Teejay, I am focused, bro. Please answer my question if you are able to. -- Minimus
Please reference Reborn's post.
Does it make sense to lock one thread dealing with Ray Franz/Bill Bowen only to immediately open another one? My answer to that is "no". What should a moderator do who finds that a post made by one of their friends happens to violate the posted guidelines? Blithely saying that the moderators are inconsistent is not the answer. People tend to chafe at that excuse.
If one person says something that is edited while someone else says the same thing and their post isn't edited, then there's a problem.
If one person is allowed to post groundless allegations and another isn't allowed the same freedom -- or even allowed to answer the groundless allegation (lie) -- there's a problem.
If one person asks a question but is told by the board owner to shut up about it and a day later another poster comes along and asks a very similar question and the thread is allowed to go for pages, there's a problem.
Here we go, same old people, same old complaints
No, Simon, it's not the same old complaints. Since the day you chose to appoint moderators, I have supported you, have I not? When the censorship issue raged and JanH stayed on your ass for days, I supported your side of the argument, did I not? I did so in both cases not because of you but because I felt you were right. In this matter, I don't think you're right. It's not the "same old complaint."
Complaining and being critical is very easy isn't it?
Yes, and some people have a hard time taking criticism, even when it is constructive and giving with a pure motive, don't they?
I'd have more time for many of the comments if the same people who complain when things are locked are not also the same ones who complain when they are not.
You have locked more than one of my threads over the years and while I didn't think it was appropriate, I did not complain. I have complained once about such an action, and that was when you immediately started another thread that centered on the exact same issue that was being debated in the thread you locked -- YOUR posted guidelines.
We always get the same old voices with the same worn out arguments either complaining that there is too much moderation or that there is too little.
Nice try at missing the point, Simon, but it won't work.
Who said that there is too much moderation? Not me! I simply said that the moderation being done here is unbalanced, unfair, and often at odds with your own guidelines. Seems that you should care about that. As I (I thought) clearly pointed out, I fully accept/agree with the fact that moderation is part of running a db. The question isn't whether there is too much/too little moderation, but WHAT KIND? If you are determined at all costs to support the people you have placed in these positions no matter what, then fine. Just let us know.
If you want to be taken seriously, why don't you come up with a complete and comprehensive rulebook that we could follow? Then we would be able to keep you happy although I would not hold my breath.
I don't care if you take me seriously or not, Simon. Your opinion is only your opinion and carries no more weight than the next person's. Either I think your opinion is a good one ... or otherwise. That said, I agree with your long-stated position (your posted guidelines to the contrary) that there is no need for a rulebook. Does it take a rulebook for people to be consistent and fair? I don't think so.
Teejay: You have said in other topics that you have no interest in JW stuff any more? If that's the case then why are you here?
Take note of the threads I post to (and avoid) and you'll have your answer.
Are you trying to achieve something?
Yes. Fair play.
BTW: My comments above are not targetted at those such as Waiting who's comments and feedback I value and will take on board.
As I say, it matters to some people where their truth comes from.
tj ~ who also agrees with Waiting
