Closing threads - would you ever stop it !

[Nirish guy]

As this area is for comments / suggestions on the forum etc can I make this request - would you ( Moses in this case) ever stop just randomly closing threads just because YOU dont like something - I accept of course it's your board and you're able and entitled too etc but I thought the whole point after Neal is that wouldn't be happening again.

The thread re Matt for example - 10 pages of posts, people contributing ! that's SURELY what we want !- and that including Matt so he was certainly up for it and able to handle himself it seems ! - Some posters agreed and supported him and some not so much, but from what I read no one was breaking any rules or coming out with anything to crazy and meanwhile, on a whim BOOM, thread closed. Whats the point of people bothering to contribute in whatever way they chose for a thread just to be shit down the second a Mod / Moses chooses too ( and again I respect they have the right) but surely it's not what we all wanted or thought we were going to have to deal with again post Neal ? it's a real shitty way to end a thread for no particular reason other that the Mod / owner is boring with it.

[newalaan2]

I thought SGT had got over this whim of owner/mod closing down a thread for no reason. THAT is the very thing which will put members off contributing. Nothing will turn members off more than locking/deleting for no good reason. It shows a lack of respect for those members who have made the effort to log-on, read and use their time to make a post. If you have grown tired of a thread Moses, don't read it. It has 1300 views 90+ posts, it is popular, it is attracting interest, so not only should it not be closed it should probably be on the front page.

While locking a thread on nothing more than a personal whim would be no reason to quit a forum or stop posting entirely, it is enough for me to think twice about using my time to start a thread or make a post only to have it locked for no reason. I cut back severely posting under the last owner who nit-picked his way though posts, which only made me think "why should I bother" Not sure why Joe felt the need to request it locked. Nobody has requested any of his threads to be locked. It is NOT a good turn of events or direction for the forum.

"Looks like and endless story...lets just stop it". What kind of an explanation is that? No reason, no logic, nothing! Complete nonsense.

I refer to the thread "Do you believe cdnmatts stories.

[joe552]

newalaan, I felt the thread had run it's course, and whoever wanted to comment had ample time to do so.I think you're over-reacting.

[newalaan2]

newalaan, I felt the thread had run it's course, and whoever wanted to comment has ample time to do so.I think you over-reacting.

With all due respect Joe, a thread will simply run out of steam and fall down the list if it has 'run it's course' the natural way, if members are continuing to contribute posts then it clearly has not 'run it's course'. I don't understand 'ample time to comment' . It is on-going, contributors respond to the new posts.

[Brad the Impala]

The thread was started as a poll, which are normally closed after a period.

[cdnmatt]

I'm with Newalaan on this. Let the membership decide. It's not Moses' decision to make.

When the membership gets bored of the thread, we'll naturally let it die. Simple as....

[Nirish guy]

I've already posted elsewhere on the board supporting Newalans view, it's a sad day here when threads are closed just because someone randomly decides they're finished. Surely unless some rules are being broken in a serious way a thread is finished when posters decide to stop posting / reading it - and as that thread ( Matt's) was over 10 pages long that OBVIOUSLY wasn't the case. As New Alan says it's a slippery slope to start down and like grammar nazi'ing is one that should be nipped in the bud before it's allowed to become the norm. ( I feel anyway).

This was my post re that in the feedback forum re that ( in case I put it in the wrong place) ....
As this area is for comments / suggestions on the forum etc can I make this request - would you ( Moses in this case) ever stop just randomly closing threads just because YOU dont like something - I accept of course it's your board and you're able and entitled too etc but I thought the whole point after Neal is that wouldn't be happening again.

The thread re Matt for example - 10 pages of posts, people contributing ! that's SURELY what we want !- and that including Matt so he was certainly up for it and able to handle himself it seems ! - Some posters agreed and supported him and some not so much, but from what I read no one was breaking any rules or coming out with anything to crazy and meanwhile, on a whim BOOM, thread closed. Whats the point of people bothering to contribute in whatever way they chose for a thread just to be shut down the second a Mod / Moses chooses too ( and again I respect they have the right) but surely it's not what we all wanted or thought we were going to have to deal with again post Neal ? it's a really shitty way to end a thread for no particular reason other that the Mod / owner is bored with it or doesn't like the views being expressed.

[newalaan2]

The thread was started as a poll, which are normally closed after a period.

Yes there was a suggestion regarding the poll very early on in the thread in that the 'poll part' had been left open longer than normal, which I think Christian did reply to. But for me the poll is now pretty irrelevant, but surely the thread can keep running if there is sufficient interest.

[newalaan2]

I'm with Newalaan on this. Let the membership decide. It's not Moses' decision to make.

When the membership gets bored of the thread, we'll naturally let it die. Simple as....

No cdnmatt, it IS moses decision...what I am saying is I personally think it is wrong.

Apologies to Nirsh guy, I didn't realise you had started a thread already. I agree with your post.

[cdnmatt]

No cdnmatt, it IS moses decision...what I am saying is I personally think it is wrong.

Apologies to Nirsh guy, I didn't realise you had started a thread already. I agree with your post.


Yeah, technically it's Moses' decision, as he does pay the server bill, and has access to that "Lock Thread" button.

However, realistically, it's not his decision if he wants a thriving board full of participating members. That part is up to us as members, and judging from this thread alone, he just pissed off a fair amount of people. He may want to think twice about doing that. He could have just let the thread run for another couple days, after which I'm sure everyone would have gotten bored, and let it die naturally. Instead, he locked it, causing a whole new bitchfest that we have now.

Every action has a reaction...

[joe552]

Firstly, can I emphasise that I didn't lock the thread, although I suggested it. However, having read the above posts, I'v changed my opinion (is that allowed here?)

Quite frankly, if Matt is happy for the topic to keep going, which he obviously is, then it should be allowed to go on.

I think it's time we heard from Moses.

[Nirish guy]

And just to emphasise no one is saying YOU did Joe as you CAN'T - even if you wanted to - only Mod's or Moses can do that.

[Smiles]

To add to Nirish's post above . . .

The Guidelines should be the trigger for moderation actions, not the whim of an Admin (who should know better) or rogue Mods (of whom this Board has too many).

Just because an Admin or Moderator doesn't "like" a post or topic, or ~ even worse ~ simply doesn't like the "direction" a topic is possibly going in doesn't mean they need to take moderating action regarding it.

The locking of the poll thread is a perfect example of moderation~by~whim. (If Moses' phrase just before locking isn't pure whim, I don't know what is. To wit: " ... It looks like endless story... let's just stop it ...")

If a Guideline has been broken, by all means do something.
If a guideline is not broken ... shut up and get the hell out of the way.
So simple really, but this moderating team just doesnt get it.

[francois]

This is what joe posted:

Quite honestly Christian, I think enough is enough. Everyone who wants has had his chance to post on this. So why not shut this thread down?

And Moses then locked the thread. Cause and effect;
case closed.

[francois]

To answer Brad the Impala's question :

Well when is Francois going to prove that he is French, or latintop prove that he is either latin or a top, or a447 prove that he doesn't exaggerate his exploits etc etc.

Here is the answer to that.

"You French make such shitty coffee" and Jacob replies: "I've been called nigger and I've been called queer but I've never been called French. La Cage Aux Folles.

[arsenal]

Le Cage Aux Folles is a sublime comedy and so is the American remake, The Birdgage. The wonderful Gene Hackman shows he can do light comedy as well as anyone.

[a447]

So simple really, but this moderating team just doesnt get it.

What evidence do you have that the moderating team was in any way involved with the closing of the thread?

Please provide the board with whatever evidence you have.

I can assure you we weren't involved - it was a unilateral decision, one which a board owner is entitled to make.

Whether members agree with the decision or not is an entirely different matter.

For the record, I was as surprised as anyone else.

[scottish-guy]

It's called collective responsibility - if you choose to be part of the admin/moderation team, then whatever Moses does you get a share of the blame/credit, and vice versa.

With power (:D) comes responsibility

[arsenal]

Oh dear. Can't see A447s statement going down well with Gorbals Jock.

edit. See. The well known internet stalker takes a new line upon learning the facts.

[scottish-guy]

Oh dear. Can't see the above statement going down well with known internet stalker Gorbals Jock.

You'll need to be quicker than that!

[arsenal]

Evidently. Proving that you are in fact, an internet stalker.

[scottish-guy]

855 people seem to approve so I'll just get on with it if that's all right with you

[a447]

It's called collective responsibility - if you choose to be part of the admin/moderation team, then whatever Moses does you get a share of the blame/credit, and vice versa.

With power (:D) comes responsibility

Not so fast!

There is a well known tenet in law that states that a person cannot be held responsible for am action if he/she had no way of knowing if such action would be taken.

BTW, Moses was acting under rule 4.8. so I can't see what the problem is.

[scottish-guy]

Forgive me if I neither know nor care about rule whatever-the-fuck-it-was.

Listen to yourself man!

[arsenal]

Is it time to impose the rules about insulting members, flaming and trolling to someone. Maybe the time has come. Perhaps the mods who you clearly loath and the owner who you clearly despise will tire of your endless and constant negativity and think that the board has moved on from this. Cue huge gobby reply no doubt. If anyone on this board needs to listen to himself it's you.

[scottish-guy]

I neither "loathe" nor "despise" anybody - and if you're going to "impose the rules about insulting members, flaming and trolling" then best start with yourself.

[Nirish guy]

Unlike closing threads for no good reason - which just isn't funny at ALL.

[arsenal]

Well you give a very good impression of loathing and despising, spewing venom wherever you post. Charming. You're only still here because of the 'grandfather' clause. If a new member turned up and posted what you do you'd have gone some time ago. That's a fact.

[arsenal]

Then watch the films and have a laugh which as I said, are.

[Nirish guy]

Or comment on how closing threads isn't funny either - I think I'll do both - go on, try and deflect and intentionally go off topic a little more why don't you. We can do this all day if you wish.....

[arsenal]

Closing threads is not only NOT funny it is a crime against humanity. Members should work themselves up into an apoplectic fury at the very idea. Amnesty should be notified and one of their representatives called in to adjudicate on the matter. Those responsible should be hauled off to The Hague to face a stern judge and after due process handed the toughest strongest sentence for this most heinous of crimes. Happy.

[Smiles]

BTW, Moses was acting under rule 4.8. so I can't see what the problem is.Well, talking about "tenants in law" ... Guideline 4.8 seems to me to be new. Perhaps Neal wrote that, but I cannot see Surfcrest doing so. Did Moses add that rather authoritarian guideline?
Hitler's Enabling Act of 1933 was very like Guideline 4.8.

Guideline 4.8 The owners of SGT Forum reserve the right to remove, edit, move or close any thread for any reason.



The Enabling Act 1933: The Enabling Act (German: Ermächtigungsgesetz) was a 1933 Weimar Constitution amendment that gave ... Chancellor Adolf Hitler – the power to enact laws without the involvement of the Reichstag.
I know I know, a drama queen, right?

[Nirish guy]

Or the owner could just stop doing it - that would be better.

[arsenal]

PM him.

[Nirish guy]

Ahh the old " Look boys, I'll just do whatever the fuck I want and to fuck with all your opinions and moderation guidelines, so, you can all moan all you want but that's just the way it is, so, fuck up and follow my rules RIGHT " - To be fair he'd be better just saying that and saving on all the other guideline pretence.......oh, wait, he just DID.

[Nirish guy]

No thanks, I'll just post to the board, like others who also think the same - and anyway I can do without being reminded of rule 4.2 thanks - you know that one that says "he can do whatever the fuck he likes" etc as just because he CAN do it doesn't of course make it right or a good idea "for the board".

[arsenal]

Yes, I suppose he can.

[a447]

Well, talking about "tenants in law" ... Guideline 4.8 seems to me to be new. Perhaps Neal wrote that, but I cannot see Surfcrest doing so. Did Moses add that rather authoritarian guideline?
Hitler's Enabling Act of 1933 was very like Guideline 4.8.



I know I know, a drama queen, right?

I'm pretty sure it's "tenets".

I don't know or care who wrote that rule; all I know is that it is there.

And that something similar appears in many contracts.

And if you don't like rule 4.8 because it reminds you of Hitler (!!), then why don't you lobby Moses to change it?

[scottish-guy]

Well you give a very good impression of loathing and despising, spewing venom wherever you post. Charming. You're only still here because of the 'grandfather' clause. If a new member turned up and posted what you do you'd have gone some time ago. That's a fact.

It's very worrying to see the Head Judge unable to a) control himself and b) unable to separate valid criticism (shared by others) from "loathing, despising, and spewing venom".

He continually posts anti-Scottish rhetoric and boasts in his posts and avatar of never having to explain himself (both of which are absolutely fine with me, except it's exactly the "flaming" he allegedly disapproves of), and he now refers to me disparagingly as "Gorbals Jock" (again fine with me, except that's a great example of the trolling he allegedly disapproves of).

Thanks goodness he's a self-admitted here-today-gone-tomorrow moderator - otherwise we might have to take him seriously.

Kind regards

Gramps

[arsenal]

My sincerest apologies to Gorbals Jock for any misunderstandings. However, my rhetoric is not anti-Scottish. It's anti-SNP which is not the same thing at all.

[Nirish guy]

See, now do you see what a total waste of time your "so PM him" comment would have been, thank god I dont listen to all the advice I'm given eh.

[arsenal]

Yes, thank God.

[Smiles]

I'm pretty sure it's "tenets".
Quite right. Where's Christian when you actually need him?

[Moses]

Well, talking about "tenants in law" ... Guideline 4.8 seems to me to be new. Perhaps Neal wrote that, but I cannot see Surfcrest doing so. Did Moses add that rather authoritarian guideline?
Hitler's Enabling Act of 1933 was very like Guideline 4.8.



I know I know, a drama queen, right?

most funny post in Thread...

have you seen Google's terms?


Google may also stop providing Services to you, or add or create new limits to our Services at any time.
https://www.google.com/intl/en_ru/policies/terms/regional.html

every free service has such terms...

Instagram:


We reserve the right to modify or terminate the Service or your access to the Service for any reason, without notice, at any time, and without liability to you.

https://help.instagram.com/478745558852511

and so on...

[scottish-guy]

Or in other words....remember your place and shut up.

[cdnmatt]

I'd be careful Moses, as you seem to be on thin ice right now with the membership. Push much more, a decent chance you'll end up with a forum with no membership. Then you just have a ghost town that you're paying the monthly server bill for.

[bobsaigon2]

I'd be careful Moses, as you seem to be on thin ice right now with the membership. Push much more, a decent chance you'll end up with a forum with no membership. Then you just have a ghost town that you're paying the monthly server bill for.

I don't think you are echoing the thought of all of the board members. A handful at most ?

[newalaan2]

I don't think you are echoing the thought of all of the board members. A handful at most ?

What? You think because only 10 or so have actually bothered to comment publically on the thread being closed, that is the full extent of the disgruntlement regarding the direction the forum is taking if it continues down the censorship path? By they way even at 10 it is more than a 'handful' including 'surprise' from A447 a moderator, that moses took the decision and another moderator 'liking' two of the posts disagreeing with moses decision.

Lets face it , you have absolutely no idea how many members 'thoughts' cdnmatt is echoing, but I do know for certain your estimate/guess of a 'handful at most' ....that's 5 by the way.....to be woefully inaccurate and way off the mark.

10 is only the number on the surface there will be many more below the surface. Even I have had over a dozen 'readers' who rarely post here now make contact, and not a single one agrees with the decision. They are board members.

[bobsaigon2]

What? You think because only 10 or so have actually bothered to comment publically on the thread being closed, that is the full extent of the disgruntlement regarding the direction the forum is taking if it continues down the censorship path? .........

Your estimate of dissatisfied board members may be correct, but neither you nor I can provide authoritative numbers.

Certainly if the board owner took to arbitrarily closing threads left and right, or banned members indiscriminately, that would be a cause for concern. That has not happened.

One thread was closed, admittedly for a reason that was not substantive. The thread could easily have been left to end naturally. And some deletions by a moderator may also have been contentious.

Should the forum be maintained on an "anything goes" level, without the involvement of the owner or moderators? I would say "yes", but with one exception. Posts which are personally abusive should not, must not be tolerated. The owner or moderators have every right and duty to determine what is personally abusive and remove such posts, as they see fit.

I am sure we will never reach an agreement on this so I don't see any point in prolonging the discussion.

Cheers.

[arsenal]

Moses wrote.

" every free service has such terms..."

Exactly. Just as it was with Neal and then Surfcrest. Everyone knows the rules of the game before you come in to play. No different to entering a restaurant, aeroplane, hospital, bar in Thailand or anywhere else. No member (or group of members) including me is particularly important to this board. In fact a clearing out of some of the 'old guard' (perhaps too, including me) might be something to Moses advantage. Especially those who do little other than complain constantly about anything and everything. Just saying like.

[Moses]

Lets face it , you have absolutely no idea how many members 'thoughts'...

You too, unless you can read my Inbox in PM.

Forum is private property. And nobody will "vote" what should I close and what should I open. Point. Anyone can use forum "as it is" within limits established by rules, or... don't use. Members aren't taxpayers, and I'm not elected president. So please stop to dream about democracy and to count "voters"..

[newalaan2]

Your estimate of dissatisfied board members may be correct, but neither you nor I can provide authoritative numbers.

Certainly if the board owner took to arbitrarily closing threads left and right, or banned members indiscriminately, that would be a cause for concern. That has not happened.

One thread was closed, admittedly for a reason that was not substantive. The thread could easily have been left to end naturally. And some deletions by a moderator may also have been contentious.

Should the forum be maintained on an "anything goes" level, without the involvement of the owner or moderators? I would say "yes", but with one exception. Posts which are personally abusive should not, must not be tolerated. The owner or moderators have every right and duty to determine what is personally abusive and remove such posts, as they see fit.

I am sure we will never reach an agreement on this so I don't see any point in prolonging the discussion.

Cheers.

Bobsaigon, no! I didn't say I knew the amount or had authoritative numbers, I didn't even say I had an estimate as you claim I did, so please don't put words in my mouth, what I said precisely was that I knew for a fact there were more than your authoritative 'no more than a handful'.

Again I did not say these were dissatisfied board members, what I said was that the more-than-a-handful were disgruntled at the one decision to lock a thread for no good reason and the precedent it set, a precedent you don't seem concerned about. I don't really care what the owner thinks about members who have a concern regarding the forum they contribute to, that of course is entirely up to him, but as with any forum if I have a post to make with an opinion, I'll make it.

Yes one thread was closed, you mention threads being closed right and left and that it 'has not happened'. I did use the term 'thin edge of the wedge' for a reason, so far only one thread "on the right" has been closed, as for "the left" we will just have to wait and see. But closing a thread as you did agree, for no good reason is not a step in the right direction. I stand by that post in that if the owner continues down the path of closing threads for no good reason where members have taken their time to post he will lose a great deal of goodwill. If he doesn't care about that and continues down the path where the opinions of the members who contribute to his forum which in turn attracts the views he values so much, count for nothing, that is up to him.

Your quote "should the forum be maintained on an 'anything goes' without the involvement of owner or moderators I would say yes" I think you will find contrary to the decision made to close the cdnmatt thread. If the owner is prepared to close a thread which contained little or no 'anything goes' content, for no good reason other than 'he didn't like it', I think you should be as concerned as some others here about the possible direction of the forum.

Actually you are quite wrong about never being able to reach an agreement. You want to see the forum maintained on and 'anything goes' basis, so do I, and that's precisely why I made the post in the first place.

[bobsaigon2]

OK, newalaan, I guess we're in agreement somewhere / someways in all of this. :)

[sglad]

What evidence do you have that the moderating team was in any way involved with the closing of the thread?

Please provide the board with whatever evidence you have.



It's difficult, if not impossible, for members to even bring up allegations of moderator impropriety, let alone "evidence", with the "no discussion of moderator decision in the open forum" rule in place. This rule encourages and has led to abuse of power to settle old scores and personal vendettas. Why not do things the old-fashioned way, through debate and persuasion, wit and repartee, instead of using gestapo-type mechanisms to silence people you disagree with?

[Moses]

Why not do things the old-fashioned way, through debate and persuasion, wit and repartee, instead of using gestapo-type mechanisms to silence people you disagree with?

Cuz it is private property. Visitors don't vote "what color should be painted walls in the kitchen" unless owner invited them to do that.

[sglad]

The owner or moderators have every right and duty to determine what is personally abusive and remove such posts, as they see fit.



"Personally abusive" is too broad and relative a classification to be left in the hands of a single moderator. If something is truly "personally abusive" it should attract sufficient outrage from the membership in which case moderator intervention may be necessary. From my personal experience, rules are being created, interpreted and applied at random. I know the rules are supposed to protect the membership and promote the smooth running of the board, but what's to protect us from a moderator who abuses his power for personal reasons and knows he can get away with it because of the "no discussion of moderator decision in the open forum" rule?

[sglad]

Visitors don't vote "what color should be painted walls in the kitchen" unless owner invited them to do that.

Perhaps but one day you might end up with a very cold kitchen, with only yesterday's leftovers and a rusty can of baked beans on the table, instead of a delicately prepared chicken gently simmering on the stove, the smell of which is so tempting that new neighbours come knocking with their own offerings, hoping to have a delicious potluck where everybody gets to join.

[Brad the Impala]

Cuz it is private property. Visitors don't vote "what color should be painted walls in the kitchen" unless owner invited them to do that.


But in a convivial spirit the owner of the house might be interested in what colour his guests thought would work well. And since his guests are doing the painting/posting, it might be thought both worthwhile and motivating if both the colour and the process of painting had some element of consensus.

[Moses]

But in a convivial spirit the owner of the house might be interested in what colour his guests thought would work well. And since his guests are doing the painting/posting, it might be thought both worthwhile and motivating if both the colour and the process of painting had some element of consensus.

"colors" are described in rules... everyone accepts them at time of registration


a classification to be left in the hands of a single moderator.

that's how forums work... is it new for you?

[sglad]

"colors" are described in rules... everyone accepts them at time of registration

But the rules can be misinterpreted, sometimes intentionally and maliciously so and I'm aware of at least two instances where they have been but I can't discuss them because of the "no discussion of moderator decision in the open forum" rule.

[Moses]

But the rules can be misinterpreted, sometimes intentionally and maliciously so and I'm aware of at least two instances where they have been but I can't discuss them because of the "no discussion of moderator decision in the open forum" rule.

you still have option to write PM to moderator and to 2 admins: Surfcrest and me...

but I don't want multipage-wars on "open forum" after each moderation act
- "I'm innocent",
- "You are rule-breaker"
- "he is innocent
- "he is rule-breaker"

there are enough other wars...

[sglad]

"colors" are described in rules... everyone accepts them at time of registration



that's how forums work... is it new for you?

No, that's not how forums work. "Personally abusive" is too broad and relative and can be easily misused by an unpoliced moderator to suppress someone they have a beef with. There needs to be a system of checks and balances for absolute power corrupts absolutely.

[Moses]

"Personally abusive" is too broad and relative and can be easily misused by an unpoliced moderator to suppress someone they have a beef with. There needs to be a system of checks and balances for absolute power corrupts absolutely.

So, where you found "personally abusive" in forum's rules?

[sglad]

So, where you found "personally abusive" in forum's rules?

I was referencing bobsaigon2's remarks (see post #56) where he said, "The owner or moderators have every right and duty to determine what is personally abusive and remove such posts, as they see fit." and a moderator has misused rule 4.7 and rule 3.2.1.4 to justify this and issue red cards.

[scottish-guy]

...you still have option to write PM to moderator ...

:D

[sglad]

I don't think you are echoing the thought of all of the board members. A handful at most ?

Agreed. One shouldn't attempt to speak for all or even most members in order to support our own prejudices. Unfortunately, you and a447, who liked your post, have no credibility on this issue whatsoever having done exactly that on at least one occasion ie claiming to speak for the entire membership when you were really speaking for your individual selves. I'll post the relevant links tomorrow. My bf is calling me to come to bed. Night.

[Nirish guy]

Anyway say what you all want Moses has basically said to one and all "tough shit, if you don't like it / my rules then you can simply can fuck off as I don't care" - I guess he can't be much clearer than that. But lets not at least put up any pretence then that it's any other way than that with talk of rules and moderation any longer, Neal is dead, long live Moses ( it seems)

[Moses]

Anyway say what you all want Moses has basically said to one and all "tough shit, if you don't like it / my rules then you can simply can fuck off as I don't care" - I guess he can't be much clearer than that. But lets not at least put up any pretence then that it's any other way than that with talk of rules and moderation any longer, Neal is dead, long live Moses ( it seems)

nice try...


"tough shit, if you don't like it / my rules then you can simply can fuck off as I don't care"

you said that, not me...

[scottish-guy]

It's certainly the impression that's coming across

[arsenal]

:aggressive: