disrespectful moderating

dybbuk

I just stumbled across this:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056834526

OP calls himself a Morlock which is a reference to The Time Machine. The issue he raises is very obviously consistent with the topic of the novella that influenced and inspired a few thinkers. Apart from the "guidelines" being totally ridiculous, there was always the option to move the thread. Instead Morlock was buried under some bureaucratic pretense (just like HG Wells predicted he would be).

The Hill Billy

How can you call that 'disrespectful moderating' when it was simply application of the guidelines from the forum charter.

If you feel that the charter is stifling healthy discussion in the forum - fair enough. Start a thread to discuss that.

But accusing the mod of being disrespectful in these circumstances is out of order.

dybbuk

Nonsense.

The Hill Billy wrote: »

Start a thread to discuss that.

I just did and

The Hill Billy wrote: »

How can you call
+ out of order.

doesn't really contribute to it.

The Hill Billy

No - you started a thread entitled "disrespectful moderating" which it is not. You are accusing a moderator of being disrespectful, which they were not. That is out of order in my book.

dybbuk

You still aren't helping.

The Hill Billy

Ok. So what is the problem - the moderating or the charter?

dybbuk

The problem is that the thread was closed.
If you are suggesting that I should diagnose the cause, I'd say it's both, the ridiculous charter and a disrespectful moderator.

Further, if you just give it one moment of thought, you will realize that I already said all that in my first post which makes the following six (2-7) completely unnecessary.

LizT

How is a moderator being disrespectful if they are enforcing the charter?

Insect Overlord

You haven't shown anything to prove that any moderator was disrespectful. That's the thread-title you went with, the central tenet of your argument, and yet you have not shown how that action could be interpreted as "disrespectful".

dybbuk

LizT, With all due respect: which part of this

dybbuk wrote: »

Apart from the "guidelines" being totally ridiculous, there was always the option to move the thread.

do you have a problem understanding exactly?

Insect Overlord, you have attacked me in another thread on this sub-forum yesterday for absolutely no reason. I do not think very highly of you to say the least and I do not feel like talking to you.

LizT

I'm having trouble understanding the point of the thread to be honest. Where would you suggest the thread in question be moved?

How exactly is a moderator being disrespectful by closing a thread in breach of the charter?

The Hill Billy

Disrespectful moderation = "**** you and your stupid thread."
Respectful moderation = Polite explanation for thread closure by quoting forum charter.

Can you see the difference?

dybbuk

Morlock, started a discussion but was shut down. That is the problem.
Explain to me how it isn't.

Why are you asking me where to move the thread? You are the mod, you tell me.

The charter is counterproductive. Most significant philosophers would have been in breech of it were they to try posting here.

I object to this mobbing behavior by the three of you. The issue is not rocket science. None of you is trying to help.

coffee_cake

They're trying to understand what your problem is, that's the first step to coming to a solution.
But none of them can see - nor can I - how exactly enforcing a charter politely is "disrespectful". One might suggest that starting a thread in a forum clearly not having read the charter first is what's disrespectful.
As for moving it, there is nothing wrong with the OP starting the thread again somewhere more appropriate

dybbuk

bluewolf wrote: »

there is nothing wrong with the OP starting the thread again somewhere more appropriate

It isn't?
So why not start with that and either tell the OP (and now me) where it is supposed to be and move the thread there?

Secondly, who concocted this charter for censoring free thought?

El Guapo!

dybbuk wrote: »

It isn't?
So why not start with that and either tell the OP (and now me) where it is supposed to be and move the thread there?

Secondly, who concocted this charter for censoring free thought?

I don't think anyone is censoring free thought, as you put it.
The moderator was in no way disrespectful. They simply stated that the thread didn't meet the guidelines for that forum. Simple.
They even quoted the charter so the OP could see what guidelines were expected to be met before starting a thread.

There was no suggestion of where to post a new thread because, as far as I can tell, the mod gave the OP an opportunity to elaborate and expand on their initial thread to make it fit within the guidelines so that it would be acceptable.

If the OP wasn't able to do that, then the mod would have directed him/her to a more appropriate forum.
This is a non-issue and your thread title is very misleading, which is what caused the initial confusion in this thread.

RoundyMooney

I don't see the disrespect here. Presumably the charter is the way it is, in order to encourage thoughtful posting and debate. I would suggest that moving rather than locking would be a better approach though-where suitable.

dybbuk

Once again: the OP called himself a "Morlock" and was essentially trying to discuss how he became one.
He was obviously unable to overcome the obstacles put in front of him by the charter that you are defending and gave up on the discussion.
Where is the mod's suggestion to move the thread? How is the charter helping in promoting philosophical thought?
Boards.ie has shown disrespect to Morlock by burying him in bureaucracy and is actually not at all my responsibility to explain to you what exactly went wrong.

The question is not how I happen to name this thread but why Morlock was shut down and what is there to indicate that the discussion started by him would not have contributed to philosophy.
There are now 6 posters including two mods ganging up on me and no constructive suggestion has been made.

So here is mine then: Scrap the charter!

Logical_Bear

The thread linked was closed for the reason's as explained by the mod.It was was a non issue for the OP of that thread then and its a non issue now

It was also closed 3 months ago.....

dybbuk

Logical_Bear wrote: »

It was also closed 3 months ago.....

10000 times as long ago Socrates died and I am still interested in what he had to say. Most likely he would have been rejected by this charter just like Morlock.

They way my feedback is being treated is even more alarming.

Dades

OP, I think disrespectful is a stretch. There are other words could potentially be levelled at that paticular post... curt, formal, matter-of-fact. Perhaps brusque if one was particularly sensitive.

But to be disrespectful would have called for more than the standard explanation of the rules.

dybbuk

There are now 8 posters including 3 mods splitting hairs on my head yet no constructive suggestion has been made.


1) Where on boards.ie can the discussion started by Morlock take place and why wasn't it suggested?

2) How is the charter helping in promoting philosophical thought? I just gave you an example that it doesn't.

Insect Overlord

dybbuk wrote: »

Once again: the OP called himself a "Morlock" and was essentially trying to discuss how he became one.

And you have chosen to call yourself dybbuk.

In Jewish mythology, a dybbuk (Yiddish: דיבוק, from Hebrew adhere or cling) is a malicious or malevolent possessing spirit believed to be the dislocated soul of a dead person.

That's a rather fancy way of identifying yourself as a troll. Well played.

P_1

A few observations....

1 - You linked to a thread that was 3 months old, if it bothered you so much why wait till now to ask about it?

2 - While it was an interesting question to be asked, the way it was structured was not in the way that the forum requested it to be structured.

3 - I don't think it was disrespectful the way it was closed, abrupt, possibly but not disrespectful.

Logical_Bear

dybbuk wrote: »

They way my feedback is being treated is even more alarming.

Its a non issue!

Logical_Bear

P_1 wrote: »

1 - You linked to a thread that was 3 months old, if it bothered you so much why wait till now to ask about it?

The OP only joined this month

P_1

dybbuk wrote: »

There are now 8 posters including 3 mods splitting hairs on my head yet no constructive suggestion has been made.

1) Where on boards.ie can the discussion started by Morlock take place and why wasn't it suggested?

To be honest I'm not too sure. AH would probably lead to things going wild and aggro being caused. Anywhere else it probably wasn't structured well enough for it to suit.

2) How is the charter helping in promoting philosophical thought? I just gave you an example that it doesn't.

Without getting philosophical, how can a charter promote philosophical thought? Isn't that one of the great questions of philosophy. One person's definition can be the polar opposite of another's.

Logical_Bear

dybbuk wrote: »

He was obviously unable to overcome the obstacles put in front of him by the charter that you are defending and gave up on the discussion

or maybe the poster just couldnt be bothered elaborating on his post so that it would past muster regarding the charter.

Dont see why it should be moved anywhere else if the OP of the thread was too lazy to refine his opening post

Zaph

This thread is going nowhere. The OP has been repeatedly told by an admin, a CMod, several mods and several regular posters that there was no disrespectful modding, and yet persists with this nonsensical claim that there was some sort of slight. And the OP this 3 month old thread didn't even feel the need to dispute the mod's actions, so presumably they weren't too put out about it.

/thread closed