Moderators

[Mong]

Which leads us to ask of the other mods: Can you put a leash on Millers please? I don't need to be told what I can and can't discuss.

Clearly you need to post a whole bunch of racist dribble like the mod in question, that way your posts are safe..

 

[HevyDevy]

Typical Willow, too arrogant to admit that I have a point.

What you should do Willow is go back through this thread and recall exactly what happened.

I mentioned in one short sentence that I once had a post deleted and that I disagreed with it.

Your response? An essay. And you think I harp on about it?

More likely is that you felt a need to stamp whatever authority it is that you believe an LU moderator has by ranting. And once you started, well I must admit I couldn't help but defend myself.

Amusingly, so stubborn are you that even when I have admitted that absolutely I should have posted a link you've kept going.

Even Bartman has acknowledged that I have a point which is all I'm really arguing about at the moment (and probably being a little stubborn about that myself, but it's entertaining at least) but you just cannot bring yourself to admit that my point is valid.

For some reason though you keep referring to how I want to be treated 'special'.

See, I'm pretty sure I don't. I haven't asked for an exemption from forum rules. "Please Willow, can I post racist statements"? Pfffft.

Anyway Bartman, once again you are a voice of reason in acknowledging both sides of this discussion.

 

[HevyDevy]

Clearly you need to post a whole bunch of racist dribble like the mod in question, that way your posts are safe..

I notice that Willow hasn't actually referred at any stage to the original purpose of this thread, which was to point out that a certain moderator over-stepped his bounds.

It's okay Millers, I forgive you - I'd just hate to see a mod start cutting large chunks out of threads because he decides it's irrelevant. As many others have pointed out, the fact that we will often drift onto tangents is what makes 4c so interesting.

 

[millersnose]

lol 6 pages now - you accuse me of 'overstepping bounds' - where hevy?

and the posts i cut were irrelevant

irrelevant and boring


you may think they are exciting and interesting reading -0 well for that purpose they now still remain in there own thread forever enmshrined in the archives of LU for all to admire into the future

in years to come you may even present them to your grandchildren as evidence of your youthfull wit

 

[Everlovin' Antichrist]

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

If anyones hopes were high you desreve to be disappointed.

lol

This, is my favourite type of post.

 

[HevyDevy]

There are plenty of threads in which I'm quite sure all mods find the discussion boring Millers. Should they all be hacked as well?

Is this the new criteria for you?

I must say that although Willow and I have been having somewhat of a disagreement in this thread, you are the only moderator that makes up his own rules.

Anyway, you should be hacking this thread too given that it has strayed from the original topic.

I'll tell you what, you can keep the posts in which we refer to you but move all of the other elsewhere. If you're going to be consistent you have no other choice really.

 

[millersnose]

There are plenty of threads in which I'm quite sure all mods find the discussion boring Millers. Should they all be hacked as well?

if they are off topic waffle between two members sure

Is this the new criteria for you?

it always has

I must say that although Willow and I have been having somewhat of a disagreement in this thread, you are the only moderator that makes up his own rules.

again you accuse me of breaking rules


without actually saying what rules i am supposed to be breaking

Anyway, you should be hacking this thread too given that it has strayed from the original topic.

your topic is about moderation in here andin particulair my moderating

it hasnt gone off topic

and it is quite an interesting and entertaining thread - you in particulair have been in fine form

I'll tell you what, you can keep the posts in which we refer to you but move all of the other elsewhere. If you're going to be consistent you have no other choice really.

you started a thread about moderating and people have been discussing....moderating


where do you think it has gone off topic?

when willow spanked you?

 

[HevyDevy]

I never accused you of breaking rules Millers, don't lie, I accused you of making rules up.

I would suggest that 70% of threads - certainly the ones that progress past a few pages - stray off topic Millers. Why not cut all of them?

But really, it's the borin coment that fascinates me.

Since when was 'boring' a criteria for LU? Who decides what is and isn't boring? If yourself and another mod were to disagree on whether or not a thread was boring, who wins? And if you do decide a thread is boring, what then? Cut them all? Or did you just for whatever reason feel a need to hack that thread yesterday for no real reason (given that your reason isn't really a reason at all)?

 

[Willow]

Typical Willow, too arrogant to admit that I have a point.

The irony.

You think your smoke screen is attempt to 'make a point'.

I dare not to agree with you. And you call me arrogant. lol

What you should do Willow is go back through this thread and recall exactly what happened.

Oh my reading of the thread is fine.

1. You brought it up.

2. You lied about an incident that happened a year ago.

3. You also insisted that you had posted a link.

4. I proved that you were wrong.

5. Rather than admit you were wrong, you took the gutless option of ignoring the facts.

6. You made up a story about the guidelines being different in 2008.

7. When this didn't work, you tried to change the subject. The 'my other point' defence.

Which part of the above is incorrect Hevy. Answer, if you can.

I mentioned in one short sentence that I once had a post deleted and that I disagreed with it.

More than one sentence. You can't even get that part right.

Plus it was from a year ago. lol. I call that having a sook.

Your response? An essay. And you think I harp on about it?

lol. Another smoke screen.

I tried to ignore your prattle a year ago.

Hevy, you demanded answers back them. You wouldn't let it go. Now you bring it up here a year later.

I don't think you're in a position to question how long my post was.

More likely is that you felt a need to stamp whatever authority it is that you believe an LU moderator has by ranting.

lol. Yeah sure... any distraction will do at this stage eh Hevy?

I don't have to fight millers' fights for him.

You're the one seeking support.

And once you started, well I must admit I couldn't help but defend myself.

You are in an indefensible position.

Nothing to do with authority. You came sooking to me and I provided you with the facts.

You didn't like the answer you got. You didn't like being moderated.
You bottled it up for a year. lol

Amusingly, so stubborn are you that even when I have admitted that absolutely I should have posted a link you've kept going.

You added a 'but' clause.

Some irrelevant drivel. A smoke screen to try and hide form the facts.

You still can't admit that you got it wrong.

Even Bartman has acknowledged that I have a point which is all I'm really arguing about at the moment (and probably being a little stubborn about that myself, but it's entertaining at least) but you just cannot bring yourself to admit that my point is valid.

Geez, even bartman ackowledged with you.

Compelling stuff.

For some reason though you keep referring to how I want to be treated 'special'.

Because you do. Even after the reason for the rule is explained, you still want to make a dopey side point to save face.

See, I'm pretty sure I don't. I haven't asked for an exemption from forum rules. "Please Willow, can I post racist statements"? Pfffft.

Anyway Bartman, once again you are a voice of reason in acknowledging both sides of this discussion.

Ah, the batman defence again. Twice in one post. :lol:

You're struggling now, and this being out the desperation to seek support. It is a normal character trait of the sook.

 

[Lego_Man]

I've found another solution to this problem - basically you join up another forum where you can talk sh*t and not constantly be under pressure for toeing the moderation line.

Then when you're here, you play by Willow's rules. It's sh*t but it's the way it goes - the head honcho of the playpen will always have things according to his way of thinking. I stick to league posts these days.

Still, I dont think there is anything to be gained by being too anal with these source rules - especially with quality regulars like HD. I dont know the background but if he did say something like "Source: Reuters" in his post, i would deem that sufficient.

I also agree with Roopy on the off-topic thread splitting business. Unless someone is obviously trolling i think a thread should be left to evolve naturally.

 

[B-dos]

moderators moderating is fine with me.

i actually think thread splitting is a good thing which firstly makes for an amusing read when read by itself, and secondly ensures the original thread is able to continue on topic. threads that get sidetracked often end that way.

 

[Dean Moriarty]

I think more of the bitch fights should be separated out. I certainly would have done more in my mod days if I had the time to do it. It happens all over the forums - playpens and swamp threads etc.

 

[HevyDevy]

1. You brought it up.

Yes I did

2. You lied about an incident that happened a year ago.

No I didn't

3. You also insisted that you had posted a link.

Actually I said that I had posted a link because my recollection of exact events was foggy. When El Diablo posted it up I remembered that I had actually posted the source but not the link. It jogged my memory and admitted that no, I hadn't posted a link.

4. I proved that you were wrong.

No, I admitted that I hadn't posted a link and agreed that I should alwaysb post a link. However, I also pointed out that by posting the source I had in-fact achieved what posting the link is supposed to achieve.

5. Rather than admit you were wrong, you took the gutless option of ignoring the facts.

No, I observed the facts.

6. You made up a story about the guidelines being different in 2008.

Liar.

7. When this didn't work, you tried to change the subject. The 'my other point' defence.

Gibberish.

And it seems more and more posters are agreeing that I have a point.

It must stick in your craw that some on here enjoy my contribution to 4c, just as I enjoy the presence of 99% of posters as well (even Roopy and Millers).

 

[HevyDevy]

I think more of the bitch fights should be separated out. I certainly would have done more in my mod days if I had the time to do it. It happens all over the forums - playpens and swamp threads etc.

Did you move posts that you found 'boring'?

:lol:

 

[Willow]

I've found another solution to this problem - basically you join up another forum where you can talk sh*t and not constantly be under pressure for toeing the moderation line.

If you don't being moderated, that is one option available.

Then when you're here, you play by Willow's rules.

lol.

Not my rules lego. The rules of these forums were put together by moderators and members, of which I am one. They have developed over time from a base of rules provided by the forum manufacturers.

It's sh*t but it's the way it goes - the head honcho of the playpen will always have things according to his way of thinking. I stick to league posts these days.

One problem lego is that you thought you were being singled out.

I note that whenever one of these 'clear the air' threads pop up, you're not too far away, and you generally get the facts a little screwed up.

Still, I dont think there is anything to be gained by being too anal with these source rules

You may think it is anal but then again you don't have to sift through search engines on a daily basis trying to verify someone's post. Quite often, Mods do this for members and edit it in - and no mention of it is made. But it gets tedious, especially when a member is in a cantankerous mood.

It has been the case in the past when an article's contents has been edited, or only posted a section of it. By having a link, all members can debate the point with ease, and without being misled.

For some, this is quite understandable.

It's not hard provide a link for your own post. And quite frankly, Mods should not be expected to clean up after lazy members like Hevy.

especially with quality regulars like HD. I dont know the background

Hevy was whinging about a post that was moderated in the cricket forum a year ago.

He claimed he posted a link. He did not.

He was given more than fair treatment as well as explanations. But had trouble accepting the verdict.

There's your background.

but if he did say something like "Source: Reuters" in his post, i would deem that sufficient.

From experience, we have found that this is not sufficient, for reasons explained above.

 

[HevyDevy]

Just to pull you up on your reply to Lego there Willow:

Nobody is suggesting that you moderators do a poor job. I have no doubt that it can be time-consuming, exhausting and downright difficult at times.

As a mod, it is your job to identify posts that break forum rules and take the relevant action - that much I have repeatedly aknowledged (and yes, even admitted that I shouold have posted a link in the first place).

But as an LU member and regular poster, I also have the right to pull you up if I believe that you have either gone a little overboard in your moderating, such as with the case in question, or gone so far as to make up your own rules such as Millers hacking a thread because he found it 'boring'.

You agree, yes? :lol: No, of course you don't.

Thing is, I probably would have stopped arguing if it wasn't for the fact that you talk down to so many posters so often Willow. It's sad to see but I guess that's what makes you feel better about yourself.

 

[Dean Moriarty]

Did you move posts that you found 'boring'?

:lol:

If they were bitch fights, yes.

Some of them ended up in TFC, too.

Edit: And it was done because of this from the guidelines:

TROLLING & THREAD HI-JACKING
Friendly banter between opposing points of view is allowed (even encouraged) but the forums are primarily here for the enjoyment of all members. Excessive posting aimed solely at disrupting threads may result in post deletions.
This requires moderator discretion but in basic terms, any member who continually creates disruptions to threads will be advised to cease with their activity. Failure to comply with this advice will result in an expulsion warning or immediate suspension.

Going off topic to bait roopy (and vice versa) for the 83rd time fits right into that IMO. Same as it did when it was millersnose and mong at it all those years ago.

 

[HevyDevy]

Funny thing is, Roopy and I weren't even fighting.

Perhaps that's what threw Millers off - we were actually agreeing on something.

 

[carcharias]

Dev, just become one of them.

 

[HevyDevy]

:lol:

That would be a laugh. I'd ban Millers for boring me ...

But no, I don't think I'm the sort of person they want as a mod - and like I said most do a pretty good job anyway (except Millers - excellent poster, shocking mod).