Jump to content

Recommended Posts

...

Moderators should only be answerable to Bubb who has given them the task to moderate.

It's a bit impolite to say the least IF you suspended people without any communication.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's a bit impolite to say the least IF you suspended people without any communication.

A moderator can not suspend someone without communication [built into the software]. A reason is always given.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How can you use Catflap & Fitkid in the same sentence? :blink:

 

Give me one example of any value that Fitkid has added to this forum - a bunch of stupid photographs, inane troll postings & a few links to mainstream newspapers.

 

I am sorry but you have lost me here completely.

It is not my job as a moderator to decide about the quality of posts, considering that this is very subjective anyway. Also note that all I did is handing out 1-day posting breaks, people who are affected can still log in and even send PMs, as you know.

 

:( and you people tolerate this s--t?

And here is your second 1-day break for this week. You just need to be more polite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The biggest mistake that Bubb made was handing out mods "publicly" and for us posters to know who they all are.

 

Mods, should be seen, and not heard.

 

End of story.

 

You have all got too self opinionated, and you mods then defend each other's behaviour, and back each other up, or sometimes comment on each other. It's like some bloody old boys club. Then we get posts on the mods, then other posts on who has been naughty.

 

It's worse than parliament.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mods, should be seen, and not heard.

That sounds a little bit creepy. Not very transparent either.

 

It's worse than parliament.

It's all very political.

 

Please note that I responded to Bubb's (the forum owner's) questions on events in his absense.* I can see nothing wrong with this.

 

EDIT: *I could have done so in private if he had any PM quota left, but that has been discussed on another thread. Maybe he will look into this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would probably think it's best that all mods just stop posting about:

 

1) others' behaviour

2) what is right and wrong and what is acceptable

 

and...

 

3) don't allow topic headings about individuals.

 

This site is, unless I'm very much mistaken, about economics, politics, investment, lifestyles, currencies, green energy, PMs, geopolitics, and other stimulating debates. It is not about who thinks what about whom etc.

 

It was good once upon a time, when we didn't know who was running the show apart from Bubb.

 

....and until you all stop trying to defend the whole escapade this will continue. I suggest that all mods, and anyone else who runs this thing, have a quiet off air debate that none of us lot can see, to the betterment of all, then just kick people off after one anonymous warning. You should never publicly comment about the warning nor ever justify any action taken. Once a decision is made it is final. The mistakes made in the last 6 months have been that the decisions have been challengeable and people were allowed to start topics defending their "mates". All it has done is to undermine the authority of the system and make it a market place for back room BS politics.

 

I have put up for this for a long time now and I am very angry I have been drawn into to having to express this view as I am becoming a hypocrit in the process.

 

So I will not comment again on this matter and just see what happens with CF and the way the site is moderated and see if it changes.

 

Not that anyone needs to give a toss!

 

I just love reading good quality posts not sh*t about other people I have never met, and how they bitch at each other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The biggest mistake that Bubb made was handing out mods "publicly" and for us posters to know who they all are.

 

Mods, should be seen, and not heard.

 

End of story.

 

They're made public by the forum software.

 

 

 

Not Mod

======

 

Group: Members

Posts: 411

Joined: 3-February 08

Member No.: 1,536

 

 

Mod

===

 

Group: Administrators

Posts: 6,625

Joined: 3-March 08

From: Fort Knox

Member No.: 1,591

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Don't leave! These things happen from time to time. Wait for things to calm down.

Yep, just give it some time. I've seen this happen on several forums before, unfortunately the bad feeling tends to last a few months.

 

Good Luck Bubb and Mods

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
....and until you all stop trying to defend the whole escapade this will continue. I suggest that all mods, and anyone else who runs this thing, have a quiet off air debate that none of us lot can see, to the betterment of all, then just kick people off after one anonymous warning. You should never publicly comment about the warning nor ever justify any action taken. Once a decision is made it is final. The mistakes made in the last 6 months have been that the decisions have been challengeable and people were allowed to start topics defending their "mates". All it has done is to undermine the authority of the system and make it a market place for back room BS politics.

I see no reason why the reasons for a suspension shouldn't briefly be given. Personally, I would try to avoid extensive discussion afterwards (see below), and such threads or posts should be moved to Fringe/Dungeon very quickly, were IMO they could be allowed to have a life of their own.

 

Magpie on creditcrunch:

http://www.creditcrunch.co.uk/forum/index....ost&p=35581

The moderators will decide what constitutes excessively offensive or aggressive personal abuse. Where possible we will explain these decisions publicly, though we will try to avoid endless debate of the matter afterwards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...

I suggest that all mods, and anyone else who runs this thing, have a quiet off air debate that none of us lot can see, to the betterment of all, then just kick people off after one anonymous warning. You should never publicly comment about the warning nor ever justify any action taken. Once a decision is made it is final.

...

:blink:

 

How will you feel when you are booted in such a way?

 

Do on to others and all that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:blink:

 

How will you feel when you are booted in such a way?

 

Do on to others and all that

 

 

...unto...

 

It is difficult, maybe, for the younger generation who are unfamiliar with the King James Bible and Shakespeare to make these grammatical distinctions....on to/unto.

 

As you mentioned in another thread, I agree that it is important that these potential misunderstandings are clarified.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...unto...

 

It is difficult, maybe, for the younger generation who are unfamiliar with the King James Bible and Shakespeare to make these grammatical distinctions....on to/unto.

 

As you mentioned in another thread, I agree that it is important that these potential misunderstandings are clarified.

Thank you. I stand corrected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I propose we have immediate bans for the grammar police! :D

 

What! And let Newspeak reign?

 

Not while I'm alive to challenge it!

 

Sorry, you will have to suffer my insistence (inasmuch as I am able, I am by no means an expert grammarian) on correct use of the language - it is all that we have with which to communicate thoughts and ideas. Sloppy use of language obscures and devalues clarity of thought and disallows precision of meaning. Let that never be the case!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What! And let Newspeak reign?

 

Not while I'm alive to challenge it!

 

Sorry, you will have to suffer my insistence (inasmuch as I am able, I am by no means an expert grammarian) on correct use of the language - it is all that we have with which to communicate thoughts and ideas. Sloppy use of language obscures and devalues clarity of thought and disallows precision of meaning. Let that never be the case!

 

GOM

 

It may well be the case that the stock markets crash, if not next week then some time later this year.

 

But that doesn't equate, in my mind, to a necessary rise in the P o G.

 

The strange thing is, the more I read of your posts (and the posts of other gold-bugs) the less inclined I am to invest in gold. I am constantly reminded, by you and your ilk, of tulip mania and lift-boys!

 

Meanwhile, I've got a pair of shoes that need shining.......

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what your point is, here, GOM.

 

Do you object to my use of the word "ilk" - meaning "like/type" that is, gold-bugs?

 

Or is there some other reason why you have drawn attention to this word/phrase that I used (underlined/bolded)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What! And let Newspeak reign?

 

Not while I'm alive to challenge it!

 

Sorry, you will have to suffer my insistence (inasmuch as I am able, I am by no means an expert grammarian) on correct use of the language - it is all that we have with which to communicate thoughts and ideas. Sloppy use of language obscures and devalues clarity of thought and disallows precision of meaning. Let that never be the case!

 

I will suffer your insistence

 

Grammar is not wot I is good at!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
'Your ilk' is usually used in the sense of 'your irritating class of person who i and other better types of person dont like'

 

Sorry if that is the case - it wasn't my intention to imply any such thing.

 

Perhaps I am just old fashioned.

 

I like the word "ilk".

 

It sounds better to me to say, "your ilk" than "the likes of you."

 

Perhaps that's just a personal preference though - because I'm an old git!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry if that is the case - it wasn't my intention to imply any such thing.

 

Perhaps I am just old fashioned.

 

I like the word "ilk".

 

It sounds better to me to say, "your ilk" than "the likes of you."

 

Perhaps that's just a personal preference though - because I'm an old git!

 

A git is a pregnant camel.

 

One hump or two?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×