Editor in Chief Bill | 26 Dec 2013 7:25 p.m. PST |
A few weeks ago, I received an email from someone who was irate about comments made on the TMP forum. I responded by asking him to please use the Complaint Button (which tells me exactly which post I need to look at). He responded: It does not explicitly break any forum rules that I can see
OK, so what's the problem? So what to do with posts that don't break forum rules but are plainly inappropriate for the website they've been posted on? Because, let's be honest, what place do those – and others on the same thread – actually have on a place like TMP? Ah, he knows the soul of TMP, and that these comments don't belong here! So it turns out he wants me to censor the comments two people made concerning politics (older than the 10-year forum rule), because allowing these comments to remain would be
in defiance of all logic and reason
. In other words, he disagrees with what these people said, and would I please censor them. Or perhaps, he says, delete the entire discussion. Now, in the Christmas rush, I didn't see his last email, so I didn't reply. This has made him unhappy, as he now writes: However, you obviously feel that as the owner of a website like TMP you are above criticism. Well, no, but as the owner of a large website, it is hard for me to keep up with all of the email, especially during the holiday season. Sir, you apply double standards to your website and refuse to see others point of view. Although you have shown wonderful, modern attitudes in certain recent matters (and are to be applauded for that) I feel you head os deeply inside your own sphincter in other regards.. Good luck in your own little world, thinking that you are important. Aren't you the one who wants to censor others' points of view? And should I feel flattered that you, who I don't know (you didn't even mention a TMP membername), applaud my attitudes on some other, unspecified issues? And then, of course, he tells me he's never coming back to TMP. Another day in the life of TMP
|
79thPA | 26 Dec 2013 7:45 p.m. PST |
At least he followed the time honored tradition of saying he wouldn't be back. |
altfritz | 26 Dec 2013 7:55 p.m. PST |
Lets hope he is as good as his word. (But somehow doubt it
) |
Editor in Chief Bill | 26 Dec 2013 7:57 p.m. PST |
Though it would be amusing to enforce "logic and reason" on the forums! (I think I would need to hire more editors
) |
BrianW | 26 Dec 2013 8:11 p.m. PST |
Appealing to you on behalf of "logic and reason," and then indulging in an ad hominem attack (telling you that you have your head stuck up your arse). Consistency is not big in their playbook, I'm thinking
. BWW |
Robert Kennedy | 26 Dec 2013 8:57 p.m. PST |
I dunno why but the term " insignificant Non-entity" comes to mind LOL. Robert |
rmcaras | 26 Dec 2013 9:07 p.m. PST |
I think Spock is available for hire. Seems like he is doing both himself & TMP a favor by leaving. He can control his frustrations better by avoiding the "potentially provocative" behavior of others, and you don't have to put up with his self-important and self-pitying whining? |
darthfozzywig | 26 Dec 2013 9:11 p.m. PST |
|
John the OFM | 26 Dec 2013 9:24 p.m. PST |
At least he followed the time honored tradition of saying he wouldn't be back. That's would *I* did! Fooled you, didn't I? |
Mako11 | 26 Dec 2013 9:42 p.m. PST |
Sounds like he is suffering from the psychological condition known as transference. |
WeeSparky | 26 Dec 2013 9:49 p.m. PST |
I also feel that logic and reason should be attacked. We should start a poll or something. |
Bashytubits | 26 Dec 2013 10:02 p.m. PST |
I would be happy to forego logic and reason if people would just be polite and forgiving. But, this is TMP, home of the grumpy old button counters. |
marcus arilius | 26 Dec 2013 10:13 p.m. PST |
|
Tony58 | 26 Dec 2013 10:13 p.m. PST |
Gotta love 'control freaks' who cannot control themselves! You will obey, you will obey |
Tazman49684 | 27 Dec 2013 6:19 a.m. PST |
|
WarWizard | 27 Dec 2013 6:39 a.m. PST |
|
zippyfusenet | 27 Dec 2013 6:50 a.m. PST |
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less." Seems like a happy ending for all concerned. Me too. |
Cardinal Ximenez | 27 Dec 2013 7:05 a.m. PST |
>>shown wonderful, modern attitudes For me, this was the scariest part.
DM |
Cardinal Ximenez | 27 Dec 2013 7:09 a.m. PST |
|
KatieL | 27 Dec 2013 11:36 a.m. PST |
I can remember when, in the long ago distant days before the "web", it was generally considered to be ill-mannered to post private email correspondence into a public internet forum without express permission of the original author. |
Arteis | 27 Dec 2013 2:23 p.m. PST |
For normal correspondence, Katie, I would certainly agree with you. But as in this case the original author was also badly ill-mannered in the final parts of his email, I think the usual rules of netiquette were already well broken. If someone were to send me abuse privately, then try to hide his behaviour behind the veil of netiquette, they'd have another thing coming
|
Sundance | 27 Dec 2013 2:36 p.m. PST |
Though it would be amusing to enforce "logic and reason" on the forums!(I think I would need to hire more editors
) I think you would have to find some editors who were already condemned to a loony bin in order to accomplish that bit. |
wrgmr1 | 27 Dec 2013 5:43 p.m. PST |
Would he like a little cheese with that whine! |
Editor in Chief Bill | 27 Dec 2013 6:52 p.m. PST |
Katie, my announced policy has been that letters to me in my (ahem) "official capacity" are considered public. Also, I did not identify the individual by name. |
Crofter | 27 Dec 2013 7:19 p.m. PST |
I don't get it, what exactly is the point of the thread, what is it achieving? Back slapping or finger pointing or synchronised head nodding uh humming or harmonised tut tutting
Just wondering. Katie, my announced policy has been that letters to me in my (ahem) "official capacity" are considered public. That is quite concerning Bill and something I wasn't aware of. Do you make all "official capacity" correspondence public? What determines publication of these emails such as the one above? salut |
Canuckistan Commander | 28 Dec 2013 12:24 a.m. PST |
|
deephorse | 28 Dec 2013 5:04 a.m. PST |
I'm with Katie L and Crofter on this. Why do we even have to know that this little spat went on, and what on Earth does Bill think that his "letters to me
. are considered public etc." policy will achieve? Make members less likely to write to him? And if all such correspondence is considered public then why is it not all published somewhere, rather than some selective bits that Bill wants to air for whatever unknown reason? |
Pijlie | 28 Dec 2013 8:27 a.m. PST |
Though it would be amusing to enforce "logic and reason" on the forums!(I think I would need to hire more editors
) grin Since PM-ing instead of hanging the laundry out to dry seems to be so 2012 already, let's repeat what I PM-d Bill yesterday: I think TMP would need to start employing moderators. And no, we do not already have those. We have Editors. Who post PMs on the forum because this is "policy". |
marcus arilius | 28 Dec 2013 3:19 p.m. PST |
|
KatieL | 28 Dec 2013 4:36 p.m. PST |
"But as in this case the original author was also badly ill-mannered in the final parts of his email, I think the usual rules of netiquette were already well broken." I'm always slightly in awe of people who can hold in their heads the idea that some number of wrongs piled in a heap look enough like a right to pass muster. |
Editor in Chief Bill | 28 Dec 2013 5:35 p.m. PST |
I don't get it, what exactly is the point of the thread, what is it achieving? Venting Do you make all "official capacity" correspondence public? Who has time for that? It's impractical. What determines publication of these emails such as the one above? Personal whim what on Earth does Bill think that his
policy will achieve? Make members less likely to write to him? I would hope that it might make people think first. I think TMP would need to start employing moderators. And no, we do not already have those. We have Editors. Who post PMs on the forum because this is "policy". First, this wasn't a PM. Second, Julia is doing a good job of moderating the forums. Third, if you think you can do a better job of managing a website, please feel free to try. I've never claimed infallibility. I reserve the right to make fun of anonymous idiots occasionally. |
Arteis | 28 Dec 2013 6:09 p.m. PST |
I'm always slightly in awe of people who can hold in their heads the idea that some number of wrongs piled in a heap look enough like a right to pass muster Me too, if the wrongs are about anything more important than simply a lapse in netiquette being countered with another lapse in netiquette ;-) |
Midpoint | 28 Dec 2013 6:22 p.m. PST |
I assumed this was the name of a new ruleset. |
Pijlie | 29 Dec 2013 4:32 a.m. PST |
Julia is doing a good job of moderating the forums. Third, if you think you can do a better job of managing a website, please feel free to try. I've never claimed infallibility. I reserve the right to make fun of anonymous idiots occasionally. First: the moderating of this forum could actually be a lot more effective. For one, impolite behaviour would be encouraged a lot less (and Julia's job would be a lot easier) if you for example would refrain from making "fun of anonymous idiots". Second: I do not claim to be able to manage a (and certainly not your) website. I criticize the moderation on it. I welcome any constructive response to my criticism, but please do not throw things back at me that did not come from me in the first place. Third: no one is infallible. But you might lead by example. After all; Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? |
deephorse | 29 Dec 2013 5:01 a.m. PST |
I hope that I remember Bill's explanation of his puerile behaviour when my Supporting Membership next becomes due. I expect better of someone in his position, a position which IMHO he is currently abusing somewhat. |
nazrat | 29 Dec 2013 9:43 a.m. PST |
He's always done this and I find the "name and shame" of idiots who get overly wrought up about silly forum junk to be rather fun. Those of you who prefer to "Harrumph" and look down your noses at the rest of us can go ahead and enjoy your feelings of moral superiority and we can ALL be happy! 8)= |
Pijlie | 29 Dec 2013 12:42 p.m. PST |
There is nothing morally superior to politeness. It is the grease of human civilisation. It is also not very hard to be polite. TMP would be a better forum if more people would be so. It is too bad I have to repeat myself, but I am trying make a point here. It is unfortunate that you feel looked down upon, but I can't help that. Neither do I feel responsible for it. I only hope that "the rest of you" for whom you seem to speak does not share your feelings. |
alizardincrimson2 | 29 Dec 2013 2:34 p.m. PST |
|
Crofter | 29 Dec 2013 4:59 p.m. PST |
I reserve the right to make fun of anonymous idiots occasionally. On the internet, you can't take things at face value. salut |
Editor in Chief Bill | 29 Dec 2013 7:22 p.m. PST |
But you might lead by example. After all; Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Isn't this a good example? To criticize, but to leave the target anonymous to not publicly shame him by name; to instruct the membership by example of how not to act; to make a point through gentle humor. |
Pijlie | 30 Dec 2013 12:01 a.m. PST |
No, I don't think so. Because Ah, he knows the soul of TMP, and that these comments don't belong here! is not gentle humour. It is scalding sarcasm. What would have been a good example is: 1. explain to the writer off-forum that disagreement alone is no reason to remove posts as long as forum rules are not broken. Apply to courtesy if he does not show you any. 2. if you do feel the need to publish the email, then post it anonymously but complete, so all can know the context and judge for themselves and explain to us why such an email is not constructive. 3. not calling him an idiot. Or any other demeaning names. This also hardly classifies as "gentle humour". The example you have set with this post is that you can call people names (apparently as long as you don't ID them) and be demeaning and sarcastic as long as you have the force i.e. the editor(s) on your side. The result is that people like Arteis (above) think it is allright to be rude as long as the other party has been rude enough. This is called escalation. It leads to all kind of FUBAR. |
Editor in Chief Bill | 02 Jan 2014 4:54 p.m. PST |
BecauseAh, he knows the soul of TMP, and that these comments don't belong here! is not gentle humour. It is scalding sarcasm. Except that he's not even here, so no harm, no foul. I hardly think it was "scalding," I was just amused that some stranger thinks he knows my business better than I do, and thinks he should dictate to me how to run it. That's
amazing. |
chrisminiaturefigs | 03 Jan 2014 4:28 a.m. PST |
Well said Editor, I think this person was rather silly and rather pathetic to e-mail you and get all drama queen just over a few comments he does not agree with!!! |
Cacique Caribe | 04 Jan 2014 8:57 p.m. PST |
My wife and I have a small chalk sign in the kitchen that reads
"If you and I agree all of the time, then one of us is unnecessary" Dan |
Pijlie | 05 Jan 2014 10:54 p.m. PST |
Please note that there are 11 more lines of text in my last post expanding on the concept of "example". My worries do not concern the effect your OP has on the original agitated emailer, but the effect your posting behaviour has on TMP as a whole. Aptly illustrated by the fact that fellow TMP-er Whiterose now feels free to start calling the emailer silly, pathetic and a drama queen. You have thus gained a following. This was your intention? PS: this is not meant to be sarcastic. I am genuinely curious. |