You know I really don't care. What I would like is for moderators to get so outrageous that I either quit this place or get banned due to my complaining so I don't waste any more time here. I consider it a real possibility that will occur as more moderators and more traffic comes mainly because I find that forums in general get totally unwieldy directly in relation to their popularity. I thought I should at least ask why this thread got shut down by Goofyfish and not the second? http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=38141 http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=38139 I got no PM, no explanation. WHAT IS GOOFYFISH'S REASONING HERE? I suspect it is pretty weak, perhaps that is why he felt obliged to use such a small font in his one totally subjective statement of reason. "No point of discussion; thread closed." So the only threads left open on the subject are those that start off with negative findings. Go Figure that personal bias should play so blatantly in a moderator's actions? That is a question. I don't know goofyfish's bias but he sure isn't helping sciforums attain or retain an unbiased perspective.
>> so I don't waste any more time here Make the choice Mr Chips.... it only takes a few weeks to kick the habit of cyber babble.. Then you become a freelance.... Fascism is spreading at an alarming rate...... best become invisable Good luck
I believe what goofyfish is suggesting is that you merely quoted a source as your post with zero original content of your own. This practice is frowned upon in these forums. Perhaps you ought to put as much effort into your actual posts as you put into your whining.
I got no PM, no explanation. WHAT IS GOOFYFISH'S REASONING HERE? I suspect it is pretty weak, perhaps that is why he felt obliged to use such a small font in his one totally subjective statement of reason. "No point of discussion; thread closed." I wouldn't worry about it, he's just one of these people that thinks he has power and that's his life...getting his kicks by censoring people.
I personal think that the moderator should offer a period where the thread creator can edit their initial post to make it into a proper discussion. Outright locking of a thread without giving them a chance to rectify this is a bit extreme. I think a 24hr period would be preferable.
Yeah, I posted one, which in retrospect was offensive, but it was the complete opposite to what I meant....which was fair enough but I was pulled up on my next message because of a dislike by the moderator. A personal thing...but he could and still kiss my arse.
Sounds reasonable, Porfiry, Thor. Yeah, very little more effort than locking the thread and his meager explanation could of gotten a PM to me explaining what Porfiry explained and I could of, would of, changed the post. Now, it just sits there as a testimony to immoderation. Guess I could repost it but I begin to not care about what happens here.
I think the member should have something to discuss at the time they post - otherwise, why bother. Obviously they should have some thoughts on their topic and should expend the effort to let the rest of us know what that is. Since I don't know you, your assertation that it was "personal" is ridiculous. As you say, your first post was insulting, whether intended or not. The second was removed for being little better, and certainly contributed nothing to the discussion: :m: Peace.
whats worse is to work on a reply and find it is closed when attempting to post. (as with the abu ghraib thread yesterday. i was all set to blast that iraqi traitor idrissi (or something) the thing is thor's suggestion was made quite a while back. allow a grace period before closure. while we all know the track record of posts containing a mere article, who is to say a decent discussion cannot ensue? is 24hrs unreasonable? of course, it would be tedious to slate threads for deletion at a future date. it is more efficient to mod according to a standard and be done with it. so work with the goofball. at the very least, scribble some pseudo intellectual garbage to con him as to the post worthiness.
goofyfish: "I think the member should have something to discuss at the time they post - otherwise, why bother. Obviously they should have some thoughts on their topic and should expend the effort to let the rest of us know what that is." So I guess you hath spoken. Well, you're shenanigans now gives sciforums another locked thread and this thread. I guess a moderator is not here to keep the "peace" but rather enforce their opinion with no room for discussion or seeking correction so little shit becomes more shit. You know if I repost the the thread in question and fulfill your requirements it would prove what you say here as wrong. Me thinks you should attempt to keep your opinions out of moderation and do some moderation rather than increase frustration and disgust. Oh yes, and thank you for reposting what you found offensive elsewhere. Jesus, another moderator creating more flack than moderation. So what else is new? Right on the money, Hathor, thanks for the heads up.
But is it not counter productive to just outright close a thread and then have all this hubbub end up here or people wandering around shouting 'The mods are nazi's' or whatever the buzzword is now? I understand that the position of moderator is to uphold the certain rules of a forum and it's specific areas and I also understand that it would be a little tedious to keep explaining to people about how things are done here. But my arguement is that the outright locking of a thread with little explaination is a bit unfair. As I can see it there are three main options of how to improve moderator/Member relations. Either offer the grace period and inform the thread starter that they have to add comments to their initial post. The second is that you lock the thread with a more detailed explaination into why it was locked. And thirdly, and possibly the easiest on the moderators, is that you lock the thread and link them to the Forum Rules thread and include the whole 'Don't just paste bits of an article, add some comments' section to it. As it stands, I cannot see any rule in that thread that says that you cannot just post an article (with the source) and let that be that. And if there is, well, all I can say is that if I missed it, what makes you think other people will see it. This is just some constructive criticism and not an attack against your character or forum standing, just in case you saw it that way.
Whoa, I just checked out that Abu Grahib thread. Goofyfish, I have enjoyed your insightful posts now and then within sciforums but so far, as to your moderating ability, I see evidence that it is beyond your abilities. If you want to change to intelligence rather than just bull-headedness, you might start with some apologies and reopening both of those threads.
I think he's doing a great job, and this is just a further indication of your bias. You don't care if he's closing threads, you only care if he's closing your threads. And to make your point, you have to insult his intelligence. A fine example of civil discourse, you are not. You lord over these boards as if you actually earned that position with wit and intelligence, when clearly the opposite appears to be the case. You and a couple other far-left bomb-throwers attempt to dominate these boards with insult, personalization, denial, marginalization and trivialization. And you don't think anybody else is smart enough to figure that out. You're mistaken.
I address another thread not authored or participated in by myself and Pangloss states "you only care if he's closing your threads." Me thinks, Pangloss, when you start with misinformation you are quite liable to end with such. I predict the lock down of this thread.
this is of course the porfiry's standard operating procedure. label as "whining", all criticisms of sciforums. i suggest you close down "site feedback" if this is to be the trend. i mean, why bother soliciting feedback if you intend to treat it with such disdain? for a allegedly "liberal" site, the slogans are rather similar to those of the facists that run the usa......love it or leave it! Mr. Chips Total Posts: 852 (3.48 posts per day) posts in sfeedback by chips the rabblerouser the tard is probably one of our better posters and to ridicule and treat with condescension simply because of a difference of opinion is smallminded and rather pathetic. porf to the mods : i gots yer backs, bro!
i got it! rename feedback to...Site Testimonials I am not renowned for splashing compliments about, but you have set such an incredibly high standard, that others forums i frequent pale by comparison - any chance that you might take over world ?? You have somehow managed to harness a unique team with an integral spirit that is so rare ... AND I MEAN EVERY WORD - IF ANYONE READS THIS, BELIEVE ME ... THIS IS A TOTALLY UNSOLICITED OPINION WITH A DEEP CONVICTION - CREDIT WHERE CREDIT IS DUE CONGRATULATIONS TO PORFIRY AND HIS CRACK TEAM OF MODERATORS!
>> CONGRATULATIONS TO PORFIRY AND HIS CRACK TEAM OF MODERATORS! seconded... Put to the vote, all in favour, raise a click!!!!