Rules

[john4703]

I wonder if a rule should be added. "If a thread is locked the person locking it must email the person, or persons, whose posts have caused this action to be taken and explain why it has been locked"
Maybe better to have a simpler rule "If a thread is locked the person locking it should post a final comment explaining why it has been locked"
Either would work in that perfect world where all moderators have loads of time, or are paid. I am not a mod on this forum but am on others and it is a tough and thankless task. It is impossible to please all users but equally I have never locked a thread or banned a poster without explaining why.

 

[westie101]

Ah I see, a sign of "we're not sure who is in charge!"

Seen it loads of times before on other forums.

One thing to remember is that, sadly we are only guests here, it is not our forum and we are welcome to leave at any time.
As I quoted earlier there are plenty of other forums where action is taken by moderators or admins without explanation, as we are not due that, they have better things to do. (I know far too many of the 100 or so moderators on that one)

Further if anyone has any idea how these things operate there is always a hidden forum where moderators and admins discuss those threads (or posters) that are difficult, often a thread will only be closed, modified or action taken after discussion and agreement.

But at the end of the day it ain't our train set

 

[JohnW2]

I wonder if a rule should be added. "If a thread is locked the person locking it must email the person, or persons, whose posts have caused this action to be taken and explain why it has been locked"

Obviously not a rule, but it wouldn't surprise me if there quite often is a private message sent to the 'culprit(s)', by way of a warning. If you want other ideas, maybe " 'Thanks' points" could be deducted (increasingly so for 'repeat offences') from those who bring about locking of threads (or are otherwise 'warned') - that might be particularly effective in relation to any whose behaviour in the forum is at least partially related to issues of ego and/or 'self-importance'!

Maybe better to have a simpler rule "If a thread is locked the person locking it should post a final comment explaining why it has been locked"

Again, not a rule, but it is almost always the case that the moderator does 'post a final comment', albeit usually very brief. Indeed, part of the 'beef' which caused this thread to be started was that another had been locked with a 'final comment' from the moderator which just read "bored.com"! Having said that, few of us here usually need any 'explanation'. As I wrote earlier, the locking of threads is pretty rare in this forum - and, when it does happen, the reason is usually painfully obvious to most of us!

Kind Regards, John

 

[westie101]

Obviously not a rule, but it wouldn't surprise me if there quite often is a private message sent to the 'culprit(s)', by way of a warning. If you want other ideas, maybe " 'Thanks' points" could be deducted (increasingly so for 'repeat offences')

Or as occurs on other sites, issue "warning points" if the site softwear allows it

Approved Member

1,597 posts
0 warning points

(the only person apart from admin & moderators that can see the number of warning points is the poster themselves)

 

[john4703]

I should have said that I think this forum is well moderated and runs well and well done those who work hard to keep it running well. I for one appreciate your hard work.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Obviously not a rule, but it wouldn't surprise me if there quite often is a private message sent to the 'culprit(s)', by way of a warning.

I received nothing about the toolkit topic. But then it wasn't I who started arguing about test equipment not being a tool, or complaining about commas, or objecting to being (relevantly) quoted, so if there was a "culprit" in that topic it was not I.

If you want other ideas, maybe " 'Thanks' points" could be deducted (increasingly so for 'repeat offences') from those who bring about locking of threads

But how would it be determined who had "brought it about"? I can assure you, given the criticisms I sometimes get, that there are people here who think, by analogy, that if Person A goes into a pub and smacks Person B, that if Person B has the gall to defend himself then he is the one responsible for bringing about a fight.

(or are otherwise 'warned') - that might be particularly effective in relation to any whose behaviour in the forum is at least partially related to issues of ego and/or 'self-importance'!

It would also be particularly juvenile, and it would be pointless in relation to people who are not so pathetic and inadequate that they behave in ways related, or partially related to issues of ego and/or 'self-importance'.

Indeed, part of the 'beef' which caused this thread to be started was that another had been locked with a 'final comment' from the moderator which just read "bored.com"!

Not quite.

Moderator 8's behaviour was the only reason I started this thread.

 

[JohnW2]

I should have said that I think this forum is well moderated and runs well and well done those who work hard to keep it running well. I for one appreciate your hard work.

Me too. Although I gave it up many moons ago, through lack of time, over the years I have 'had powers' in many forums/fora - all the way back to Compuserve Forums in the pre-Internet days of the mid 80s (when we were called 'Sysops', not moderators) and I know what a time-consuming and thankless task it can be. Therefore, like you, I am very appreciative of the time and heartache which the mods in this forum devote to what I'm sure is still 'a time-consuming and thankless task'!

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I should have said that I think this forum is well moderated.

Mostly (apart from GD).

 

[JohnW2]

But how would it be determined who had "brought it about"?

As westie has said, it's for the mods to decide/determine whatever they see fit, and to act however they see fit, without necessarily having to explain themselves to anyone. If you don't like such a situation, you are free to try to find an alternative forum which works differently.

I can assure you, given the criticisms I sometimes get, that there are people here who think, by analogy, that if Person A goes into a pub and smacks Person B, that if Person B has the gall to defend himself then he is the one responsible for bringing about a fight.

The person who starts something is often not the only person who deserves blame for whatever subsequently occurs.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

The person who starts something is often not the only person who deserves blame for whatever subsequently occurs.

Only in the minds of those who believe that people who are criticised or attacked should just sit quietly by and let it happen.

 

[JohnW2]

Obviously not a rule, but it wouldn't surprise me if there quite often is a private message sent to the 'culprit(s)', by way of a warning. If you want other ideas, maybe " 'Thanks' points" could be deducted (increasingly so for 'repeat offences')

Or as occurs on other sites, issue "warning points" if the site softwear allows it

Indeed - several of the forums on which I have had 'powers' have had such a facility. Decisions about suspensions and expulsions are then often based, at least partially, on the relative number of 'warnings', posts and (if implemented) 'thanks'.

Approved Member ... 1,597 posts
0 warning points ... (the only person apart from admin & moderators that can see the number of warning points is the poster themselves)

Even more fun would be a 'No Thanks' button and a publicly visible count of them, as well as of 'Thanks'

Kind Regards, John

 

[westie101]

or attacked should just sit quietly by and let it happen.

or using the "Alert Moderators" facility carry out this request from the rules (the bits no quoted in post #1)

Please alert the Moderators to any "Spam posts" or "inappropriate content".

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I don't think it's really meant to be as specific as that. I think it merely means what it says - namely that one should not quote more material than is "absolutely necessary". Interpretations of "absolutely necessary" will obviously vary, and what is 'necessary' (or, at least, desirable/helpful) will vary dramatically between posts.

OOI, do you think that, this, for example is what the rule is trying to forbid, or what RF was trying to dismiss when he said

Don't bother multi quoting me.

?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

or using the "Alert Moderators" facility carry out this request from the rules (the bits no quoted in post #1)

I can give you a categorical assurance that they frequently do SFA.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Even more fun would be a 'No Thanks' button and a publicly visible count of them, as well as of 'Thanks'

That was (sort of) tried here for a while, with the thumbs down facility.

Some members here were so {stupid|juvenile|pathetic|vindictive|<your choice>} that they registered multiple IDs just so that they could give posts like this, for example, (quoted in its entirety):

Use twin and earth, connect the earths at the RCD but not at the fan.

BUT - presuming the earths are connected all the way back to the CU is unwise - do you really want to trust your life to someone like the person who installed the original fan? OK - that is probably a bit dramatic, but the point is you cannot be sure that the earth is continuous back to the CU, and you need to be.

It's easy enough to check with the right equipment - any electrician will be able to do it for you.

You should also read this: //www.diynot.com/wiki/electrics:part-p[/QUOTE]

multiple thumbs down.

The debacle of that system preceded your presence here, so there's no way you could have known about it, but trust me, it was abused to such an extent that it was abandoned after a short time

I never objected to getting a thumbs down when I had, for example, called someone a t**t. But in post after post after post I got multiple thumbs down when I had said nothing contentious at all. I got multiple thumbs down for saying exactly the same things (without using any terms that anybody could object to) as other people who got thanked for saying them.

We even had people going back over posts I'd made before the introduction of the facility and voting them down.

And not once during the whole sorry saga did anybody ever provide a reasoned, logical explanation for why they had voted down something I posted.


Would you like another example of the sort of thing which went on? I did not go looking for something from this particular member, and it's ironic, in a way, that I should be quoting it here, given how in the locked topic he objected to something he wrote in the past being quoted, but here it is:

Oh and i didn't bother reading whatever you wrote, as I'm far too busy counting how many granuals of sugar there is in an average 500g bag.

Oh and I've given your post a thumbs down cos it's really funny

Read that again. Yes - RF said that he didn't read my post, but voted it down because he found it really funny to do so. Is that rational, logical, intelligent behaviour?

So no - I don't think that your idea of a "No thanks" button is a good idea.