New Members

[scottish-guy]

The "wrong road" that is being gone down is the "fuck you" attitude that is being displayed towards the members.

It starts at the top with Moses arrogant declaration that anybody who feels aggrieved by a decision made by him or by Head Judge Len & The Sidekicks must take it private and no-one else can discuss it.

That sort of attitude just pisses people off, and specifically it pisses me off because I dislike being dictated to over what I can or cannot comment on. I thought SGT was a discussion board - who knew.

It comes on top of this recent response to a punter:

..My house - my rules..

- which is very reminiscent of the Fat Cunt's arrogant "It's my playground" comment of yesteryear which had a number of members gnashing their teeth in anger.

Also in the mix is Len's recent utterly bizarre announcement that any mention of children would be sanctioned, together with his other proclamation that his moderation policy is "Never Explain" - and although Christian's and a447's unwelcome meddling in posts hasn't affected me specifically (yet), it's indicative of the fuck you attitude.

Sad as it may seem on an anonymous board, I regard the characters on SGT as acquaintances and quite a few as friends even though I have never met the vast majority. I hate nobody and enjoy coming here and I would find it very disappointing if the entire character of the board changed.

It's clear from Moses responses (which I'll take at face value) that he derives little or no income from the board and uses it only as a vehicle for his Siam Roads palaver (whatever that even is - I've never bothered to find out) - so he doesn't give a fuck really whether we stay or go.

Therefore I'd suggest there's little point getting worked up and more point in just voting with our feet if and when the board atmosphere becomes intolerable. There is no point trying to reason with either Moses or Head Judge Len and the other two are clearly (as I've said) - sidekicks (no offence guys)

[Smiles]

Sorry to be repetitious, but I agree, there should be no language editing by moderators. If a post is unintelligible, moderator can PM the poster to find out if he wants to clarify his post. Faulty grammar or spelling should not give moderators cause to intervene. Whether or not a post is objectionable and deserves deletion is an entirely different matter.

Bob, what would consider "objectionable" ... other than "Lese Majesty" that is?
That word is stunningly subjective. Putting that word into the guidelines will trigger fights much more heated than editing grammar or spelling mistakes.

PS ... who the hell is "LEN"?

[bobsaigon2]

That's it Smiles, precisely. The term Objectionable is, in the SGT context, extremely subjective, and it is the definition of that word which should be of paramount concern to anyone trying to revise the posting guidelines. There will never be a consensus, but I believe that at some point, a board owner/moderator must step in when a post does not meet generally accepted levels of civil discourse.

OK, how do I define generally accepted levels of civil discourse? Defining that is the task of the owner/moderators, not me.

[Moses]

If somebody forgot: here are forum's rules since 2013 (at least)
https://sawatdeenetwork.com/v4/showt...amp-guidelines

no one letter been changed since that time...

[Brad the Impala]

The only editing so far has been in relation to the violation of board guidelines, apart from:

A) my editing of my own post - and the negative consequences that caused, for which I have apologised, and
B) Christian editing out members' spelling and grammar.

I agree 100% that any editing should be done strictly in accordance with the published guidelines.

Re Point A. You didn't edit your own post. You edited my post quoting you. You did it to make yourself look better. I thought that you had already acknowledged that:

I was editing what I saw as my own post

As for the apology, that might have appeared genuine if it hadn't been preceded by your usual abuse when the editing was first pointed out.

WTF are you on about??

Far be it for me to make a nonsense of your comment. I mean, as if I'd ever do that! Lol

You don't need my help - you do that all the time all by yourself.

So three questions for Moses, if you would be so kind:

1. What are the current time limits on Moderators editing their own or other people's posts?
2. What are the current time limits on posters editing their own posts?
3. Why were the members of this forum not able to be told who had been banned(and several asked)when you were quite happy to announce it on another forum?

[Moses]

Re Point A. You didn't edit your own post. You edited my post quoting you. You did it to make yourself look better. I thought that you had already acknowledged that:



As for the apology, that might have appeared genuine if it hadn't been preceded by your usual abuse when the editing was first pointed out.




So three questions for Moses, if you would be so kind:

1. What are the current time limits on Moderators editing their own or other people's posts?
2. What are the current time limits on posters editing their own posts?
3. Why were the members of this forum not able to be told who had been banned(and several asked)when you were quite happy to announce it on another forum?

about "a477 accident": as I understand situation - a447 thought what he edited his own post when edited your, when he found it - he clicked "save" instead of clicking "cancel" that bring label "edited by..." under your post... and he gave apology to you... I think "accident" is closed


Moderators have no limits to edit.
Posters: 30 min
In both cases after 15 min from time of first posting label "edited by..." will appears

Wrong. Members "are able" and I wrote about it week ago at the day when frequent been temp.banned. But in general here will be no announce of such events with exemption for special cases (my sole discretion), as well as we will not invite orchestra and will not celebrate banning.

[Brad the Impala]

Thank you for quick answers, although it doesn't explain why after several days and several requests, we still could only surmise that frequent had been suspended, see Member Banned thread.

[Moses]

Thank you for quick answers, although it doesn't explain why after several days and several requests, we still could only surmise that frequent had been suspended, see Member Banned thread.

No, look at the thread: frequent's nickname appears at 5th post... after it there was nothing else to add

[scottish-guy]

If somebody forgot: here are forum's rules since 2013 (at least)..no one letter been changed since that time...

Nobody's arguing about "The Rules" - the disquiet is over the way they are currently being applied and the attitude of some of the people applying them

[a447]

There may be a temptation to attack a banned member, knowing that he can not defend himself.

Not mentioning who has been banned can, to some extent, curtail such behaviour.