Moderators

[HevyDevy]

HD,

Not picking a fight with you buddy, but I got a warning for not posting a link not long back. I honestly just screwed up and didn't even realise that I had done it till I was told. After I was told, I fixed it up straight away, said sorry, I f*cked up and moved on. Let it go man. Its not that important.

:lol:

I know man, I agree. I was just pointing out that I did source the article. Pffft, you're right it really doesn't matter.

I'll tell you what though, if this is your first foray into 4c you've picked a bloody good thread to start on!

 

[HevyDevy]

it requires a link for a reason and thats why its written that way in the gudelines

Willow can explain that for you. i cbf

Okay El, I'll concede that to you. And despite that I believe I have been quite good in regards to posting links etc ever since.

But I did have a point earlier didn't I?

I mean, the whole idea of having a link is to source a story and even though I didn't have a link, I did source the story ....

 

[El Diablo]

HD,

Not picking a fight with you buddy, but I got a warning for not posting a link not long back. I honestly just screwed up and didn't even realise that I had done it till I was told. After I was told, I fixed it up straight away, said sorry, I f*cked up and moved on. Let it go man. Its not that important.

people get them all the time and 9 times out of 10 people edit in a link when asked

then there's the odd wally who thinks they should be treated differently to everyone else

 

[HevyDevy]

What's that El, you refuse to concede that I have a point?

Is that pride talking?

f**k pride! Pride only hurts.

And incidentally, at what number of posts does one become a post whore?

I was planning on celebrating my 10,000th post (well, by observing in said post that it was my 10,000th, if that counts as a celebration) but it seems I missed it.

 

[El Diablo]

Okay El, I'll concede that to you. And despite that I believe I have been quite good in regards to posting links etc ever since.

But I did have a point earlier didn't I?

I mean, the whole idea of having a link is to source a story and even though I didn't have a link, I did source the story ....

nope

 

[HevyDevy]

:nwave:

I'm looking forward to both of you, El and Willow, admitting that I do have a point.

Yes yes, I have conceded that I need to post links in future etc etc, but I certainly do have a point. It's all about the source, blah blah.

I'm tired but strangely entertained.

 

[bartman]

So are you not a Moderator of the Eels forum as well Barty??

Nope, the Eels forum is well catered for in the moderating stakes. I'm one of the UK League mods, having spent 4 years living in the place. And then I was asked to come aboard the team here when it needed more hands on deck.

Can Moderators choose which forums they want or you just get put into one. What happens if you hate a certain football team and you don't even want to be in that forum and you get put into it and then you have to read all the crap that goes in there when you really don't give a crap. Must be trying.

Generally you get approached to be a mod for a section. Sometimes the call is put out for interested parties when there is a shortage here or these. And sometimes people whinge so much it's easier having them as a mod than it is to moderate them. You never have to be or stay a mod if you don't want to be, so in that sense you only do sections that you choose.

The Super Mods are across all of the sections of the forum - now that must be trying. Not to mention time consuming - I don't know how people squeeze enough time for that if they are working.

 

[El Diablo]

What's that El, you refuse to concede that I have a point?

Is that pride talking?

f**k pride! Pride only hurts.

And incidentally, at what number of posts does one become a post whore?

I was planning on celebrating my 10,000th post (well, by observing in said post that it was my 10,000th, if that counts as a celebration) but it seems I missed it.

you have no point

Willow explained at length to you in his post at 12:07 am

the guidelines are clear

 

[HevyDevy]

nope

:lol:

You're awesome El.

Anyway Millers, I forgive you for your stubborness as per the original aim of this thread before Willow started ranting. You are not even close to the most stubborn on here.

 

[Parra Future]

As Yoda would say, "entertained we are". How true. Good night power players. See you all tomorrow. I hope Four Corners is always this much fun.

 

[HevyDevy]

you have no point

Willow explained at length to you in his post at 12:07 am

Yes and I accepted that links need to be provided ... and yet I still have a point.

You can deny it all you like, but I have a point and it's quite amusing to watch you refuse to acknowledge it because you're too proud to.

That said, my harping on about it has rendered this thread completely pathetic but I'm well past caring about it.

And there is nothing decent on Foxtel.

 

[HevyDevy]

As Yoda would say, "entertained we are". How true. Good night power players. See you all tomorrow. I hope Four Corners is always this much fun.

Wait till you see Millers and Roopy go at it.

They're like two peas in a pod bar their opposing political views. Makes for a few fireworks.

 

[Willow]

Of course it's changed El, I saw the original yarn and recalled exactly what the case was. Deal with it.

This was part of the PM sent to you by me last year:

If that source has an URL (website) link, then the URL must be included.

From : Willow
To : El Diablo, HevyDevy, Twizzle
Date : 2008-06-12 09:37
Title : Complaint looked into

It was spelled out to you in June last year, and again in this thread. That part of the guidelines hasn't changed.

As it is, that's fine and all El, but let me put this to you:

I assume that original rule was listed so that whenever a story was posted the source of where that story came from was also listed. That is, if the Telegraph wrote it you source the Tele, if the SMH wrote it you source the SMH and if cricinfo wrote it you source cricinfo.

The rule did not take into account scenarios where a story appeared on a certain website but was in fact written by a completely different agency.

For example, if AAP write a story that appears in the Tele, I could credit the Tele but I could also (and more accurately) credit AAP.

In his case I credited the Agency that wrote the story. It's theirs, they own it.

So perhaps our whole argument is based on this scenario that wasn't considered at the time thr forum rules were listed?

If so, we could take it as we were both right and move on.

Or you could insist that I was in the wrong, ignore the fact that I have a valid point and throw another insult my way if that's what floats your boat.

The sound of major backpeddling.

You trying to rewrite the member guidelines isn't going to change the facts.

Also PMd to you from me last year:

I gave Google a search and found numerous online sources for the article you posted.

You were given all the right information last year. A detailed reply, and it still wasn't good enough.

You're ignoring the facts. Why are you trying to change the story?

FYI, links are the first call for a source for a few reasons, one of which is so they can be verified.

I'm not going to read all of your post Willow - everything you say in there is predictable and I'm sure it's all talking down to me - because that's what you do to everyone - so there is little point.

How do you get through the week?
If you stop whinging for a moment, you might be able to take in the facts.

I believe you did read my post, you found that you were clearly in the wrong, so now it's just fingers in the ears stuff. What a cop out.

All I'll say is that in that scenario, just like with Millers today, I was responding to a situation where the mod either acted outside what they are reasonably asked to do or something occured as I observed in my previous post.

No, you were just wrong about what happened in the cricket forum last year, and can't admit it.

Presumably you didn't read that sentence either. lol

Actually, I just noticed that El was the one that originally deleted my post so that explains why he has fired up. I can understand people wanting to defend themselves.

I also told you last year that El D deleted it.

Firstly, I found a post from 21 May 2008 which was deleted in 'Big Daz is back!' thread by El Diablo for the following reason

Plus I have already mentioned this in this thread (post # 31).

Looks to me like you've got a bad case of selective comprehension. Or something worse.

 

[Willow]

:nwave:

I'm looking forward to both of you, El and Willow, admitting that I do have a point.

You don't have a point. You want to be above the rules.

Why do you think you should be given special treatment?

Yes yes, I have conceded that I need to post links in future etc etc, but I certainly do have a point. It's all about the source, blah blah.

I'm tired but strangely entertained.

Are you drunk?

 

[HevyDevy]

The sound of major backpeddling.

You trying to rewrite the member guidelines isn't going to change the facts.

Try and keep up Willow. I have said that yes, I will always post the link from now on. I have never said that we shouldn't have to post links so don't throw words in my mouth to better suit your argument. Good at that aren't we?

Anyway, go back and read my post #56 and then come back and tell me that I don't have a point.

I know that you are going to tell me that I don't have a point so I look forward to reading it.

In the meantime, let me just say that my response last year was based on the fact that I did source my article even though I didn't post a link.

Your response to that is "Oh, but it's in the guidelines that you have to post a link."

My response to that right now is: "Yes I understand and accept that, but the reason I pointed out the silliness of my post being deleted is that links are all about providing a source and I did actually provide a source"

See, I'm not arguing about the link anymore Willow. I understand that it's in the rules and the rules are gospel etc etc. It just happens that moy posting of the source happened to achieve what the link is also designed to achieve.

As much as you want to dispute that and tell me "But it's written in the rules" my point remains correct.

You can either be sensible about it and agree, with the proviso that yes I will post links from now on, or we can keep going around in circles.

Sadly, I know what the response is going to be.

 

[HevyDevy]

You don't have a point. You want to be above the rules.

If that were true Willow I would be refusing to post links, which I'm not.

You are a stubborn one aren't you? You should try and use that to your advantage as you move forward in life.

 

[HevyDevy]

And slightly off topic, but purely for my own curiosity, does there have to be a mod 'on duty' 24 hours a day?

I'm assuming that maybe there does but it just occurred to me then.

Who decides who pulls the late shift?

Interesting it is.

 

[bartman]

I think you have a point of sorts HD... but just that people are disagreeing with it.

The reason the site requires a link is very different to the reasoning being applied about a link (merely) being an avenue to a source. It's possible imo for both points to be acknowledged, but the point that the site requires a link for consistency reasons in a legal sense clearly wins out for me in the end.

 

[Willow]

Try and keep up Willow. I have said that yes, I will always post the link from now on.

Would you like me to say you're a good boy now?

Are you admitting that you got it wrong?

I have never said that we shouldn't have to post links so don't throw words in my mouth to better suit your argument. Good at that aren't we?

More sooking.

You broke the rules, couldn't admit to it, and kicked a fuss because you didn't like being moderated.

Thems the facts.

Now you are whinging about it almost a year later. You know, this could make you the biggest sook in the history of these forums. Congratulations.

Anyway, go back and read my post #56 and then come back and tell me that I don't have a point.

Irrelevant. You're just clutching at straws.

The substance of your whinge was that you thought you were unjustly moderated almost a year ago. You stuffed up there big time.

I know that you are going to tell me that I don't have a point so I look forward to reading it.

In the meantime, let me just say that my response last year was based on the fact that I did source my article even though I didn't post a link.

You earlier insisted that you posted a link.

Are you admitting that you got it wrong?

Your response to that is "Oh, but it's in the guidelines that you have to post a link."

It's called the facts of the matter.

My response to that right now is: "Yes I understand and accept that

Here comes the 'but'...

but the reason I pointed out the silliness of my post being deleted is that links are all about providing a source and I did actually provide a source"

According to Hevy's rule book perhaps. I already explained the reason why a link is important as a first call for sourcing.

Moroever, there is nothing silly about the post being deleted if:
1. It contravenes the member's guidelines.
2. An explanation is sent to the member.

Can't be fairer than that. The only silly thing is that after having all this explained to you last year, and again today, you still couldn't let it go. That, and your insistence on trying to double guess the rules.

See, I'm not arguing about the link anymore Willow.

Are you admitting that you got it wrong?

I understand that it's in the rules and the rules are gospel etc etc. It just happens that moy posting of the source happened to achieve what the link is also designed to achieve.

As much as you want to dispute that and tell me "But it's written in the rules" my point remains correct.

You can either be sensible about it and agree, with the proviso that yes I will post links from now on, or we can keep going around in circles.

Sadly, I know what the response is going to be.

lol. You're a jibberer aren't you Hevy?

You still think you're a special case.

 

[Mong]

Millers and Surely are mods. Two intellectual giants if I ever saw a pair

If anyones hopes were high you desreve to be disappointed.

It's funny cause it's true..

:lol: