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?