"A thought/suggestion for Bill" Topic

After the recent unpleasantness, my first impulse is ‘how can this sort of thing be reduced in future.'

OK, what was it? About 30 locked accounts, 15 or so in the DH? Not very satisfactory – though I note your apparent glee at some of them…

Now, you and I are both human. Being human, you believe you were right, I was wrong. Being human, I think I was right and you were wrong. End of story, it's over.

A possible way of reducing (but not eliminating) this in future:
There is Bill the Editor and Bill the contributor. Two hats on one head. And with one account.
Why not create a second account for yourself? A standard member, able to be complained about or stifled. Personally, I wouldn't be one of the ones stifling you, only people I've ever stifled was an obnoxious group a few years back who I think were correctly locked before I stifled them! Yes, technically you could put this alternate member in the DH – and if you got enough people complaining about an item I would suggest that this would be a good idea – a bit of ‘OK, I got it wrong' sometimes would probably increase your street cred!

Meanwhile, Bill-as-Editor remains as it is.

Any examples I can give of such a system working? Well yes, one obvious case that has a similar premise. The US government has a situation where the President and his business interests are quite separate. President/Editor has certain functions and, to a certain degree, operates ‘above' the law, Member/President's Commercial interests are very much subject to the law. (This is not meant to be a political comment by the way – it's the system worked in the US for a long time.)

Yes

This is excellent advice, though I fear it won't be listened to.

Sounds like a reasonable idea.

Maybe he already has another call sign. Who knows? Could be anyone… But to avoid being dawghoused, it's not me.

No-one should be 'above' the law.

Thank you for your suggestion.

However, it would not have been useful in the recent discussions, since I was making an observation in that case as the editor-in-chief of TMP.

OK, what was it? About 30 locked accounts, 15 or so in the DH? Not very satisfactory

I'm not keeping track of numbers. When people cannot live by the forum rules, there are consequences.

I stifled Bill once before and he locked my account! Big surprise as I didn't realise it was an offence to do so – as E-I-C, he needs to be heard in case he has something important to say to us (his explanation).

I did it because I wanted him to engage in the debate on the wretched old Stifle Chart that showed who was the most stifled member, without that person ever being able to atone for their sins. Anyways, as it happens the Stifle Chart died a horrible death, which I relished.

If I had the chance to stifle Bill now, in any of his guises, would I do so? No. I'm funny enough and handsome enough to see who is posting and either check it out or leave it alone – and so can everyone else. I wouldn't use it.

(If it helps, at Bills next monthly dinner party, I shall ask him not to post such things in future before he has had breakfast)

However, it would not have been useful in the recent discussions, since I was making an observation in that case as the editor-in-chief of TMP.

But I think that's related to GM's point. Part of the reason those threads caused so much unpleasantness was because multiple people thought they were inappropriate threads for the EIC to be starting (fwiw, I agree). That people left was not because someone made those observations but because the administrator account did.

Having a separate personal account would allow you to make such observations or ask such questions without tarnishing the TMP "brand" in the same way or giving such an appearance of institutionalised bias. Meanwhile retain the administrator account and its privileges only for impersonal matters.

That said, it's always hard, and separate accounts would only go so far. The temptation for forum moderators to use their powers to punish people for disagreeing with them is strong, and better men than I have succumbed to it.

OK Bill, let's cover your points:

'it would not have been useful in the recent discussions, since I was making an observation in that case as the editor-in-chief of TMP.'

But the the cause of those 'observations' were a direct result of posts that would have been covered as the separate account – I would have pressed the complaint button, if no result possibly the stifle button on the grounds 'no good complaining, Bill's not going to do anything about his posts', and then would not have made the cumulative posts that caused your final response.

'When people cannot live by the forum rules, there are consequences.'

My perception is that you were not living by the forum rules. When I objected, you considered me to be a nuisance… again, if you had done this as an alter ego I would simply have pressed the complaint button. I felt that I had no other option to multiple public posts.

Another point: in your opinion it made no difference in this case. OK,fine. But one (in my view) sensible way to operate is to look for and eliminate reasonable potential issues/problems – and stop them coming real. To me, the suggestion I've put forward should be a potentially useful method to prevent foreseeable future issues arising.

As a separate point:

In this case, it isn't about your perceptions. It's about how other people perceive your actions and allowing them to comment in the same way as they would for any other member.

I think that about sums up my views/position so I'll not make any further comments on this thread unless you directly ask me to – in which I will.

My perception is that you were not living by the forum rules. When I objected, you considered me to be a nuisance…

A 'nuisance' post is one which does not participate in the discussion, but merely clogs up the page for those who do want to discuss.

I get what you were trying to ask and discuss. It just didn't come off well. Write better next time.

Be willing to lock a thread down. Gather your thoughts and post a clarification. Instead of doing that you spent the whole time playing disciplinary.

Be willing to lock a thread down.

TMP never locks threads. We never have. If you think that policy should change, feel free to bring it up on the TMP Poll Suggestions board.

How about a general amnesty, for those locked and in the DH, and use the situation as a learning or teachable moment?

We're almost all out now! I don't think it's worth suggesting any changes. The editor owns the site and runs things his way. I got dawghoused for trolling, when I attempted some humorous posts to show the silliness of his Britsh vs American posts.

Time to move on , or go elsewhere. Personally I'm just going to concentrate more on the good side of the site .

I've started by posting some pics of the British Sailors I painted this week.

How about a general amnesty, for those locked and in the DH, and use the situation as a learning or teachable moment?

Being in the Dawghouse is a learning or teachable moment.

Bill,

Ah yes, very true.