Mod Immoderate?

[Miles Scull]

We are here to debate relevant topics.

Yes, of course. But a single mod should not be the sole arbiter of taste, or of relevancy.

You need not use this Forum to create absurd threads.

Again, who is to decide as to absurdity & as to threats. Not a single mod. That's why there are seven mods.

If you have something you wish to discuss, fine.

Again, maybe the poster is employing robust sarcasm & indirection which the mod doesn't understand & not understanding misses the point of same.

But this is not a topic for discussion.

Again, same complaint. How does one mod decide alone, based on a wholly mistaken appreciation of the matter in question, decide to quash a POTENTIALLY valuable topic?

This is a method for you to start trouble.

Not at all. It may momentarily seem to cause needless opprobrium, but the topic may spark replies of interest & profit to many members who have a different orientation & palate from the single locking mod.

I am locking it, and requesting that Mr. Simkin delete it.

Before troubling John with a raft of "See, I locked a bad bad," why not first rouse a couple of other sleeping mods for a quick look around for verification."

Isn't patience a goodly virtue of moderation?

Kathy Beckett

[Bill Miller]

We are here to debate relevant topics.

Yes, of course. But a single mod should not be the sole arbiter of taste, or of relevancy.

You need not use this Forum to create absurd threads.

Again, who is to decide as to absurdity & as to threats. Not a single mod. That's why there are seven mods.

If you have something you wish to discuss, fine.

Again, maybe the poster is employing robust sarcasm & indirection which the mod doesn't understand & not understanding misses the point of same.

But this is not a topic for discussion.

Again, same complaint. How does one mod decide alone, based on a wholly mistaken appreciation of the matter in question, decide to quash a POTENTIALLY valuable topic?

This is a method for you to start trouble.

Not at all. It may momentarily seem to cause needless opprobrium, but the topic may spark replies of interest & profit to many members who have a different orientation & palate from the single locking mod.

I am locking it, and requesting that Mr. Simkin delete it.

Before troubling John with a raft of "See, I locked a bad bad," why not first rouse a couple of other sleeping mods for a quick look around for verification."

Isn't patience a goodly virtue of moderation?

Kathy Beckett

Question for Miles .... Do you know for sure that Kathy hasn't sought the opinions of other moderators before making a decision to close a thread or are you just assuming something to be true without first getting the facts? Would not the proper question have been "Kathy, even though you explained why you closed the thread, what is the protocol for closing a thread?"

Bill Miller

Edited June 30, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Miles Scull]

We are here to debate relevant topics.

Yes, of course. But a single mod should not be the sole arbiter of taste, or of relevancy.

You need not use this Forum to create absurd threads.

Again, who is to decide as to absurdity & as to threats. Not a single mod. That's why there are seven mods.

If you have something you wish to discuss, fine.

Again, maybe the poster is employing robust sarcasm & indirection which the mod doesn't understand & not understanding misses the point of same.

But this is not a topic for discussion.

Again, same complaint. How does one mod decide alone, based on a wholly mistaken appreciation of the matter in question, decide to quash a POTENTIALLY valuable topic?

This is a method for you to start trouble.

Not at all. It may momentarily seem to cause needless opprobrium, but the topic may spark replies of interest & profit to many members who have a different orientation & palate from the single locking mod.

I am locking it, and requesting that Mr. Simkin delete it.

Before troubling John with a raft of "See, I locked a bad bad," why not first rouse a couple of other sleeping mods for a quick look around for verification."

Isn't patience a goodly virtue of moderation?

Kathy Beckett

Good post, Miles.

By the way, did you read Ms. Beckett's polite post in reply to John Dolva? If not, you certainly should because here is set down the problem of getting a consensus.

Thank you, John, I had absolutely NO intention of deleting it. It was locked and the decision for deletion was left to Mr. Simkin.

And yes, had that been the only thread on the same subject, I would not have done so. As you had said, the same subject was occurring in many threads. That was what I had based my decision on.

I also want you to know that threads can be as easily unlocked..

It is sometimes difficult to get a consensus from the moderators because of time differences.

I feel it best, in thoses cases, to leave any ultimate decisions to John.

Thanks, again.

Kathy Beckett

This post has been edited by Kathy Beckett: Today, 03:26 PM

It would appear that Ms. Beckett did not seek a mod's consensus before she locked the thread in question. If that is not correct, Ms. Beckett need merely say so.

I get the distinct impression, Miles, that certain members here in the forum speak out when they have not fully read all topically related posts, such as Ms. Beckett's here quoted. I hope you keep vigilant & circumspect & do not inadvertently fall in with a bad crowd, the group of flibbertigibbets (Mr, T. Folsom & others) you see on some threads you post to, even on this thread from time to time. See any about?