wisdom on the topic or perhaps no real interest in the topic but in order to be involved will say anything; even untrue and hurtful remarks. "

Lady J

I think there's a huge overstatement going on here and a complete misinterpretation on what it is moderators do on forums.

The op smacks of a cynical view of "moderator" which seeks to portray them as an enemy. The only resulting conclusion is that it's the very sentiment of a guilty conscience.

Oh, I know what trolling is. I'm closest typed to "Godzilla". Everyone can find a troll label that suits their posting style.

Here's the thing you so nicely tried to skirt:

Lady J;1383128 wrote: Just like so many threads here this one has traveled quite a bit. We started with one’s opinion on forum moderation to coat trailing to pm stats, homosexuality then making friends and having cake and a visit to NY. Then back to homosexuality…..Wow! What a ride!

Back to topic~

I don’t feel that the coat trailing started with JJ thread nor Oscar’s reply, it started with Spot inviting/inciting the attack. It is very obvious that spot and JJ don’t see eye to eye, which is fine.

...
you have yet to explain why coat-trailing is the topic of the thread.

If it's not a troll, then "moderation in moderation is not always the answer" is the topic. Additionally, the homosexual discussion that you felt was off topic would have been the most relevant to the actual topic... unless you're right and trolling was, in fact, the intention.

My only mistake here might be in assuming that you know JJ so much better than I that you got his intention right instead of me getting it wrong. And if you got it right... well, he's busted.

It's quite a simple matter to ignore irritating prats which is not in any way to insinuate, imply or otherwise suggest anyone on this thread is an irritating prat. It's an anonymous forum and stays that way unless you choose to lay your life out for everyone to pore over, in which case it's your own fault if some pillock is nasty to you. If PM's are a form of bullying then just PM back telling the sender to F off and don't open any of the messages. Balance in all things you decide what goes on the scale.

I'll admit I was trolling the thread earlier. That's kind of my shtick, I insert nonsensical comments that have nothing to do with anything. It used to be "I want to marry a hyena" but for some reason the British pronunciation of "twat" makes me laugh, so that's the word du jour. Prat might be the next one.

koan;1383125 wrote: I think that thread did a nice job showing homosexuals that they have friends. They already know they have enemies.I think it also shows Jives has an obsession with right and wrong as well as a fierce dedication to the values handed down from his elders. It appears to be a common thread among religious fundamentalists. i doubt he hates gays as much as he fears homosexuality thus the "hate the sin but love the sinner". This is a survival adaptation.

The thing is with people who obsess, is that they often can't be convinced otherwise with logic or facts as much as who is doing the talking. Acceptance of authority figures means a lot to obsessive people, they'll often blindly follow those they accept as an authority figure.

jones jones;1383086 wrote: Would you believe me if I told you that when I wrote that thread "coat tailing" was the furthest thing from my mind?

In fact I seriously believed that I was making a positive contribution.If you're to be taken at your word, then you'd have to admit that you lack, at least in this instance, a sense of discretion and boundaries. That's not such a terrible thing that an admission, apology and promise to attempt to avoid such mistakes in the future couldn't cure. The question is whether or not you can accept responsibility for the mistake.

Ahso!;1383158 wrote: I think it also shows Jives has an obsession with right and wrong as well as a fierce dedication to the values handed down from his elders. It appears to be a common thread among religious fundamentalists. i doubt he hates gays as much as he fears homosexuality thus the "hate the sin but love the sinner". This is a survival adaptation.

The thing is with people who obsess, is that they often can't be convinced otherwise with logic or facts as much as who is doing the talking. Acceptance of authority figures means a lot to obsessive people, they'll often blindly follow those they accept as an authority figure.


Irony is a wonderful thing.

K.Snyder;1383137 wrote: I think there's a huge overstatement going on here and a complete misinterpretation on what it is moderators do on forums.

The op smacks of a cynical view of "moderator" which seeks to portray them as an enemy. The only resulting conclusion is that it's the very sentiment of a guilty conscience.I think it has more to do with Peacocks and Peahens, quite honestly.

YZGI;1383161 wrote: Irony is a wonderful thing.I realize one line innuendos are your opening act concerning communications so I'll ask straight up to please elaborate.

Ahso!;1383163 wrote: I realize one line innuendos are your opening act concerning communications so I'll ask straight up to please elaborate.


Some plays are only one act plays. I made an observation of what I thought was ironic and commented on it. You can use your own imagination (if you wish) of which part I found ironic . Give it a go, it might be fun.

Bruv;1383118 wrote: I personally find your assessment insulting and arrogant.

I currently belong to at least 6 forums,some are for a specific reason, and have belonged to several more over time.

Some forums are strictly moderated and some have no moderation at all.

If I don't like the flavour of a forum I move along and find another.


Oh gee whiz! I really am sorry about that Bruv old bean!

K.Snyder;1383137 wrote: I think there's a huge overstatement going on here and a complete misinterpretation on what it is moderators do on forums.

The op smacks of a cynical view of "moderator" which seeks to portray them as an enemy. The only resulting conclusion is that it's the very sentiment of a guilty conscience.


Kevin I really do believe you should read thru my thread again. I was actually suggesting a stricter and more visible moderating policy here and not knocking moderators at all.

By the way when you visit Berlin in June make an effort to see/do some of the following:

Have a Becks in Oranienburgerstrasse; Visit the Jewish Museum; Check out Checkpoint Charlie; Sit on the Reichstag’s roof - nice restaurant there; Walk through the Brandenburg Gate; Drink tea in the Tajikistan Tearooms-you sit on the floor & drink vodka with your tea; Eat breakfast - Berliners love to meet up for a slow long breakfast in a café. Try Café Morena on Spreewaldplatz in Kreuzberg or Café Milagro in Bergmannstrasse; Go out all night-In Berlin it is still possible to do this without going to clubs. For the most interesting bars, you’ll have to press a buzzer to get in.

I wrote this thread with the intention and hope that it would be interpreted as an honest attempt to make a positive contribution towards making Forum Garden a sought after social forum. I cannot force anyone to belive me but it is the truth.

The title of the thread says it all … I honestly believe that in lieu of what has been happening in Forum Garden lately, more and not less moderation is required. Some members agreed with me, some did not and some were neutral.

Very few people, myself included, enjoy or welcome criticism, be it constructive or otherwise. It is not in the psyche of the human to enjoy having the mirror of their faults, imperfections and less admirable traits held up for them to see, especially in public. This is understandable and will always cause a difference in opinion.

However, instead of rationally debating the content of the thread, personal remarks were immediately directed at me and the thread itself was branded as:” a thread designed to cause offence and deliberately entices disagreement on the part of the site's Administrator.”

How anyone other than the author of a thread can decide its true meaning and how this conclusion was reached without a single word of rational discussion taking place, I am at a loss to explain. Soon the same member saw fit to post the following: “You may each, of course, choose to post elsewhere and leave your FG accounts untouched in future. I'd commend any such effort on your parts. Oddly enough, that's the way I see it. You and oscar are debilitating blights. While you may not agree, your voluntary departure would be a cause for celebration. Perhaps other areas of the Internet would welcome you as assets.”

Now under the circumstances and based entirely on what I wrote in this thread, was this an appropriate response from a moderator and a senior and influential member of Forum Garden? I think not.

A lot was made of something referred to as “history.” I have made many mistakes on these boards and I have been made to pay for them via infractions and banning. But in every case I have admitted that I was wrong and have openly apologized right here. It is a waste of energy to expend time and effort on any event that is done and dusted as not a single word of it can be changed.

I am not a moderator, nor am I a Premium Member so I do not have the tools to delete a post when I have been proven wrong or when I have gone too far. In every case I made good for my mistakes. In most civilized societies one is tried only once for a crime.

By now I am quite certain that the vast majority of Forum Garden members are growing weary of the ongoing and seemingly never ending feud between myself and another member here on these boards. I am really bored with it too and find it exhausting because so much of my positive energy is drained from me into this “black hole” of negativity.

So I will go back to mostly copying and pasting images from the past, together with the words of wiser mortals than I, and leave the present and all its complicated clutter for others to debate.

Lady J;1383128 wrote:









Did you know that “ Internet laws generally regard any message or post that threatens, harasses, or degrades another user as cyber harassment.” (Wikipedia)





Lady J


That's true.

Unfortunately, I had no option but to go to the police about a year ago about an ex member here. I have to say that I was surprised at just how seriously they took It. That ex member got a surprise visit at her home by police under harrassment and malicious communication laws. Yes, Spot.... I have a crime reference number....

In the first Instance, the Police In Britain will ask the person to sign a 'Pro Forma', a kind of contract with the police that they will not contact the victim, their family etc etc.... If they break that Pro Forma, they are charged and appear before the courts. In my case, the Police still have all the evidence on file. Since then, I haven't heard a peep from her.

Although I must say, that this level of trolling Is rare on forums I think.

jones jones;1383173 wrote: Kevin I really do believe you should read thru my thread again. I was actually suggesting a stricter and more visible moderating policy here and not knocking moderators at all.

Moderators are meant to mediate outlandish behavior, not police the website. Placing "a stricter and more visible moderating policy" invokes a particular atmosphere of hostility of which forces the moderators to become more impersonal and alienated. It's the only conclusion stemming from expecting moderators should be meant to log in specifically to infract someone.

jones jones;1383034 wrote:

a) Keeping members on topic.


jones jones;1383173 wrote:

By the way when you visit Berlin in June make an effort to see/do some of the following:




jones jones;1383172 wrote: Oh gee whiz! I really am sorry about that Bruv old bean!
Don't be sorry chavvy, it's just a forum, I have had worse from people I respect.

Where are those moderators when you need em ?

jones jones;1383174 wrote:



However, instead of rationally debating the content of the thread, personal remarks were immediately directed at me and the thread itself was branded as:” a thread designed to cause offence and deliberately entices disagreement on the part of the site's Administrator.”

How anyone other than the author of a thread can decide its true meaning and how this conclusion was reached without a single word of rational discussion taking place, I am at a loss to explain. Soon the same member saw fit to post the following: “You may each, of course, choose to post elsewhere and leave your FG accounts untouched in future. I'd commend any such effort on your parts. Oddly enough, that's the way I see it. You and oscar are debilitating blights. While you may not agree, your voluntary departure would be a cause for celebration. Perhaps other areas of the Internet would welcome you as assets.”

Now under the circumstances and based entirely on what I wrote in this thread, was this an appropriate response from a moderator and a senior and influential member of Forum Garden? I think not.

. No coat tailing here but JJ has a point.

I have never been Infracted by Bryn. Spot stated In this thread that he has been Infracted by Bryn more times than JJ.

How can It be fair and just that a member who has received more Infractions than the two he's threatening to close the accounts of ? How Is It fair and just that someone who has received more Infractions than other members be In a position to moderate any forum?

I am not referring to FG In particuar but this Is the kind of behaviour that causes bitterness and resentment on forums all over.

jones jones;1383174 wrote: How anyone other than the author of a thread can decide its true meaning and how this conclusion was reached without a single word of rational discussion taking place, I am at a loss to explain. Soon the same member saw fit to post the following: “You may each, of course, choose to post elsewhere and leave your FG accounts untouched in future. I'd commend any such effort on your parts. Oddly enough, that's the way I see it. You and oscar are debilitating blights. While you may not agree, your voluntary departure would be a cause for celebration. Perhaps other areas of the Internet would welcome you as assets.”The reason you're having so much trouble with being "at a loss to explain" is because you're associating spot as a moderator and not a member of the community. He'd given his thoughts as a member and had anyone other than a moderator responded in such a way you'd have laughed all of the way down the yellow brick road not leaving a trail of stink in your wake.

oscar;1383188 wrote: No coat tailing here but JJ has a point.

I have never been Infracted by Bryn. Spot stated In this thread that he has been Infracted by Bryn more times than JJ.

How can It be fair and just that a member who has received more Infractions than the two he's threatening to close the accounts of ? How Is It fair and just that someone who has received more Infractions than other members be In a position to moderate any forum?

I am not referring to FG In particuar but this Is the kind of behaviour that causes bitterness and resentment on forums all over.


I just had to go look... one of those two that Spot didn't just mention has more infractions than Spot himself :wah:

also.... where is spot threatening to physically close accounts of anyone? He wouldn't be allowed to just close someone's account, us other moderators would lynch him :wah:

And asides from all that, if I were on a forum and I seemed to constantly butt heads with several people I'd just leave. At what point is it all just a matter of personalities not getting on as opposed to the possibility that a person is just not liked. That's not aimed at anyone either, it's just an extra thought about forum participation.

K.Snyder;1383189 wrote: The reason you're having so much trouble with being "at a loss to explain" is because you're associating spot as a moderator and not a member of the community. He'd given his thoughts as a member and had anyone other than a moderator responded in such a way you'd have laughed all of the way down the yellow brick road not leaving a trail of stink in your wake.


Kevin is right, being a moderator means you seem to have to become neutral on every subject under the sun. You never seem to be able to post as just a member, you're always a mod.

Betty Boop;1383190 wrote: I just had to go look... one of those two that Spot didn't just mention has more infractions than Spot himself :wah:

also.... where is spot threatening to physically close accounts of anyone? He wouldn't be allowed to just close someone's account, us other moderators would lynch him :wah:

And asides from all that, if I were on a forum and I seemed to constantly butt heads with several people I'd just leave. At what point is it all just a matter of personalities not getting on as opposed to the possibility that a person is just not liked. That's not aimed at anyone either, it's just an extra thought about forum participation.


Spot on thread ' Obama taxes christmas tree's.

" I will continue posting here unlike you "



Regardless, I am merely raising the point that If a moderator has been Infracted more times than the members he wants removed, one has to question his suitability as a moderator and just who Is the real Instigator of spats.

To leave a forum because you butt heads with members from time to time Is futile. If you go to another forum, shortly, you will find others who you do not agree with and so the cycle continue's.

Just because I butt heads with some members here does not mean I have a problem with them. If members can't deal with others disagreeing with them, why are they on a forum contributing to debate? Why post threads and then whine because others are challenging what you have written? I have seen the most vicious attacks on members on a forum about fishing.... It's not FG... It's forums In general... They are made up of people from all walks of life and different Interests and views. It tends to make a forum vibrant.

You don't expect to agree with every word of every person you meet In real life so why on earth expect that kind of Utopia from a forum ?

The resentment arises when you someone who Is suppossed to be Impartial, Is getting Infracted themselves.... rather pot, kettle etc don't you think.

Just because I may strongly disagree with a members view, It does not mean I have any problems with them.

oscar;1383200 wrote: Spot on thread ' Obama taxes christmas tree's.

" I will continue posting here unlike you "



Regardless, I am merely raising the point that If a moderator has been Infracted more times than the members he wants removed, one has to question his suitability as a moderator and just who Is the real Instigator of spats.

To leave a forum because you butt heads with members from time to time Is futile. If you go to another forum, shortly, you will find others who you do not agree with and so the cycle continue's.

Just because I butt heads with some members here does not mean I have a problem with them. If members can't deal with others disagreeing with them, why are they on a forum contributing to debate? Why post threads and then whine because others are challenging what you have written? I have seen the most vicious attacks on members on a forum about fishing.... It's not FG... It's forums In general... They are made up of people from all walks of life and different Interests and views. It tends to make a forum vibrant.

You don't expect to agree with every word of every person you meet In real life so why on earth expect that kind of Utopia from a forum ?

The resentment arises when you someone who Is suppossed to be Impartial, Is getting Infracted themselves.... rather pot, kettle etc don't you think.

Just because I may strongly disagree with a members view, It does not mean I have any problems with them.


The Moderators here are, first and foremost, members and they post as members. Any action taken by a Moderator *must* be impartial or (s)he would cease to be a Moderator but no-one is suggesting that every post a Moderator makes must be impartial - they are members posting, they are only Moderators when they take action as a Moderator.

Tombstone, as the owner, eventually gave up posting here as a member because he could not keep the two perspectives sufficiently separate.

In the past year no one has "been removed" by the Moderators or even been threatened with such an outcome.

So now the people complaining about lack of moderation are complaining that moderators are abusing their power?

This kind of logic is brought to you by the letter B for intellectual bankruptcy, bull poop, and buh bye.

koan;1383253 wrote: So now the people complaining about lack of moderation are complaining that moderators are abusing their power?

This kind of logic is brought to you by the letter B for intellectual bankruptcy, bull poop, and buh bye.


No Koan, I have never complained about lack of moderation.... I said very early on In the thread that I believed the forum was all the better since Bryn took the reins. I merely raised the question as to weather one moderator should be In that position when he has been Infracted more times than the members he's complaining about In this thread.

oscar;1383269 wrote: No Koan, I have never complained about lack of moderation.... I said very early on In the thread that I believed the forum was all the better since Bryn took the reins. I merely raised the question as to weather one moderator should be In that position when he has been Infracted more times than the members he's complaining about In this thread.


I've been infracted less often than either JJ or yourself, something I suspect has already been mentioned in this thread. And I've been here a damn sight longer to pick up infractions, too. For the record I've picked up four infractions over seven years, plus a glitchy moment from Gill when she inadvertently banned me and a test infraction from myself.

spot;1383271 wrote: I've been infracted less often than either JJ or yourself, something I suspect has already been mentioned in this thread. And I've been here a damn sight longer to pick up infractions, too. For the record I've picked up four infractions over seven years, plus a glitchy moment from Gill when she inadvertently banned me and a test infraction from myself.


Quote Spot

"I think you missed the obvious fact that I'm one of the three he made reference to.

I've been infracted by Bryn more times than you have."

In the work place, would you have any respect for a supervisor who had been addressed by the boss for his behaviour?

I appreciate that moderators are also posters can't we at least expect standards? The other moderators here seem to have no trouble with setting a standard.

Your posts here are your Indignation that JJ posted a thread on moderation In forums. As I happened to be on line at the same time as him and his was the only new thread posted, your paranoia led you to make false accusations. If you have ever noticed, I happen to post on all of JJ's threads. I happen to like his threads for they are Interesting and varied. Or are you now In the belief that In your role as a moderator, you can decide who posts on what ?

You came charging In on the attack making false allegations.

When you stated that myself and JJ were blights on this forum, you missed one vital element. Both JJ and myself were away from this forum for some time. During that time, these kind of spats continued without either of us In the mix. However, the spats more often than not, Involved you.

Freud said that there are no accidents. Should we believe him?

Ahso!;1383277 wrote: Freud said that there are no accidents. Should we believe him?


I'm tempted to think we should.

Ahso!;1383277 wrote: Freud said that there are no accidents. Should we believe him?


Ahhhh

There we go...

Perfect example of coat tailing.

Pot, Kettle, hypocrisy etc etc

My post was in reference to Gill inadvertently banning Spot.

Apology accepted.

Ahso!;1383277 wrote: Freud said that there are no accidents. Should we believe him?


Freud or Spot?

Ahso!;1383282 wrote: My post was in reference to Gill inadvertently banning Spot.

Apology accepted. Please refrain from Implying that I have apologised to you only this could lead members to believe I have PM'd you with an apology, something I woud not do unless I was Influenced by copious amounts of Jack Daniels and LSD.

oscar;1383269 wrote: No Koan, I have never complained about lack of moderation.... I said very early on In the thread that I believed the forum was all the better since Bryn took the reins. I merely raised the question as to weather one moderator should be In that position when he has been Infracted more times than the members he's complaining about In this thread.
except for when you followed the OP with



oscar;1383035 wrote: Very well put and I agree.
That you followed the "agreeing" part with

The problem with moderators Is that at the end of the day, they are also posters and human beings.

As human beings they are just as capable of harbouring grudges and taking dislike to any of the members which can affect their judgement and sway favour.

Then, you will have the members who will tread on eggshells when disagreeing with a post made by a moderator for fear of them taking umbrage.

Then, you have moderators who believe that everyone should cow tow to them because they are a moderator.
Means you either didn't agree or you agreed despite the problem you predict.

Why on earth do you care who the moderators are when they currently don't take any punitive action against anyone? There's not a single moderator here who considers it a source of power or posts any different than they normally would because they are a moderator. We're not police, we're janitors. We clean up the trash and wash windows. On bad weeks we're the CSI clean up crew washing the blood stains out of the carpets. Not only do we work for you, we don't get paid, and we allow ourselves to be scapegoats on a regular basis.

So what's your real problem?

You'd like to be able to fire a moderator who you admit doesn't actually use their powers? You'd like to give powers back so you can more effectively complain?

You've had your fun. Take a picture and move on.

koan;1383287 wrote: except for when you followed the OP with



That you followed the "agreeing" part with

Means you either didn't agree or you agreed despite the problem you predict.

Why on earth do you care who the moderators are when they currently don't take any punitive action against anyone? There's not a single moderator here who considers it a source of power or posts any different than they normally would because they are a moderator. We're not police, we're janitors. We clean up the trash and wash windows. On bad weeks we're the CSI clean up crew washing the blood stains out of the carpets. Not only do we work for you, we don't get paid, and we allow ourselves to be scapegoats on a regular basis.

So what's your real problem?

You'd like to be able to fire a moderator who you admit doesn't actually use their powers? You'd like to give powers back so you can more effectively complain?

You've had your fun. Take a picture and move on.


Gosh ! Such anger.

The problem here Koan Is that you have jumped to the same erroneous assumption as Spot In his first post.

If you read all the posts In this thread you will also see that I posted quite early on that my agreement was not particually at FG but forums In general. I agreed with JJ's comments on the debate of lack of moderation and strict moderation.

When you cease to read between the lines and adopt your own Interpretation of members posts, we may progress.

My husband Is a moderator, so yes, I do know exactly what It entails.... but then I never said I didn't, did I ?

YZGI;1383283 wrote: Freud or Spot?


As the saying goes: repeat something enough times and others will begin to believe it. You'd be one of the latter?

I thought you were smarter than that.

Ahso!;1383277 wrote: Freud said that there are no accidents. Should we believe him?


I meant, should we believe Freud or Spot?

YZGI;1383303 wrote: I meant, should we believe Freud or Spot?


Ah! My apologies.

Ahso!;1383304 wrote: Ah! My apologies.


No apologies necessary, my jokes are often only funny to me.

Does anyone get the impression that we are being manipulated, jerked around like mannequins, reacting to the puppet master's whim ?

Or am I overly suspicious ?

Bruv;1383310 wrote: Does anyone get the impression that we are being manipulated, jerked around like mannequins, reacting to the puppet master's whim ?

Or am I overly suspicious ?


I had that same feeling a while back, now I just don't know.

Hey Bruv, are you and JJ just winding us up also? LOL

We could stir some drama up if you are willing.

Just call me a racist or something and we will march the band through the town square -so to speak..