|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 644
500+ posts
|
500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 644 |
quote:
Originally posted by Poverty Lad:
(Shit, we did it again...? ![[yuh huh]](images/icons/rolleyes.gif) )
We did??? ![[who, me?]](graemlins/whome01.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 84
25+ posts
|
|
25+ posts
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 84 |
ALL hijacked threads will be deleted WITH EXTREME PREJUDICE! *tee hee!* Not really, silly!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 7
1 post
|
|
1 post
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 7 |
I ought to have made some things more clear, even though some of this may repeat what I had said, here or elsewhere.
~ I don't mind spam being removed, either words or pictures. In fact, those who really don't post here except to disrupt are getting to be annoying. (And that picture, yes, was and is wholly ludicrous for a forum like this -- and it continues to be re-posted.)
~ What bothered me was that this was done without anyone saying that this was systematic and intentional, rather than merely scratching irritating itches. If nothing else, my bringing this up got Mike to say that he was doing it, and EDE to say that he endorsed this, which was more than we'd had before.
~ The mods still ought to provide definitions, and the sooner the better, for "spam." Yes, common sense ought to reign, but that still doesn't prevent being arbitrary.
~ I realize this is largely work-it-out-as-you-go. Yet when an issue is brought up, it'd help if it were dealt with fairly soon. No mods have answered my query about whether Legion graphics may be posted, and what happens with a double post. I hope they'll deal with it shortly.
~ I appreciate what the moderators are doing, and thank them for paying such attention. I hold no sour grapes for not having been chosen as one of them. I think they may have underestimated what the role involved, though.
~ I would have preferred the odds against my having been chosen to be yet greater -- because four moderators, in my experience, are too many for a group of this size. (Unless they essentially do little or nothing, and if you now want to monitor spam, that has changed.) Two would work better for consistency in what they are doing.
~ I have nothing as such against TD, even over her desire for privacy. (Though the degree of such desire makes me wonder why those like her are on the Net at all.) I simply don't see her being this reclusive as providing the trust needed to be a proper moderator -- if you're making active changes to traffic. That opinion comes from my having been a mod and supervisor of mods in a half-dozen venues over 20 years. I'm sticking to it, but I won't keep mentioning it.
~ Is every thread that wanders thus "hijacked," as such? That puts a harsh gloss, I'd say, on making asides or asking a question.
~ I'll chill.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 516
500+ posts
|
|
500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 516 |
I don't think there's any problem with posting whatever Legion graphics you want, as long as it's in at least a reasonably appropriate (don't go posting pictures of Dawny in every thread or anything ![[wink]](images/icons/wink.gif) ). And we do appreciate your input Grey. We are here, of course, to serve as much as to lord and master.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 84
25+ posts
|
|
25+ posts
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 84 |
I certainly have no problem with LEGION graphics, it's a LEGION forum. It's safe to assume TD, LL & EDE agree. (and if they don't I apologize for speaking for them and hope they will correct me!)
And, well, honestly, my definition of "spamming" is subject to change.
Right now my definition of "spamming" is continually posting something with the intention to get on the nerves of the regulars here.
I believe there's some of that going on TONIGHT, actually... all in good fun, though. I'm not gonna be deleting any of their posts unless the regulars here complain or the other Mods want to do it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 4
1 post
|
|
1 post
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 4 |
quote:
Originally posted by Greybird:
~ Is every thread that wanders thus "hijacked," as such? That puts a harsh gloss, I'd say, on making asides or asking a question.
When you consider that 3 out of the four pages on this thread are completely off topic, then yeah, I'd say the thread has been hijacked :) And I'm not saying that this topic of conversation should or should not happen. All I'm saying is that, perhaps, it might be a nice idea to start a new thread in the morning that can be "on topic", and this thread can continue as it is, if anyone still wants to talk about this "new" topic.
I suppose one could also argue that if no great effort has been made to return this thread to its original topic, then no one really cares.
Like I said, I was only making a suggestion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 644
500+ posts
|
|
500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 644 |
Hmmm... this is the 2nd time Grey has alluded to TD and her mysterious, secretive ways. And come to think of it, maybe he has a point. (Besides the one on top of his furry lil' Ewok noggin, 'natch! ) WHO is this enigmatic person known as Thriftshop Debutante? What makes her tick? Is she a Democrat, Republican, or Independent? What is her favorite breakfast cereal? Her favorite dishwashing detergent? What makes our dear TD laugh? Cry? Squeeze the cheese? Can this secretive, shadowy lady be trusted with the high-profile, all-important job of Legion HQ moderator, folks? Or is she deviously out to steal the hearts and minds of Legion fandom.... <cue loud, crashing music> ...SO SHE CAN MURDER US ALL IN OUR SLEEP?!!? Only time will tell, my darlings... only time will tell... ![[biiiig grin]](images/icons/grin.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 84
25+ posts
|
|
25+ posts
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 84 |
Y'know what it all reminds me of? Levitz' WHO IS SENSOR GIRL storyline...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 644
500+ posts
|
|
500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 644 |
quote:
Originally posted by MLLASH:
Y'know what it all reminds me of? Levitz' WHO IS SENSOR GIRL storyline...
A valiant effort to stay on topic, lashie... :lol:
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 516
500+ posts
|
|
500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 516 |
Oh, come off it... we all know TD is really Lardlad's mother...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 84
25+ posts
|
|
25+ posts
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 84 |
Nobody could really do all those stunts!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 4
1 post
|
|
1 post
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 4 |
So says Timber Lash
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 1
1 post
|
|
1 post
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 1 |
Keep up with the times, people. I already did Who Is Society Girl? (intermixing what was published and what was originally planned) last year and Who Is Senator Girl? on page three!
PAY ATTENTION!!! Hey, now I'm Jenny Sparks!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 7
1 post
|
|
1 post
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 7 |
{MK}
"And come to think of it, maybe he has a point. (Besides the one on top of his furry lil' Ewok noggin, 'natch! ;) )"
That point takes special wax to keep it shiny, I'll have you know. And a custom-made fedora to protect it. (Keeps falling off when I fly, though!)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 644
500+ posts
|
|
500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 644 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 644
500+ posts
|
|
500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 644 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 644
500+ posts
|
|
500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 644 |
... just plain ol' lo-CO, senor Grey.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2
1 post
|
|
1 post
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2 |
quote:
Originally posted by MLLASH:
Y'know what it all reminds me of? Levitz' WHO IS SENSOR GIRL storyline...
OH MY GOD!!!!!!!!
TD is PAUL LEVITZ!!!!!!
![[whaaaa!]](eek01.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 516
500+ posts
|
|
500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 516 |
quote:
Originally posted by Senor Widebottom:
quote:
Originally posted by MLLASH:
Y'know what it all reminds me of? Levitz' WHO IS SENSOR GIRL storyline...
OH MY GOD!!!!!!!!
TD is PAUL LEVITZ!!!!!!
OH MY GOD!!!!!!!
PAUL LEVITZ is LARDLAD'S MOM!!!!!!
![[eh?]](images/icons/confused.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,970
URG am real man! 7500+ posts
|
|
URG am real man! 7500+ posts
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,970 |
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Kennedy:
Hey, no skin off my nuggets in the end, but isn't Rob's boards supposed to be a sort of "Anything Goes" joint??? Have you guys taken a stroll around the rest of this board yet? The mods on the other forums seem to be pretty loosey-goosey in regard to their moderating style. Just sayin'...
You am right. The mods here am both loosey and goosey. They am also like donkeys.
good morning,legion boys and girls.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 1
1 post
|
|
1 post
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 1 |
Why, good morning, Urg! How are you today?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 558
500+ posts
|
|
OP
500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 558 |
If those of us who are of a more serious and focussed nature continue to maintain a dignified presence at LHQ, we will surely have a positive influence on the rabble.
Look at how polite Urg is this morning! Good morning Urg dear.
Good morning all.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 104
100+ posts
|
|
100+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 104 |
OK, so possibly I'm just going to be poking at a sore here and making things worse but I really don't understand half the problems that Grey has here.
First off the editing. It's not been anything major. The posts that *have* been edited are all ones where something offensive/innappropriate has been removed or where people have made double posts and such. It's pretty much obvious just from looking at the edited posts that this is the case. Tjis being said then why exactly are you so concerned? Do you think the fact that you have had issues with some of the mods and other posters here (and they with you) means that they're going to start some personal vendetta and edit everything you post to make you look like an idiot. They have absolutely no need to do that, and no matter how they feel about you I doubt they'd do that in the first place.
This forum is a pretty much open one. Most things go, Rob puts no restrictions on what we post. But he also put four people in charge as moderaters. OK maybe they do need to post some guidelines as to what is going to be considered spam but until it actually became an issue and was dealt with spam hadn't really been considered by anyone. They're not editing you Grey (not that I've seen, I might be wrong about that), they are editing posts that are a problem. And even then it's not a huge amount of editing. If you do have a problem with the way they are behaving then really the first thing you should have done is contacted them personally. It's pretty much clear (especially from this thread) that you are pretty much the only person who has a problem here. Everyone else seems quite happy with the ay things are going and didn't even feel the need to question it. Like I say, for clarity maybe we should have some kind of guidelines. Just get off your high horse about the whole issue.
And as to whether we know who TD is or not. Well, quite frankly who gives a toss? I know you're name, I know what you look like because I've seena photo of you but do I really know who you are? If I went just from what you post I'd actually think you were some svelte Amerind with wings living in an embassy with a comic book character as a sister. Patently none of that is true. So does that mean I don't know who you are? Yup. Do I care that I don't know who you are? Nope.
Thing is I don't *really* know who most of the people on this board are. There are only a few I talk to often (via e-mail) and only a couple who I've actually met (Paul, Faraway and uh... I think that be it actually of the people who post here regularly). In the same way there are only a few people here who really know anything about me. Hands up who knows my surname? Or what my boyfriends name is? Or what kind of glasses I wear?
Same thing goes for what I know about LL or EDE or Loser. I don't really know much about any of them. I know I enjoy their posts, I know I like talking with them. I don't know where they live, I don't know what they look like and quite frankly I don't care. Not knowing who TD is doesn't make her any less viable as a moderater. The fact that she doesn't want to tell everyone about her private life doesn't make any difference. And why exactly does wanting to keep a degree of privacy mean that she shouldn't be on the net in the first place? You live in your own fantasy world, at least on the net, which is just as much a way of keeping your real life private as not saying anything at all is.
You say it's not sour grapes and maybe it's not. But point is you are aiming to stir things up again just because you seem to think that you are right, that you *have* to criticise what other people do. I know by posting this (which i admit is little more than a personal attack) pretty much makes my own point, about starting things like this privately with the people you have an issue with, a little moot but I know if I mailed you privately there would be no response at all. Other people might take to care to take issue with the things I've said and I'd be glad of that because I'd like to make sure that you really are the only person here who feels the way you do or if I'm letting my own personal feelings about you get in the way og things.
Anyway, rant over for now. Sorry to everyone else if this stirs up a whole hornets nest again but... well, it's early in the morning I have hideous hayfever and my neck is killing me (I've made an appointment to check it's not whiplash by the way) and I'm in a pissy mood. Possibly not the best time to post something like this but... well, fuck it.
Oh, and Good Morning LHQ.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 141
100+ posts
|
|
100+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 141 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 7
1 post
|
|
1 post
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 7 |
{Bevis}
"... Do you think the fact that you have had issues with some of the mods and other posters here (and they with you) means that they're going to start some personal vendetta and edit everything you post to make you look like an idiot?"
Nope.
"... until it actually became an issue and was dealt with spam hadn't really been considered by anyone."
Then this is the time to think about it, isn't it? And define some things?
"... If you do have a problem with the way they are behaving then really the first thing you should have done is contacted them personally."
I did, privately. That's what IMs are for.
"... Like I say, for clarity maybe we should have some kind of guidelines. Just get off your high horse about the whole issue."
Does your saying so make it a legitimate issue, while my saying so puts me on a high horse? {rueful smile}
"And as to whether we know who TD is or not. Well, quite frankly who gives a toss?"
Many have, in my experiences at moderating. Someone this private -- she's not the first -- is often seen as not to be respected, or as much, because he or she is not opening up to be a part of the community, or as much of one.
That works against being as effective a moderator, and against making his or her admin decisions stick with others. Again, my observation.
"... And why exactly does wanting to keep a degree of privacy mean that she shouldn't be on the net in the first place?"
I didn't say she, or anyone, shouldn't be on the Net. I wondered why someone like that was. The whole point of the Net is to connect. And to gain from the fact of differences in individual experience, flavors of expression, even regional slang.
If someone is just a disembodied voice, with no context, why should we strain a point to understand that person's points? For someone's intellect in isolation, I can read a book -- I don't need to be here.
I'd like some flavor from those I talk with. Including from TD.
"... I know if I mailed you privately there would be no response at all."
Not true. I try to answer all civil e-mail or IMs promptly. Feel free to write to me.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 4
1 post
|
|
1 post
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 4 |
I guess I just don't see what the big deal is. I really don't care what the moderators' criteria is for moderating, since I seriously doubt that I'm going to cross too many lines. At least I haven't seemed to so far. However, if I do, I guess I'll know :) I'm not aware of any complaints about anything I've posted so far, so I figure so far so good. I was never completely certain of what Rob's criteria was on the old DC Boards, since threads would be locked or deleted with no explanation as to why. I just assumed, since I wasn't contacted, that it had little to do with me. It certainly didn't affect my posting or what I chose to say. Usually people who were moderated seemed to have a pretty good idea why. And as far as I'm concerned, I don't know too awfully much about any of the moderators' personal lives, with the exception of Lash. I might have read things they've posted about themselves, but to be honest I have a hard time keeping all that personal stuff straight unless it's someone that I really talk to fairly often (I know what Bevis' boyfriend's name is, for instance ) That didn't stop me from voting for them, though, because I liked what I had seen of their on-screen personas, and trusted that they would do a good job governing us and each other. Besides, you can tell people anything you want about what your "real life" is like. That doesn't mean that any of it is true. That's the tricky thing about the net. You really can't know what is truth and what is fiction. I've learned that lesson first hand. And if I really have a point, I guess it would be that we elected these four moderators because we trust them to do a good job. I think it's a little early in the game to start questioning every move they make. Post what you feel is appropriate. If no one has complained so far, don't worry about it. If someone does complain about it, learn and move on. I believe that the moderators are still figuring things out as they go, and probably are still deciding what their criteria is themselves, so asking them to spell it all out at this point is probably a little premature. Could they spell it for us when they've figured it all out? Sure, I guess they could. Should they spell it all out for us? Well, not so far as I'm concerned, but that's just me. Of course, this is all only my opinion, and the views expressed here might not reflect the views of this station Good morning, LHQ!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 681
500+ posts
|
|
500+ posts
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 681 |
Good Morning sweet drama that follows Grey around...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 104
100+ posts
|
|
100+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 104 |
quote:
Originally posted by Greybird:
{Bevis}
"... Do you think the fact that you have had issues with some of the mods and other posters here (and they with you) means that they're going to start some personal vendetta and edit everything you post to make you look like an idiot?"
Nope.
Then why are you so concerned about them editing then? Do you think maybe they'll edit others vidictivly? Or is it just the fact that they can edit at all that you object to (as in editing other people's posts rather than their own)?
quote:
"... until it actually became an issue and was dealt with spam hadn't really been considered by anyone."
Then this is the time to think about it, isn't it? And define some things?
So what do you want defining? What is spam? That's a pretty difficult thing to define at the best of times. And of course it's going to change either on the moderaters own views or on a specific situation.
quote:
"... If you do have a problem with the way they are behaving then really the first thing you should have done is contacted them personally."
I did, privately. That's what IMs are for.
Good. And was it dealt with? Did you get an explanation of their actions and such? Because if you did why did you then come here and bring up the exact same things again?
quote:
"... Like I say, for clarity maybe we should have some kind of guidelines. Just get off your high horse about the whole issue."
Does your saying so make it a legitimate issue, while my saying so puts me on a high horse? {rueful smile}
No, me saying it makes it no more a valid point than you saying it. However the only reason I even mention it is to shut you up. If the only way you're going to be happy is if there's a set of rules that you can sit there and pick apart then maybe that's what we need because pretty much everyone else seems to be perfectly happy (or at the very least not concerned) with how things have been going.
And on a personal note would you kindly never point your {rueful grin} at me again. Quite frankly if you're saying something that you think might upset/annoy/antagonise me and you want to avoid any comeback then don't post it. if you are going to post something like that then don't bother pretending that you don't want to say it, which is all the 'grin' comes across as. In actual fact all it does is make me notice even more anything that could be taken the wrong way and wonder if you're so concerned about how I might react why you said it in the first place.
quote:
"And as to whether we know who TD is or not. Well, quite frankly who gives a toss?"
Many have, in my experiences at moderating. Someone this private -- she's not the first -- is often seen as not to be respected, or as much, because he or she is not opening up to be a part of the community, or as much of one.
That works against being as effective a moderator, and against making his or her admin decisions stick with others. Again, my observation.
You what? I'm sorry but that's just complete crap (actually 'm not sorry, but it's still crap). Not knowing who she is doesn't make her any less of an effective mod. If anyone here actually thought that then why would they have voted her in? Quite frankly being terribly open, letting people know exactly what you think, is just as much a problem as not saying anything. I'm sure you remember all the drama over the Legionpics/LSHpics yahoo sites. That was because the moderater was *too* open. So which is better? Do you want her to tell you everything about herself so that you can trust and respect her? Does she have to let you know exactly who she is before you can do that? Because if so then you're going to be sorely disappointed by virtually everyone. As Cru says on the internet you can't know that anythign anyone says is true or not. If I told you that I was half Indian would you be able to prove I wasn't? And wouldn't it change how you, or others, viewed me? if I said that I wasn't gay at all or that I was actually a woman and admitted I'd been lying for years would that be better than me just not saying in the first place?
For the first few years I was on the net and posting in mesage boards and such I never used my real name. I never referred to anything major going on in my own life. That didn't seem to affect how people thought about me, and nor should it. respect comes from a lot of things, from the way people behave on boards, the way they react to others. Knowing exactly who that person is, what their private life is like, has no real bearing on that. It shouldn't on or off the net and I simply don't understand why you're so bloody concerned about it in the first place.
quote:
"... And why exactly does wanting to keep a degree of privacy mean that she shouldn't be on the net in the first place?"
I didn't say she, or anyone, shouldn't be on the Net. I wondered why someone like that was. The whole point of the Net is to connect. And to gain from the fact of differences in individual experience, flavors of expression, even regional slang.
If someone is just a disembodied voice, with no context, why should we strain a point to understand that person's points? For someone's intellect in isolation, I can read a book -- I don't need to be here.
I'd like some flavor from those I talk with. Including from TD.
gain I really don't see what your problem here is. Because you don't know about her private life you can't contect with her on an intellectual or personal level? Why ever not? She's not your 'friend', she doesn't have to tell you anything. The people that I really know things about on these boards, that i consider friends, I've really got to know out of the public forums. I've contected with them because of what they're posting, what they're thinking, and then got to know more about them off-line. There are people I now consider friends that I would probably have never spoken to if I met them in the real world. There are people who post all the time here that i know next to nothing about but that doesn't stop me being interested in what they have to say or in respecting their own views and such. Sure I don't know much about TD at all but I don't feel that I need to go digging to respect her or think she has the integrity to be a moderater. She's given me no real reason to think she'll be a great moderater or a bad moderater. However she has become very much a part of this group (whether that be the LMBP or LHQ or whatever) and people like and respect her simply for what she posts. What she doesn't post is neither here nor there.
quote:
"... I know if I mailed you privately there would be no response at all."
Not true. I try to answer all civil e-mail or IMs promptly. Feel free to write to me.
I may do. Depends on where this discussion goes really.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 7
1 post
|
|
1 post
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 7 |
{Princess Crujectra}
"... I was never completely certain of what Rob's criteria was on the old DC Boards, since threads would be locked or deleted with no explanation as to why."
In my experience, either Rob did say why (if a thread wasn't entirely deleted), or the reason was fairly evident from the agreement that we "signed" to get a user ID in the first place. And which, it seemed from comments, very few had actually read. (Nothing implied here about anyone in particular, including 'Cru.)
We don't have that kind of a contract here, just custom and practice. That both makes matters more flexible and calls for being even more informative as to why the mods do what they do ... as I see it.
"... And if I really have a point, I guess it would be that we elected these four moderators because we trust them to do a good job."
That, I have to say, is part of what I call the "democratic illusion." (Small "D".) "We" didn't place any such "trust." Those four received the most votes, and that's not the same thing. Their being the first four on the list doesn't create such trust. They earn that, or don't earn that, through their actions.
This being said, I'm not expressing distrust of them as such, either. I'm asking for definitions, and a conscious effort to avoid being arbitrary about what they do.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 681
500+ posts
|
|
500+ posts
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 681 |
Why are you making such a big deal out of this. They're the moderators...they're doing their jobs. They edited some "Legion am gay" posts and got rid of some pics of Llance. That's all...give it a rest.
They did not abuse their power, or do anything to your posts...did they?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 7
1 post
|
|
1 post
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 7 |
{Bevis ... and I thought that I was wordy {g}}
"Then why are you so concerned about them editing then? Do you think maybe they'll edit others vindictively?"
I'm not concerned about anyone being vindictive. I simply would like to know why the mods do what they do. To say that it's for zapping spam, for example, as I induced Lash LaRue to do, makes a considerable difference. We shouldn't be left guessing.
We're building up mores and habits by what we do here, and it isn't played against a user contract, like the agreement we "signed" to use the old, or new, DC boards. Rob made a point of saying to all comers that no such contract was to be found here at "his damn board." That makes it even more important for us to know, clearly, what the accepted rules are in each local area. Such as LHQ.
"... So what do you want defining? What is spam? That's a pretty difficult thing to define at the best of times."
If the mods have rules of thumb, that's a sizable first step -- if they tell them to us, that is. Say, no non-Legion-related images. Or as EDE said, not putting a Dawnstar (or any other) image in every thread.
I'm not asking for law books or philosophic rigor. It's simply that any stab at narrowing this down -- even informally -- begins to give the rest of us some guidance, wastes less of everyone's time (outside a thread like this {g}), and lessens misunderstandings.
"... the only reason I even mention it is to shut you up."
At least you're candid about this. I think I'll just let that one pass.
Not about "{rueful smile}", etc., though: I don't care for the Instant Gremlins, or emoticons, and I won't use them. (The Legion smilies will soon be an exception.) I am a verbal person. I use "rueful" to suggest that something's meant to be wry or sardonic. It's just as sincere as anything else I say. I mark all sarcasm explicitly.
You deserve to know all that, but I'm not going to hem in what has become one of my own verbal trademarks around here, not for anyone. And feel free to come back with anything you like ... but some discussion should go, methinks, to e-mail or IMs when it gets too overdetailed.
"... If anyone here actually thought that then why would they have voted her in?"
The same democratic illusion -- see my last post above. Voting doesn't create or reflect communal knowledge, either. ... Since we're on the subject, I might have felt better with Rob instead choosing moderators he trusted. He didn't do that, so we have to mutually sort out what's wanted and expected after the fact.
As for expectations of knowing anyone's "private life" -- well, I didn't express them, so I won't talk about them. I think my sense was clear enough earlier.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 7
1 post
|
|
1 post
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 7 |
{Dev Em}
"Why are you making such a big deal out of this?"
Precedents are being set. This is the time to discuss it, rather than months or years after this forum has been open.
For those who want to, that is, Dev. Nobody's making you read it. I note in passing that I don't suggest to others that their discussion, or fanfic, or potshots, have gone on too long.
"They did not abuse their power, or do anything to your posts ... did they?"
To anything I've posted? No. I don't want to risk this in the future, though, especially since I do like to occasionally hot-link a graphic image. That's enough of a bandwidth demand for the mods to be concerned -- as Lash said elsewhere.
I like to know the rules of the game, even the informal ones, before I get very far into playing it. Even here. Call it my queer streak, if you wish -- I don't mind.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 104
100+ posts
|
|
100+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 104 |
quote:
Originally posted by Greybird:
{Bevis ... and I thought that I was wordy {g}}
Wordy? Moi? Perish the thought. Well alright then, I can be a wee bit verbose when the mood takes me.
quote:
"Then why are you so concerned about them editing then? Do you think maybe they'll edit others vindictively?"
I'm not concerned about anyone being vindictive. I simply would like to know why the mods do what they do. To say that it's for zapping spam, for example, as I induced Lash LaRue to do, makes a considerable difference. We shouldn't be left guessing.
I need to re-read your other posts before responding completely to this one (since I admit in the past I've read something, not quite remembered it properly and responded to it) but that's not the impression i got from your earlier posts. This request seems fairly reasonable to me but could just have easily been said in a simple sentence like 'for clarity if a moderater edits a post can they include a comment as to why it was done'. That is in fact pretty much the way things are run over at the Sequential Tart boards. The moderaters can (and do) edit posts they deem to be offensive/inflammatory/whatever but they always include in the edit *why* they did it. That's not an unreasonable request and something I can agree with fully (although I don't really think there's an absolute need for it).
Hmm. How's that for not responding fully. Like I say, verbosity...
quote:
We're building up mores and habits by what we do here, and it isn't played against a user contract, like the agreement we "signed" to use the old, or new, DC boards. Rob made a point of saying to all comers that no such contract was to be found here at "his damn board." That makes it even more important for us to know, clearly, what the accepted rules are in each local area. Such as LHQ.
I take your point on this one but in the same way the fact that we didn't sign anything, and the fact that Rob has said that the way the moderaters run the board is up to them, means that... well, they could pretty much do what they want. They have no obligation to tell us anything. Hey, it's just like a real government isn't it?
quote:
"... So what do you want defining? What is spam? That's a pretty difficult thing to define at the best of times."
If the mods have rules of thumb, that's a sizable first step -- if they tell them to us, that is. Say, no non-Legion-related images. Or as EDE said, not putting a Dawnstar (or any other) image in every thread.
Again fair point. And finally stated clearly and simply. There is no obligation for them to do so but if they are going to follow any kind of rule of thumb, agreed amongst themselves, then yes they should let people know what that rule is. For example personally I'd rather so no images at all simply because at work they download fine, on my WebTV though even the avatars take ages to download and images stuck in the middle of threads can tie up the connection for ages.
quote:
"... the only reason I even mention it is to shut you up."
At least you're candid about this. I think I'll just let that one pass.
Terribly gracious of you. And I know you wouldn't expect me to be any less than open about how I feel. That's interaction that is, on a deep personal level (whether that be a good thing or not is for others to decide).
quote:
Not about "{rueful smile}", etc., though: I don't care for the Instant Gremlins, or emoticons, and I won't use them. (The Legion smilies will soon be an exception.) I am a verbal person. I use "rueful" to suggest that something's meant to be wry or sardonic. It's just as sincere as anything else I say. I mark all sarcasm explicitly.
But that's not what rueful means. To rue is to regret. If'n you're not meaning that then don't say it. If you're being sarcastic and you want people to be sure that's what you mean then by all means say so but 'rueful grin' implies you regret what you're saying. And you, like me, *never* regret what you're saying. That's part of the reason why we're such a volatile mix of characters.
quote:
You deserve to know all that, but I'm not going to hem in what has become one of my own verbal trademarks around here, not for anyone. And feel free to come back with anything you like ... but some discussion should go, methinks, to e-mail or IMs when it gets too overdetailed.
It's your perogative to carry on using it, and I probably should have said why i find it quite so annoying on private e-mail but what's done is done now. Like you say though if I feel any need to carry on this particular strain of arguement/conversation then I'll do it by e-mail. I'll probably just let it drop though. Easier for all concerned.
quote:
"... If anyone here actually thought that then why would they have voted her in?"
The same democratic illusion -- see my last post above. Voting doesn't create or reflect communal knowledge, either. ... Since we're on the subject, I might have felt better with Rob instead choosing moderators he trusted. He didn't do that, so we have to mutually sort out what's wanted and expected after the fact.
Well if it is all just an illusion then so is the idea that they should have to listen to anyone. If you want them to do things in a way that you approve of (or a way you think things should be run for the good of everyone) then you can't sit there and say that the election of the mods is an illusion of a democracy. Sure this is never going to be a real democracy (even in the real world they don't really exist) but it's as close as we're going to get. And most of the people who did vote I'm sure have known (on the net) the people they voted for for a good while. Long enough to feel they were voting for them for a reason. Which is usually more than can be said about a governmental election.
quote:
As for expectations of knowing anyone's "private life" -- well, I didn't express them, so I won't talk about them. I think my sense was clear enough earlier.
Well no, clearly it wasn't. You claimed you didn't know enough about TD to respect her as a moderater. If it isn't her private life, who she is and where she's from and what she does, then what else do you mean? She's been posting for a good while now, she's as much a part of this group as you are and you may not know her as much as others do but like i said some people know me or you better than others, simply because we've interacted more on the boards with certain people, and I don't see how that would have any bearing at all on how either of us would do the job of a moderater. Why is it different for TD?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 4
1 post
|
|
1 post
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 4 |
quote:
Originally posted by Greybird:
That, I have to say, is part of what I call the "democratic illusion." (Small "D".) "We" didn't place any such "trust." Those four received the most votes, and that's not the same thing. Their being the first four on the list doesn't create such trust. They earn that, or don't earn that, through their actions.
Actually, as far as I'm concerned, that's exactly what that means. They didn't draw the longest straws. They won an election. I would hope that the people that voted for them had some amount of faith that they were the best qualified to handle the job. That's certainly why I voted as I did. By winning the election, I'd say that they had already earned the trust of the majority of the voters. However, if you didn't vote for them, then yeah, it could mean that they haven't necessarily earned your trust.
quote:
Originally posted by Greybird:
This being said, I'm not expressing distrust of them as such, either. I'm asking for definitions, and a conscious effort to avoid being arbitrary about what they do.
Then I guess I'm just misreading what you're saying, because I'm getting the impression that you don't entirely trust them, at least to the point where you are avoiding posting things until they come right out and tell you they won't moderate you for it. If you don't, in fact, distrust them, then why do you need their word that they are going to be fair?
I do apologize if this comes across as an attack, Grey, because it's really not meant to be one. I'm not trying to change your mind on anything, but I am trying to show a different viewpoint. I'm just not sure how good a job I'm doing of that. :)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 7
1 post
|
|
1 post
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 7 |
The last post from Bevis either highlighted some points that had become clear, which I'm glad for, or that hadn't, which I think I've already flogged enough here.
Except for my use of "rueful." My own reference (Merriam-Webster Collegiate) gives the first meaning as "exciting pity or sympathy," before "mournful or regretful."
My sense for that word is that of sympathy, for how strange or weird the world we live in can become. We all have to approach personal foibles, or lapses in communication, with something of a wry attitude, about the knots we can create for ourselves ... or how easy it is to overlook them.
It's meant as an expression of fellow-feeling. I wouldn't say that we need "a sense of humor" as such to muddle through in this world, as much as an appreciation for our capacity to act in strange and inconsistent ways. A universal fault or condition, from which nobody is exempt, including me.
Thus a touch of sympathy for "what fools these mortals be," to quote the Bard, and thus "rueful." I had long meant to put that on record, so a thank-you goes to Bevis for provoking me to do so.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 7
1 post
|
|
1 post
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 7 |
Your viewpoint was clear, 'Cru. Sometimes you don't give yourself the credit you deserve. (I've said that in regard to your drawings, as well. Post some here ... since the mods don't seem to mind.)
My point was more about the "we" illusion, anyway. Nothing's communally created by "us," whatever the electorate, in the act of any election -- not trust, not knowledge, and in the broader world, not peace. It's a method of selection. That's all.
It's often an act of faith, as you suggest, when it comes down to individuals ... and I've never been fond of acts of faith. I'd rather see evidence of competence first. That desire doesn't tend to fit well with the process and timeframe of an election, though.
With that, I think I've written enough on a good morning at LHQ.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 150
100+ posts
|
|
100+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 150 |
Good afternoon LHQ. So I'm a little late getting here today, is there anything going on?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 6
1 post
|
|
1 post
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 6 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 644
500+ posts
|
|
500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 644 |
quote:
Originally posted by URG:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Kennedy:
Hey, no skin off my nuggets in the end, but isn't Rob's boards supposed to be a sort of "Anything Goes" joint??? Have you guys taken a stroll around the rest of this board yet? The mods on the other forums seem to be pretty loosey-goosey in regard to their moderating style. Just sayin'...
You am right. The mods here am both loosey and goosey. They am also like donkeys.
good morning,legion boys and girls.
Mornin', URG. :)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 558
500+ posts
|
|
OP
500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 558 |
Morning Matt. Feeling chipper this morning?
|
|
|
|
|
