Removed threads......

[Guest Brumagem Phil]

p.s dont knock the mods, you never know when ya might need one

 

 

Nobody has knocked the mods on this thread and had it become a mod knocking thread theni'd have requested it get locked myself..........BUT, when a thread has 40 or so sensibly posts and 2 dubious ones then surely its the case that the 2 posts get pulled rather than the whole thread? Otherwise as you say, the off topic board will just end up as you say a lifeless place for e-bay advic and (clean) jokes.

 

I might fire up a thread to discuss what international laws Iran has broken by pursueing nuclear energy and see how that goes

[habilis]

I missed the thread but it sounds like one that was likely to go south rapidly.

 

Surely we should be bright enough to recognise that we must be very careful before posting on contentious threads - I'd suggest NEVER a fast reply and consider whether our post actually adds to the discussion in a constructive way. I was recently caught out by contributing to a pulled thread and, with hindsight, realised I should have been more circumspect. I apologised to Elton by PM and received a gracious reply.

 

I do wonder if, rather than deleting such threads which may be 90% civilised discourse, that the offending posts are cut instead. It would be obvious to all that the member had overstepped the mark and I would certainly be mortified to be so "named and shamed".

 

Might this make us think twice and further the cause of self-moderating, thus relieving the pressure on overworked mods?

 

 

Eddit: Sorry Phil, didn't mean to gainsay you - we cross-posted!

Edited January 20, 2006 by habilis

[Guest Brumagem Phil]

3 pages, 50 odd replies and 800 odd views and still stoney silence fromthe mods.

 

Not very good manners if nothing else........even a PM would have sufficed.

[Severn Wolf]

Phil, I mod another forum and agree with their decision to not reply.

 

We all do this for nothing but put many hours into viewing every post to make sure they`re clean and in the correct spirit. I`m putting something back into a sport I love and not for financial gain.

 

If posts or threads start to drift off into insults etc theres the option to edit the thread, lock it or just remove it completely. My choice for the correct action is not something I care to dicuss with anyone but site owners, admin and other mods. The actions are taken in the best interests of everyone and are not aimed at singling out a particular person. People are quite aware that the response they add to a topic is likely to flame but carry on and do it regardless. This faceless world of the internet is a perfect place for folks to vent without any comeback, if they were that insulting and condascending in a local pub they`d be out on the car park every week!!!!!

 

Just to reiterate. I`m with the mods here. The site is free, the opinions are free, access is open to all. We look after sites for the love of it, why can`t folks who post think of this and just be friendly eh!

[Guest Brumagem Phil]

I broadly agree with you SW, but that doesnt alter the fact that the mods also have a responsibility to their "clientelle" to act in a fiar way.........they are not after all prison guards.

 

The whole point was this (and some seem unable to grasp it)........bad threads need pulling, of that there is no question, but to allow one or two members to shout down a perfectly civil and intelligently discussed thread simply sends the message that bullying works!

 

You speak of doing whats right for the majority..........well if you look back to the start of this thread, everyone who contributed to the thread agrees with me on the issue. Don't you believe in democracy SW?

 

By the way.....slightly off topic.........you done any barbling lately? I couldnt quite manage to get out during this recent mild spell but hope to in the next one we have

[Severn Wolf]

Phil, I can`t speak for the mods on here, just from my experience. Laws and rules are just that and even though the powers that be may make errors of judgement the decisions are made in the best interests of the site and its owners first and the contributors second. I`ll never discuss a specific post that has been pulled with anyone. If I edit a post then a note is put onto the post to let folks know that it stepped out of line or contained banned items ie links to shops etc.

 

Of course I believe in democracy but lets face it, mods aren`t voted into the job, is that what you`d like to see ?

 

I`m not going to post again on this, just wanted to put a view down from the other side!"

 

Oh, apart from a quick 90 minute sesh on New Years day I haven`t even seen the river this year! Too much work and when theres a few hours spare the conditions are rubbish. Every day I say `tomorrow` but never seem to find a few hours free. Got to make the best of the mild spell though, the word on the grapevine is that the Bewdley area is fishing very well so the rest of the Middle should be as well.

[Guest Brumagem Phil]

Thanks SW, that river report has got me itching to get out there now

[chesters1]

strange there seems to reaction to the post being deleted than the post itself ,i must admit i missed the bits after i posted my last post but i suspect it may have declined into name calling as usual ,i just wish (as i suspect most of it was aimed at me) i had a chance to reply to them putting the reasons i posted (probably more than once as many just read the gory bits and forget the rest) in the manner i did.

mods dont need reasons because posting why a post had been deleted would only attract fire at them either by posters riled at their posting had gone or by others wondering why it had gone so far anyway ,as the saying goes you cant please all of the people all of the time

not the first post i was posting in was deleted (the iraq war "evidence" one was a cracker) and hopefully not the last

even stranger there was no PM's (the best place for war) whilst in the "boar" thread just one member throwing his toys almost filled up my quota

Edited January 20, 2006 by chesters1

[Guest Brumagem Phil]

but i suspect it may have declined into name calling as usual

 

Nope, hence the surprise and requests for clarification.

[chesters1]

i stand corrected ,then i surmise a poster/s "reported" a post and on the strenght of that it went.

shame is i dont object to livebaiting but dont do it myself but i would never report a post i didnt agree with !only one that "could" have repercussions on the poster (in a "caring" way rather than any other) in a manner unseen by the poster posting it (personal details etc).

i rather enjoy posting on subjects from another angle rather than mutely agree with everyone else ,i like the little guy in the middle of a crowd of head nodders showing a different angle ,it drops me in the crap but to "discuss" you need more than one side ,in the iraq one i had death threats and shouts of traitor but at least most of my points in hindsight are now the "facts" rather than the "FACTS" our government stated and SHOUTED back then in anger at anyone not towing the line of the rest

starting a thread with "err just a minute" is a sure way of a topic warming up

Edited January 20, 2006 by chesters1