Jump to content


Spartacus

Moderator actions and guide for mods


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
140 replies to this topic

#106 Guest_Tom Scully_*

Guest_Tom Scully_*
  • Guests

Posted 14 January 2012 - 02:00 PM

Merged new topic, titled "Hoover" with existing topic, tilted J. Edgar Hoover, on the same subject.

#107 Evan Burton

Evan Burton

    Super Member

  • admin
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4,985 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:NSW, Australia

Posted 15 January 2012 - 06:19 AM

Thread titled "Web of the Sisterhood" moved to the Political Conspiracies board as being non-JFK related.

#108 Kathy Beckett

Kathy Beckett

    Moderator

  • Admin
  • PipPipPip
  • 791 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Kansas City, Mo.
  • Interests:Media Coverage of the Assassination,Zfilm discussions,,All Things Disney,Henry VIII, Titanic and her sister ships,Heraldry, Harry Potter,Lugosi, Mustelids, Classic Films, and Cuisines.

Posted 13 February 2012 - 05:43 AM

Made a post by Robert Morrow invisible on the Alford thread, regarding a list of JFK "activities",pending a moderator discussion.

#109 Kathy Beckett

Kathy Beckett

    Moderator

  • Admin
  • PipPipPip
  • 791 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Kansas City, Mo.
  • Interests:Media Coverage of the Assassination,Zfilm discussions,,All Things Disney,Henry VIII, Titanic and her sister ships,Heraldry, Harry Potter,Lugosi, Mustelids, Classic Films, and Cuisines.

Posted 23 February 2012 - 03:28 PM

Mr. Calahan's post on the Chilean Brothel thread made invisible pending mod view and discussion.

#110 Guest_Tom Scully_*

Guest_Tom Scully_*
  • Guests

Posted 07 March 2012 - 09:11 AM

I made two posts temporarily invisible on Dr. Jim Fetzer's "Great Debate" thread :
http://educationforu...opic=18852&st=0

Two other members of the forum moderation team posted requests in the thread requiring the editing and or
deletion of non-conforming content in posts on the thread.

No remedial action has been taken in response to these requests. One of the posts I've made invisible contained a quote of the obviously, non-conforming content displayed in the post at issue. Neither member responsible for these two posts responded to the request of moderators, more than eight hours after the first request was posted.

Why does any member re-post insults and obvious rule breaking accusations posted by another member? It seems a practice that defies common sense. Report posts with rule breaking content displayed in them. If you re-post non-conforming content, you risk the loss of visibility of your post, too.

#111 Guest_Tom Scully_*

Guest_Tom Scully_*
  • Guests

Posted 09 March 2012 - 10:16 PM

Moved thread with only two posts at present, both obviously and thoroughly OT and
titled simply, "Titanic" at this link, http://educationforu...showtopic=18867

To this area of the Education Forum, to be found and displayed with compatible subject matter.

http://educationforu...hp?showforum=41
The Education Forum
> Curriculum Subjects
> History
> History:Resources


http://educationforu...=1
Elsie Bowerman

http://educationforu...=1
The Titantic

#112 Guest_Tom Scully_*

Guest_Tom Scully_*
  • Guests

Posted 22 March 2012 - 09:51 AM

A friendly reminder, prompted by a recent post and a response to it that have been made invisible.

This decision may be appealed, but consider this before you decide to petition for restoring visibility of the two posts.:

The Forum rules have been revised; please read them.

Thank you.

....Second & Third Party Posting

Do not post on behalf of other people. In other words, if someone you know has something to say relevant to the discussion in a thread, have them register and post it. Think of them as a copyrighted source: you can quote them in short amounts, but if there is something substantial they want to add, they must do it themselves. The exception to this is if new memberships are temporarily suspended and you have confirmed with the administrators that the third party posting is acceptable. Posting on behalf of a moderated, suspended or banned member is strictly forbidden.
....



#113 Guest_Tom Scully_*

Guest_Tom Scully_*
  • Guests

Posted 22 March 2012 - 11:46 PM

Second post in duplicate, Jack Worthington thread has been unapproved and is invisible.
http://educationforu...showtopic=18929

The post is generously stocked with unsupported claims, aside from phrases like, "I have it on good authority that..... was having sex with.... fathered a child with....."
and, "I am convinced that ...... had sex multiple times with....."

Same or similar unsupported sex related claims posted over and over, at every opportunity. Please stop posting gossip with flimsy or no verifiable supporting references.

#114 Guest_Tom Scully_*

Guest_Tom Scully_*
  • Guests

Posted 25 March 2012 - 08:48 AM

Moved thread titled, ANOTHER TEXAS EXONERATION from JFK Debate to :

Political Conspiracies

A section for non-JFK conspiracies.
...after the following exchange, and a prior request to defend the decision to place the thread in JFK Debate and suggest a back up preference for placement elsewhere in the Education Forum.:



My reasoning is that the only relevance is that the investigating of this crime was botched and it happened in the state of Texas and JFK was assassinated in Texas.


Tom, I submit that your real reasoning is that you believe Lee Oswald was guilty
of some involvement in the JFK assassination
although you are not sure in what way exactly.
So you and other false accusers don't like it when the mindset of false accusers
is exposed to the light.

John Raley is determined to prove, and time will tell if he is right
that the investigation of the Morton murder wan't botched, as you claim
but that Morton was deliberately framed
by the prosecutor who concealed proof of Morton's innocence.

A few of us know that that something similar happened in the case of Lee Oswald.
The first round of false accusers claimed that Lee was a lone assassin
while the second round of false accusers claim he was part of the conspiracy.
Not much difference between the the two sets of false accusers in my book.

As I have aid before, it beats me
how you came to be a moderator on this forum
with your agenda-driven style of moderation.

This isn't about, me. You're on your own with whatever you make up concerning your fantasy of my hidden attitude towards Lee Harvey Oswald and his culpability.

Thanks, Ray, for clearing this up. You've started this thread because you believe this story is a political conspiracy story. It follows, then, that this thread will fit in well in the section of the Education Forum devoted to political conspiracy.



#115 Guest_Tom Scully_*

Guest_Tom Scully_*
  • Guests

Posted 27 March 2012 - 05:08 AM

I moved nine posts from the thread titled, Show Me The Money in JFK Debate

to the thread in the Political Conspiracies forum titled,
ANOTHER TEXAS EXONERATION because J. Raymond Carroll was well into the process of obliterating the "Show Me the Money" thread, a discussion which had nothing to do with the postings that Mr. Carroll had inserted into that thread and the posted responses his intrusions had attracted there.

Mr. Carroll's thread, ANOTHER TEXAS EXONERATION is already rendered incoherent by the posts of Mr. Carroll himself, and it seemed a pity for two thread to suffer the same fate.

Mr. Carroll is warned through this communication to stop disrupting the Education Forum by posting off topic and insulting other members and moderators. Mr. Carroll is giving an impression that he is intent on disrupting the Education Forum by antagonizing other members and moderators. Further steps will be taken to moderate Mr. Carroll if he does not moderate himself.

#116 Guest_Tom Scully_*

Guest_Tom Scully_*
  • Guests

Posted 29 March 2012 - 05:15 AM

I have unapproved the thread started yesterday by J. Raymond Carroll, titled BIASED MODERATION viewable by moderators because the action of unapproving a post or thread results in invisibility to all but forum moderators until approved again. Everything unapproved is displayed with a light pink background. I prefer not to edit any member's post and usually unapprove it instead to insure that the post or thread which involved in an issue counter to forum rules remains exactly as its author originally posted it.

In this instance, which began several days ago with this post, (see below) I have methodically and consistently attempted to stop this member from breaking the key forum rule against being uncooperative and disrespectful towards a moderator who is attempting to preserve observance of key rules. The rules also do not permit protest posts, much less protest threads. After this response to routine moderator questions and comments, the issue here was no longer whether the opening post in the thread this post is in was or wasn't OT for JFK Debate, but instead about the failure of the thread's author to obey key forum rules, as it has been since with regard to every post by this offending member that has followed this.:


My reasoning is that the only relevance is that the investigating of this crime was botched and it happened in the state of Texas and JFK was assassinated in Texas.


Tom, I submit that your real reasoning is that you believe Lee Oswald was guilty
of some involvement in the JFK assassination
although you are not sure in what way exactly.
So you and other false accusers don't like it when the mindset of false accusers
is exposed to the light.

John Raley is determined to prove, and time will tell if he is right
that the investigation of the Morton murder wan't botched, as you claim
but that Morton was deliberately framed
by the prosecutor who concealed proof of Morton's innocence.

A few of us know that that something similar happened in the case of Lee Oswald.
The first round of false accusers claimed that Lee was a lone assassin
while the second round of false accusers claim he was part of the conspiracy.
Not much difference between the the two sets of false accusers in my book.

As I have aid before, it beats me
how you came to be a moderator on this forum
with your agenda-driven style of moderation.


So now we are into the fifth day of this. The forum administrators have not seen fit to suspend Mr. Carroll's posting privileges. I am sure they have their reasons. I've warned Mr. Carroll that I will unapprove any post in which my name is included and or contains criticism/protest of moderation. I've also reminded Mr. Carroll that he has had the option all along to post in a manner in conformance with the rules.

Edited by Tom Scully, 29 March 2012 - 05:20 AM.


#117 Guest_Tom Scully_*

Guest_Tom Scully_*
  • Guests

Posted 10 April 2012 - 08:27 PM

I unapproved all posts (they are temporarily invisible) describing incestual relations in the thread titled,

Robert Caro's 4th book on Lyndon Johnson due May 1st
http://educationforu...showtopic=18928

Do not quote Robert Morrow's or any other member's rule breaking content in your replies because doing so interferes with moderator efforts to disassociate this forum from such salacious and irrelevant content.

Mr. Morrow has been warned against posting supermarket tabloid quality, irrelevant sexual matters in detail, just for the sake of doing so, countless times, yet he persists.

#118 Evan Burton

Evan Burton

    Super Member

  • admin
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4,985 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:NSW, Australia

Posted 27 April 2012 - 07:28 AM

After a number of complaints, and discussion amongst Moderators, Robert Morrow has been placed on moderation. The reason for this action is member's concerns with the nature of a number of Robert's posts, dealing with sexual preferences or proclivity. Although the Forum encourages open discussion, it was felt that the posts went beyond reasonable discussion and research, and warranted further action.

#119 Guest_Tom Scully_*

Guest_Tom Scully_*
  • Guests

Posted 15 May 2012 - 10:34 AM

I've locked two threads in the last two days. I'm not posting links to them here because one of the dividends of closing a thread is that it will slip below the surface since "bumping" it with new posting activity is no longer possible.

I've "rescued" the relevant or originally intended topic/discussion of those threads, The active thread is here:
http://educationforu...showtopic=19083

John Simkin must have intended to permit Ralph Cinque to participate as a member of this forum because he extended membership to Ralph the other day, knowing full well the subject matter Ralph would present at the outset.

As obvious as this seems to some of us, others are taking it upon themselves to step in the way of this. I am simply attempting to preserve civil, on topic discussion in spite of the counter efforts. They are efforts counter to the rules of the forum.

I am a moderator. I hope other members of the moderating team will join Kathy and I in actively interfering with the counter efforts
of some members. Kathy and I, alone, have no authority to place a member on moderation. Some members need to be voted
onto moderation status. It is unfair to the rest of us to let this go on, blunted only by the weak tools available to individual moderators.

#120 Evan Burton

Evan Burton

    Super Member

  • admin
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4,985 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:NSW, Australia

Posted 18 May 2012 - 11:52 PM

After numerous member complaints regarding his posts, Ralph Cinque has been placed on indefinite moderation.

Edited to add: Ralph was taken off moderation almost immediately after giving an undertaking to reform his post style. Sadly, he has once more reverted to an unacceptable style and thus has been placed on indefinite modertaion.

The moderators will review his status at an appropriate time.

Edited by Evan Burton, 23 May 2012 - 08:02 AM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users