Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Moderators
Options
Comments
-
You've got a Help Desk thread open, let's keep the discussion there.demonspawn wrote: »Well it's become fairly obvious that if I don't respond to this thread then you're gonna take the opportunity to lie through your teeth.
On that thread you said you had received insulting and intimidating private messages. You were asked to report them, but you haven't. Please do.0 -
donegalfella wrote: »This post has been deleted.
Did you really think I was not aware of why the post was made and why it was thanked?
My point was, a post critiquing grammar should not be made in Feedback, to one-up a user.
Intellect has little to do with grammar by the way.
I myself am dyslexic, does that mean I lack intelligence?0 -
OutlawPete wrote: »Did you really think I was not aware of why the post was made and why it was thanked?
My point was, a post critiquing grammar should not be made in Feedback, to one-up a user.
But it's okay to claim that you are intellectually-superior to those with whom you are arguing? Apply that intelligence, and see that you were pretty well inviting a response such as you got.Intellect has little to do with grammar by the way.
I disagree, but that is not on-topic here. I record my disagreement just in case anybody concludes that if such a bold assertion is left unchallenged it must be on the grounds that it is true.I myself am dyslexic, does that mean I lack intelligence?
No.0 -
I wouldn't take offence by the childishness of their 'correcting' responses. It's not the first time a Moderator has resorted to petty snideness when they hadn't a logical answer to an issue. You need only look through many of the Mod replies on this very thread to see examples. Rather than being offended I get really annoyed that they choose to goad and provoke rather than making an effort to justify their silly decisions. You know, I fully accept that the Mods are only human and can sometimes make mistakes (as we all can) but they'd attract a lot more respect and less argument if they admitted they were wrong, when they are, rather than battling and shutting down the "guilty" (in the mods eyes) party.OutlawPete wrote: »Did you really think I was not aware of why the post was made and why it was thanked?
My point was, a post critiquing grammar should not be made in Feedback, to one-up a user.
Intellect has little to do with grammar by the way.
I myself am dyslexic, does that mean I lack intelligence?0 -
Lenny Lovett wrote: »You know, I fully accept that the Mods are only human and can sometimes make mistakes (as we all can) but they'd attract a lot more respect and less argument if they admitted they were wrong, when they are, rather than battling and shutting down the "guilty" (in the mods eyes) party.
Who decides when the mod is wrong? The user? Popular opinion? thats exactly why we have co-mods / category mods and admins.
If a user feels a mod decision concerning them was wrong then they have options there to have it addressed and reviewed. If a user chooses not to avail of those options and prefers instead to
disrupt a forum for their own argument or personal gripe
Harrass or abuse a moderator or other user by Private Message
Engage in a vendetta against hwo they see as the guilty party using reported posts, snide remark, stirring **** in the hope of gettign the other party into trouble
the the user deserves everything they get and the excuse "but they did X" is never a valid reason for any of the above behaviour. The tools are there to be used. If a user CHOOSES not to use them then the mod/cmod/admin will just have to go on the presumption that the course of action was right and use that as a precedent for future decisions (to not do so would be to incite threads decrying the lack of consistency and possibly bias on the mods part).
The right to exercise those options belongs to the USER and not to the moderator or anyone else.
From personal experience, I have never told anyone that I dont have time to deal with them without first having spent a considerable amount of time already dealing with them. I have never been afraid to talk to a mod/cmod to have a decision reviewed and in some cases reversed and I have not been afraid to deem it fair to make a punishment worse for a user if I feel the moderator was too lenient or if the user is found to be making false accusations.
Similarly, if a user feels that a moderator is repeatedly making snide remarks at them, then report the moderator.
The DRP may be a slow system as it stands (but its set to speed up soon (tm) ) but its a system and its there so , instead of sulking or feeling hard done by, the user should do something about it. Admins cant see everything, more often than not we cant react to a situation unless we are made aware of it happening. However, some users prefer to think that they are perfectly blameless in any situation regardless of the facts and convince themselves and others that there is some mod conspiracy or clique which no admin or cmod will ever ever contradict where the simple truth is, recent history has shown us several very public displays of this not being the case and a quick run through helpdesk will find threads where the user has been given a fair shake of the stick and the track record of moderators being given free reign or being found ultimately correct is not 100%. (or perhaps we admins arrange to disagree with a mod or two to maintain the illusion of impartiality?). The prison forum will also show many cases of users being listened to and readers will probably note the trend of civil requests , even if angry, tend to get more discussion than hurled abuse.0 -
Advertisement
-
Not strictly true. The following is what was PMd to me by the Moderator in question:Who decides when the mod is wrong? The user? Popular opinion? thats exactly why we have co-mods / category mods and admins.
If a user feels a mod decision concerning them was wrong then they have options there to have it addressed and reviewed. If a user chooses not to avail of those options and prefers instead to
disrupt a forum for their own argument or personal gripe
Harrass or abuse a moderator or other user by Private Message
Engage in a vendetta against hwo they see as the guilty party using reported posts, snide remark, stirring **** in the hope of gettign the other party into trouble
the the user deserves everything they get and the excuse "but they did X" is never a valid reason for any of the above behaviour. The tools are there to be used. If a user CHOOSES not to use them then the mod/cmod/admin will just have to go on the presumption that the course of action was right and use that as a precedent for future decisions (to not do so would be to incite threads decrying the lack of consistency and possibly bias on the mods part).
The right to exercise those options belongs to the USER and not to the moderator or anyone else.
So, that clearly states that I will have my ban extended by making any attempt to appeal the ban.If you question or indeed respond in any manner to this ban or breech the conditions below I will extend the ban.
I did report it to Cmods yesterday and have heard nothing. I expect that is because of the warning not to attempt to "question or indeed respond in any manner to this ban", they have probably decided to ignore it. Fair? I don't think so.
The DRP may be a slow system as it stands (but its set to speed up soon (tm) ) but its a system and its there so , instead of sulking or feeling hard done by, the user should do something about it.0 -
Lenny, I've addressed this on your Help Desk thread. There is a dispute resolution procedure - please stop trying to circumvent that process by posting here.Lenny Lovett wrote: »So, that clearly states that I will have my ban extended by making any attempt to appeal the ban.
I did report it to Cmods yesterday and have heard nothing. I expect that is because of the warning not to attempt to "question or indeed respond in any manner to this ban", they have probably decided to ignore it. Fair? I don't think so.0 -
Sorry. I was merely replying to LolTh.oscarBravo wrote: »Lenny, I've addressed this on your Help Desk thread. There is a dispute resolution procedure - please stop trying to circumvent that process by posting here.0 -
P. Breathnach wrote: »But it's okay to claim that you are intellectually-superior to those with whom you are arguing?
I never for one second said or implied it was okay, the user was trying to make a point (whether you think it is a good one or not, is irrelevant).
This is Feedback after all.
Even if the guy said that all Mods and Admin's grammar left a lot to be desired, I would still disprove of it being done, precisely because of the location of this thread.0 -
There's been a lot of anger/annoyance/outrage about these "grammar nazi" comments already expressed but not one of those posts as much as commented on what provoked them in the first place.Lenny Lovett wrote: »I wouldn't take offence by the childishness of their 'correcting' responses. It's not the first time a Moderator has resorted to petty snideness when they hadn't a logical answer to an issue.
Rather than being offended I get really annoyed that they choose to goad and provoke rather than making an effort to justify their silly decisions.
Ask yourself this...imagine that someone insulted you in another forum and you snapped back at them. Nothing was done about their comment, but you got warned/cautioned/banned. Would you consider that fair? Would you consider that reasonable treatment? I'm guessing that you'd agree it wouldn't be. You should not be treated any worse then the person goading you, right?
Now...lets assume you were a moderator (but not of the forum where this happened). Does this now make it fair?
So lets look again at what happened here, shall we?
Someone made an insulting comment about moderators. In response, they were treated at worst in a similar manner. People have come out and loudly decried this response, but completely ignored what provoked it.
People making these complaints are being given a reasonable amount of leeway in being downright insulting of moderators, as well as the the Category Mods and Admins by implication. They get this leeway because there is nothing to be gained by suppressing the discussion.
In my eyes, there is a cost to be paid for that and the cost is this...people who are treated in kind have no grounds for complaint, nor is there anything to be gained from suppressing the discussion in this regard.
A fair response to such behaviour would be to treat both parties equally...and that's what has been done in the moderation of this thread. Both parties have been left alone, in the interest of not suppressing the discussion....because things haven't (yet) gotten out of hand.
That's not what we're seeing in the commentary from others though. The responses have been roundly criticised...but what of the goading they were responding to? Nothing. Sure...not commenting on it doesn't mean you approve...but its still reasonable to say that its being treated more leniently by not being commented on.
So lets recap...
If a moderator were to treat you more harshly then someone who unreasonably provoked you, I'm sure we can agree that it would probably be unfair. Here, on the other hand, you appear to be defending treating someone's comments more harshly then those which provoked them.
I believe they should be treated equally. IF someone wants to post in this forum and offer insult to moderators in the guise of feedback, I believe that within reason they should have the freedom to do that...even though its not the purpose of this forum. In return, however, I'm not going to support censuring moderators who get provoked by it, again within reason.
Sauce for the goose...
You are, of course, free to disagree. You may feel that its reasonable to take two posters neither of whom are moderators of this forum, and to apply different standards to them. You can argue your perspective and insist that you are correct. While you do, though, you should consider that you've suggested that rather than doing just that, moderators are wrong to be "making an effort to justify their silly decisions".
Just because you don't agree with something doesn't make it silly. I absolutely don't agree with the arguments many people have presented here, nor think any less of them for arguing for what they believe in....but I wouldn't for a moment suggest that their stances are "silly" for that reason.0 -
Advertisement
-
Absolutely I agree with you and thank you because you have detailed exactly what has happened me. Being goaded and snapped at by Mods and then banned! Nail on the head!Ask yourself this...imagine that someone insulted you in another forum and you snapped back at them. Nothing was done about their comment, but you got warned/cautioned/banned. Would you consider that fair? Would you consider that reasonable treatment? I'm guessing that you'd agree it wouldn't be. You should not be treated any worse then the person goading you, right?
You only have half of the story...So lets look again at what happened here, shall we?
Someone made an insulting comment about moderators. In response, they were treated at worst in a similar manner. People have come out and loudly decried this response, but completely ignored what provoked it.
Sorry, this is just not true! Not an accurate protrayal of the facts at all.People making these complaints are being given a reasonable amount of leeway in being downright insulting of moderators, as well as the the Category Mods and Admins by implication. They get this leeway because there is nothing to be gained by suppressing the discussion.
Again... Not true. No disrespect meant but have you followed the whole episode? You seem to be missing out on some basic parts.In my eyes, there is a cost to be paid for that and the cost is this...people who are treated in kind have no grounds for complaint, nor is there anything to be gained from suppressing the discussion in this regard.
A fair response to such behaviour would be to treat both parties equally...and that's what has been done in the moderation of this thread. Both parties have been left alone, in the interest of not suppressing the discussion....because things haven't (yet) gotten out of hand.
That's not what we're seeing in the commentary from others though. The responses have been roundly criticised...but what of the goading they were responding to? Nothing. Sure...not commenting on it doesn't mean you approve...but its still reasonable to say that its being treated more leniently by not being commented on.0 -
As already pointed out by another admin, your case is being dealt with on Helpdesk. I'm not going to comment on it here.Lenny Lovett wrote: »Absolutely I agree with you and thank you because you have detailed exactly what has happened me. Being goaded and snapped at by Mods and then banned! Nail on the head!
Is it not?You only have half of the story...
...
Sorry, this is just not true! Not an accurate protrayal of the facts at all.
I'm referring to someone commenting that moderators shut down users as soon as they show they are intellectually superior, a moderator making a comeback, and then people condemning the moderator for this.
If that's only half the story, and not an accurate portrayal, then show me what I'm missing. Explain to me what I've gotten wrong.
Yes, I've followed the whole episode. I've watched people make insulting comment after insulting comment about moderators in specific (mostly Scofflaw in recent times) and in general and then seen outrage when one moderator or another makes a comment that is less then the epitomy of civil discussion.Again... Not true. No disrespect meant but have you followed the whole episode? You seem to be missing out on some basic parts.
I've concentrated on one example, because it was what you were commenting on and what I was responding to....but there are plenty more.
I am, of course, fallible. I may have missed something. I clearly amn't seeing what you are seeing, but I don't know whether I'm seeing more or less then you. Show me what you think I'm missing, then I can start to see where our difference lies.
Its aimed at anyone who thinks its somehow acceptable for users to dish out insult, but completely out of order if the moderators react to this....or who's comments single out one side or the other as behaving unacceptably.I guess the above section is aimed at OutlawPete?
Its aimed at anyone who thinks that they should have the right to argue their case and voice their side of the story, but who feels or suggests the moderators are wrong to do likewise.0 -
Therefore I can't comment on much of the rest that you said as it mostly pertains to my issues that are being dealt with.As already pointed out by another admin, your case is being dealt with on Helpdesk. I'm not going to comment on it here.
So you're saying that it should be one sided? We (the users) have to put up with snide and sometimes abusive comments from Mods but not vice versa? That's how it is now so there would be no change.Its aimed at anyone who thinks its somehow acceptable for users to dish out insult, but completely out of order if the moderators react to this....or who's comments single out one side or the other as behaving unacceptably.
Its aimed at anyone who thinks that they should have the right to argue their case and voice their side of the story, but who feels or suggests the moderators are wrong to do likewise.0 -
.. not one of those posts as much as commented on what provoked them in the first place.
People have come out and loudly decried this response, but completely ignored what provoked it.
Nonsense, did you miss these comments:OutlawPete wrote: »Even if the guy said that all Mods and Admin's grammar left a lot to be desired, I would still disprove of it being done, precisely because of the location of this thread.OutlawPete wrote: »If they step over the line, there is the power to ban them, there is no need to bully them (yes, I consider it bullying, which is why I used the word "disgraceful").
Do you really think that the best that a Moderator can do, when it is implied that they are deleting threads because they are not as intelligent as certain users, was to correct their grammar?
I can't see how you would think that is appropriate in Feedback to do that, not once but twice in a row, even when the user was clearly not seeing the funny side of it.
If you do, then you must think less of Feedback than I do.Someone made an insulting comment about moderators. In response, they were treated at worst in a similar manner.
I can't honestly believe what I am reading here.
Yes, someone made an insulting remark about certain moderators, so you then think that because the Moderator replies were: "at worst in a similar manner", that it was an approperiate response?People making these complaints are being given a reasonable amount of leeway in being downright insulting of moderators, as well as the the Category Mods and Admins by implication. They get this leeway because there is nothing to be gained by suppressing the discussion.
What's to prevent you or another member of Admin posting that insults will not be tolerated in Feedback.
Let me guess, fear of being accused of suppressing the discussion.
Now I am sure Admin are articulate enough to word such a warning in a way that would make it very clear that they were doing no such thing.In my eyes, there is a cost to be paid for that and the cost is this...people who are treated in kind have no grounds for complaint ..
How can you think that making fun of their grammar errors would be a better option or even appropriate for Feedback.
So "treated in kind" is the new line in Feedback.
Whatever happened to setting a higher standard and not allowing yourself to be dragged down to a level that you find contemptible?
How can you not see that users are bound to get angry when treated like that, especially when those posts get well 'thanked' by people in higher standing than themselves.A fair response to such behaviour would be to treat both parties equally...and that's what has been done in the moderation of this thread.
Who said it wasn't?
Maybe I missed it, but I did not hear anybody critique the moderation of this thread.
What I found objectionable, as I have stated, was the grammar corrections in spite of the obvious frustration of the user.0 -
Clearly, a moderator guessing what others might not, be interested in, is not beneficial.
If the topic is interesting to others, why should a moderator decide that it should be banned for discussion simply because the moderator guesses it might not be interesting to him?
I haven't seen an answer to this from Oscar Bravo. Have I missed his answer?0 -
Well, it's been three days, I reckon everybody just got
bored to death with it.0 -
-
In answer to your request for feedback, below,oscarBravo wrote: »OK, rather than continue this interrogatory process - since this is the Feedback forum - why don't you outline precisely what policy you would put in place to cover such situations?
I gave the following feedback.Clearly, a moderator guessing what others might not, be interested in, is not beneficial.
If the topic is interesting to others, why should a moderator decide that it should be banned for discussion simply because the moderator guesses it might not be interesting to him?
You gave no response, exceptoscarBravo wrote: »I believe I asked you to come up with some actual feedback for the, y'know, Feedback forum.
What I am waiting for is your explanation as to why you think that a moderator should be allowed to guess what everyone else might, or might not, be interested in?
In the example given, if no one was going to be interested in the topic, then why was it necessary to close it down, as it would not attract any more responses anyhow?
And if it did attract any more responses, then that would show the moderator’s judgment was flawed and that others were interested.
That’s feedback, y’know, and in the feedback forum, y’know.0 -
Neither of the above is a suggested policy. The first is a criticism of your slanted view of the existing policy; the second is a question.I gave the following feedback.Clearly, a moderator guessing what others might not, be interested in, is not beneficial.
If the topic is interesting to others, why should a moderator decide that it should be banned for discussion simply because the moderator guesses it might not be interesting to him?
Since you won't actually articulate a policy proposal, I'll interpret your posts to mean that you don't believe a moderator should have any power to close threads, including old ones, because you seem to feel that as long as someone wants to post on a thread, that is the only criterion that should be used in the decision.
We entrust the moderators with the role of making sure that their forums remain as interesting and relevant as possible. If, in their judgement, that goal is best served by preventing the dragging up and re-hashing of old arguments without any new or interesting information or perspectives being offered, then they close the thread.
If your proposal is that we remove the discretion of moderators to make such judgement calls, you'll have to make a much more compelling case than you already have. If, on the other hand, I've misinterpreted your rhetorical questions, feel free to articulate the actual policy you feel should be in place, and why.0 -
oscarBravo wrote: »...I'll interpret your posts to mean that ...
Its a shame that you'd rather interpret what is said rather than read it.oscarBravo wrote: »
If your proposal is that we remove the discretion of moderators to make such judgement calls,...
It's not, and merely taking an argument to its silly extreme merely shows that you want to avoid discussion. Which is revealing.0 -
Advertisement
-
Or not.oscarBravo wrote: »...feel free to articulate the actual policy you feel should be in place, and why.0 -
oscarBravo wrote: »Or not.
Lets not play with each other. You seem to want to do anything rather than discuss the issue. We can all make up our own minds as to why that is likely to be.0 -
Lets not play with each other. You seem to want to do anything rather than discuss the issue. We can all make up our own minds as to why that is likely to be.
I think I can make my mind up on this: there is no issue.
If you want me to change my mind, please identify an issue for consideration.0 -
Proposal:
If and when a post or thread is deleted, for whatever reason, that reason should be clearly stated in a post by the moderator in question. In the case of deleted threads perhaps a stickyed thread somewhere, maybe help desk, titled "Recently deleted threads" could be created so that people can see what threads were deleted and why. If it's a brand new thread, then an explanation is necessary. If it's just an old thread that nobody has posted in for say, six months or so, then it's safe to assume that no explanation is necessary.
In the case of a single post or posts being deleted, and no warnings or cards handed out, then an explanation for the deletion is clearly required. That is simply unbridled censorship in every sense of the word and really should not be tolerated on boards.ie. I think a simple explanation would go a very long way with regard to user/mod relations.
Personally, I don't think a post or thread should ever be deleted unless the thread has just run it's course and has been abandoned by the OP. Mods have tools to deal with trolls and the like and are able to simply lock questionable threads. No need for deletion of questionable posts/threads at all really.0 -
Yes there is, cos some people will look at those threads/posts and react to them dragging the thread/forum off topic and some times getting a ban themselves or they will think that type of posting is acceptable or that post/thread will get the site into legal hot water.
If someone pms me about deleted post/threads usually they will get a reply esp if they are civil and don't throw a strop. There is a whole multitude of reasons a thread/post will get delted and they will not be all the same for all forums.
coletti mods are trusted to and appointed to keep order in the forum, ensure that the site rules are obeyed and the forum rules. They are vetted and entrusted by the admins to do so. If you have a specific issue then pm the mod about it and then the cat mods to discuss it.0 -
coletti mods are trusted to and appointed to keep order in the forum, ensure that the site rules are obeyed and the forum rules. They are vetted and entrusted by the admins to do so. If you have a specific issue then pm the mod about it and then the cat mods to discuss it.
coletti mods are trusted to and appointed to keep order in the forum, ensure that the site rules are obeyed and the forum rules. They are vetted and entrusted by the admins to do so. If you have a specific issue then pm the mod about it and then the cat mods to discuss it.
Thank you. You seem to be saying that we all have to trust a moderator’s judgement and imply they should not be questioned or have to explain their decisions.
Thanks for the advice. If I ever have a specific issue then I will pm the mod.
The discussion we have been having here is why a moderator should close a thread, and not allow anyone else to contribute to it. In this instance, the reason given for closing the thread was that it was not going to be of interest to anyone else.
And how did the moderator know if anyone else might be interested or not? We simply have no idea. In fact, he can't possibly know what everyone else might or might not be interested in. Any more that you or I know what everyone else might be interested in.
The irony is that, if that were true, and no one else was going to be interested , why was it necessary to close the thread if no one was going to be interested, as then no one would have added anything more to it?
I was asked by Oscar Bravo what policy I’d put in place to cover such a situation. I replied that a good policy would be to not allow moderators to close threads because they guess that no one else might be further interested in a topic (nothing that if that were the case, then why is there a need to close it, as no one would be further adding to the thread anyhow).
His response has been to avoid the issue or suggestion ( which he asked for) and to start playing with me by being flippant and avoiding the feedback he asked for.
That he does so is revealing.0 -
It's a shame that you'd rather interpret what is said rather than read it. It has never been suggested that a moderator should not be questioned or have to explain their decisions.Thank you. You seem to be saying that we all have to trust a moderator’s judgement and imply they should not be questioned or have to explain their decisions.
No, you didn't. You replied with rhetorical and loaded questions.I was asked by Oscar Bravo what policy I’d put in place to cover such a situation. I replied that a good policy would be to not allow moderators to close threads because they guess that no one else might be further interested in a topic (nothing that if that were the case, then why is there a need to close it, as no one would be further adding to the thread anyhow).
Now that you seem to have actually articulated a policy suggestion: thank you. We will consider it, but I can't see a compelling reason to implement it. To do so would undermine the trust we place in moderators to exercise their judgement in the smooth operation of their forums.
If a moderator makes a bad call, it can be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.
What does it reveal?His response has been to avoid the issue or suggestion ( which he asked for) and to start playing with me by being flippant and avoiding the feedback he asked for.
That he does so is revealing.0 -
That you are in fact hansBravo, oscarBravo's evil German twin.oscarBravo wrote: »What does it reveal?0 -
oscarBravo wrote: »
Now that you seem to have actually articulated a policy suggestion: thank you. We will consider it, but I can't see a compelling reason to implement it. To do so would undermine the trust we place in moderators to exercise their judgement in the smooth operation of their forums.
If a moderator makes a bad call, it can be reviewed on a case-by-case basis..
That appears to be the quickest review in history! One line says you’ll review it and the next says your view is that it should not be implemented.
It seems ludicrous for a moderator to close a thread, thus blocking anyone else from contributing to a thread, on the basis that it’s his judgement that no one else will want to contribute to the particular thread in question.
The logic of that is, that if he does nothing, then no one will contribute to the thread. So it’s pointless to bother to close it down to prevent anyone contributing to it.
And if someone does want to contribute to it, he prevents them from so doing, and proves that his judgement was incorrect.
Thus, what he is really saying is that he does not want anyone else to contribute to the thread in question, but he can’t say that as to do so might appear to confirm that he is running the particular forum for his own benefit, and not for the benefit of everyone else.
What is revealing? Well, that’s something we’ll all have to make up our own minds on. But what appears to be revealing is the reluctance to agree that it is ludicrous to close down a thread on the basis that any of us knows whether, or not, anyone else might want to contribute.
Of course why you should want to avoid agreeing that a situation which is patently nonsensical and absurd, only you know. However, I am guessing that others can only conjecture why that might be.0 -
Advertisement
-
I'm flattered that you seem to think I have the final say on the matter, but I was simply expressing my personal view.That appears to be the quickest review in history! One line says you’ll review it and the next says your view is that it should not be implemented.
That might indeed seem ludicrous, but is that in fact what we're discussing here?It seems ludicrous for a moderator to close a thread, thus blocking anyone else from contributing to a thread, on the basis that it’s his judgement that no one else will want to contribute to the particular thread in question.
My recollection is that the thread that was used as a case in point was closed because it was an old thread that had been thoroughly hashed out, and that had been dragged back up in order to post something that was only tangentially related to the original topic, and that contributed little of value to the discussion in any case.
That's not a case of the moderator closing the thread because he doesn't think anyone wants to contribute to it; it's the moderator closing the thread because there's nothing useful to be gained by rehashing an old argument when nothing of significance has been added by the new post.
If I'm wrong, and that's not the thread you're talking about, please correct me. If it is the thread you're talking about, please explain why you are so exercised about it having been closed.
Speaking of revealing (and concealing), how many accounts have you signed up and had banned?What is revealing? Well, that’s something we’ll all have to make up our own minds on. But what appears to be revealing is the reluctance to agree that it is ludicrous to close down a thread on the basis that any of us knows whether, or not, anyone else might want to contribute.
Of course why you should want to avoid agreeing that a situation which is patently nonsensical and absurd, only you know. However, I am guessing that others can only conjecture why that might be.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement