"Is The Editor..." Topic

Other: OK and helpful – but if you're Eurpoean, it can sometimes seem like there's a whole ocean of difference in his thinking on some controversial topics…

Other: Confusing me by running polls like these……

Is doing fine. Focus on hobby topics when you're here at TMP. I also think Yesthatphil raised a valid point.

Can you walk into your FLGS and start ranting about porn or politics or free speech? How long would you last if you behaved like a bitter troll or indignant know-it-all in a public shop? Differences of opinion, strong emotions are expected, but what is it about the internet that lets folks think they can spout off and throw things like a petulant child?

+1 To Dentatus and Yesthatphil

Other; several of the options

This is, not to put too sharp a point on it, his house – - -

Of course there's an ocean of difference, Phil – there's an ocean of distance and 200+ years of different experience.

I agree with Dentatus's second point. The Internet DOES seem to bring out childishness and rudeness.

To be honest, the dear Editor (i.e., Fearless Leader) and the OFM are the only folks I have ever dealt with who are solid scar tissue….

I think there are several issues.

1. An autocratic method tends to yield idiosyncratic results based on the autocrats method.

2. This went from a free internet toy to a business. That ends up clouding some of the issues. This is both the Editor's "house" and his livelihood. Anything that endangers that livelihood needs to be quashed.

3. The application of the rules from 1 and 2 has sent some reasonably valuable members of this community off in a huff. A result that weakens the community and could ultimately endanger the long term profitablility of the site.

Another forum I belong to, focused on an NFL team, has a system of around 20 volunteer moderators. When a complaint is made they look over the particulars and vote. The mods are selected from across a spectrum of viewpoints so an issue is obvious if the moderators act. THe owner himself is not a moderator.
That site is MUCH more free ranging than TMP. There are opt in areas for discussions of politics and religion as well as photographs.

I don't think the internet brings out more childishness, but rather gives childish and rude people a very public forum.

What is it with people who don't understand that there's a world of difference between a commercially run website and somebody's house?

what is it about the internet that lets folks think they can spout off and throw things like a petulant child?

That and porn distribution seem to be the primary human needs the internet fulfills.

AFAICT, the internet isn't causing the behavior, it is just a technology facilitating human nature. Sort of like the way cellphones facilitate being a control freak, nagging, and running one's mouth continuously w/o generating any meaningful content.
-Kle.

It must be scab picking time on TMP again.
This will not be the last such Poll either. The Editor feels the need to beat his manly chest again. And again. And again.

Just to let us know who is Boss.

I don't think the internet brings out more childishness, but rather gives childish and rude people a very public forum.

Never a truer statement.

Back OT. The Editor is operating within his rights.

Too right, John. This poll apparently proves some sort of point.

"Can you walk into your FLGS and start ranting about porn or politics or free speech? "

I go into my FLGS and talk about politics all the time. I've been doing it for the better part of 15 years now. I don't get the feeling it isn't appreciated and I don't think, given that the store has expanded in that time, that it is hurting business.

I am not seeing your take on this, John.

To me, it looks like he is keeping to his rules.
This was a poll posted, and he is running it.
Like it or not (as it may turn out to be negative to him), it was suggested, and he ran it.

He is sticking to the rules.

TMP runs fine for me. I am tired of all this. If you don't like it then start your own, it is a free country.

This should be a Pick 5 poll.

Inkpaduta wrote

If you don't like it then start your own, it is a free country.

The web is a country now then?

It is a simple expression Derek. It means that one has the right to go our and start own website if they do not like this one. IE a free country to do what you want to do.
You can also "vote with your feet" and simply leave TMP as well.

It's a rather inappropriate metaphor, just like the one about the house.

He's doing his own thing. Why suggest anything else? If he doesn't want to make sense, he doesn't have to. If he wants to be a bully, he can. He made this place, he can do as he chooses.

But who understands everything he does? Things one person may think is wrong and bully-ing, another won't. There are too many opinions. For ever new name added, opinions grow exponentially. Leave the guy alone.

When is it gonna end? If ya don't like him/can't put up with him, stifle or leave. If ya do like him/can put up with him, wonderful!!!

This is both the Editor's "house" and his livelihood. Anything that endangers that livelihood needs to be quashed.

Yes but that's not the only thing that gets quashed.

He's doing his own thing. Why suggest anything else? If he doesn't want to make sense, he doesn't have to. If he wants to be a bully, he can. He made this place, he can do as he chooses.

Yes he can. And we as paying customers who don't chose to walk have the right to say our piece. He want's our money, seems like our opinions, whether he chooses to listen or not is part of the quid pro quo.

I suspect that some of the level of upsettededness is from comments that Bill has made, which it then appears he either chooses to ignore or worse, makes a point of ignoring.

He also seems to support troll like behavior from some, with the hammer then falling on those who disagree with or take issues with the posts of the troll.

He also doesn't "nuke" threads that have obviously gone south and a re a train wreck in progress, even when specifically asked to do so, apparently enjoying the train wreck and the DH'ing that follows. Or worse.

So, yeah, he can and does do as he pleases. But it often has NOTHING to do with either the business end of things or his livelihood.

Leave the guy alone.

Nope. He doesn't leave us alone. Just returning the favor.

JJ

Are you sure you're not just upset because you got kicked off of The Blue Fez, Terrement?

He also doesn't "nuke" threads that have obviously gone south and a re a train wreck in progress…

The TMP community is opposed to the Locking of topics – TMP link

Are you sure you're not just upset because you got kicked off of The Blue Fez, Terrement?

Yes I am sure. This reply seems to be illustrative of the sort of thing against which i'm complaining. If you thought that was the case, you certainly could have PM'ed me or emailed me, but instead chose to point out the fact to everyone that I was banned. No need to do so, (but a chance to do some sharp stick in the eye of a vocal critic) and it violates what you've stated in the past about what happens on the Fez staying on the Fez.

But

"your page, your rules, your call", right?

If he wants to be a bully, he can. He made this place, he can do as he chooses.

And as I stated, this is an example that has nothing to do with his business or his livelihood. Strictly personal.

I didn't want to bring up the Fez, but since you did, here's my reply.

While still there I asked a number of specific questions as to the lines and the rules and why you tolerated some bad behavior (which was the direct trigger of my responses) yet found my return fire (all true) to be objectionable. Was it just that the fellow in question was continually proven to be unable to support his lies and implications that you felt you had to protect him by banning me? If so you could have said so directly and I would have left.

I've made no secret of the fact that I don't like that you tolerate lying of folks there, protect the feelings of "some folks who don't object to the lies about you but who are upset when you attack back" (or words to that effect rather than telling them to stuff it and just stifle me if they don't like what I had to say), yet banned me for telling the truth. I defy you to find any of the things I said in the "free-fire zone that is the Fez for which I was banned that were untrue. I specifically asked you to deal with the root cause of the problem, which you refused to do.

But I have no intention of asking for re-reinstatement. If I did, I would have done so before now as there are so many topics about which I'd be posting to the annoyance of your sacred cows.

You can take your Fez and stick it on the hat rack where it belongs.

The TMP community is opposed to the Locking of topics

Locking a topic (so there can be no more discussion) and nuking a thread (so it no longer exists) would seem to be two different things. Opposed or not, you have nuked threads IIRC.

Hiding behind "the community wants…" yet you selectively seem to ignore other feedback you claim you want. After all, it is "your page, your rules, your call."

In your reply to me about the ending of polls that specifically name folks, where the discussion was clearly in reference to the "should X be banned" or similar poke fun at or sharp sticks in the eye of individuals and your reply was that there was nothing wrong with discussing folks by name – not the discussion at all.

You made the specific statement that you weren't ready yet to change your mind – clearly implying that you might – but then never answered the direct question on what it would take to get you to change your mind.

You tolerate troll like behavior out here, (even though in the threads in question the TMP community also made it clear they were opposed to the troll like behavior) but are more than happy to hammer those who step across your arbitrary lines in the sand (such as what is and isn't discussion of religion) so the troll who started and fed the thread walks scot-free while numerous others get DH'ed.

I find you inconsistent in following your own rules – hiding behind them when it is convenient, yet ignoring them when you so choose.

I've always said "your page, your rules, your call" but that doesn't mean I have to or will quietly sit and not complain. As you well know.

JJ

other, haven't the faintest clue what motivates other people.

This reply seems to be illustrative of the sort of thing against which i'm complaining. If you thought that was the case, you certainly could have PM'ed me or emailed me, but instead chose to point out the fact to everyone that I was banned. No need to do so, (but a chance to do some sharp stick in the eye of a vocal critic)…

I don't think you get the point. You're complaining publicly, and I'm making the public point that (a) you have had problems with moderation on our sister site, The Blue Fez, (b) you're clearly disgruntled about it, and (c) you're carrying a personal grudge into this separate topic.

…and it violates what you've stated in the past about what happens on the Fez staying on the Fez.

I think you're confusing the Lounge with the Blue Fez. Yes, I've said in the past that discussions on the Lounge should remain private. I don't recall ever saying anything similar about the Blue Fez, but even if I had, I'm not revealing anything that's been discussed on the Fez – I'm simply stating the fact that you were booted off the Fez, and are in fact the only person ever to be booted off the Fez.

But I have no intention of asking for re-reinstatement. If I did, I would have done so before now as there are so many topics about which I'd be posting to the annoyance of your sacred cows.

In other words, you got tossed off the Fez, and you think other people should have got tossed instead, so now you're imagining that these people are my "sacred cows"???

Reminds me of the British gentleman (I've long forgotten his membername) who used to get on TMP in the evening, after having had a bit too much to drink, and complain about all the people on TMP who were my favorites – he called them my "cronies." But he was so drunk, he never made any sense, but he would complain and complain – especially about the OFM. He was convinced the OFM was my best friend, and therefore immune from punishment. (Ironic…?)

Locking a topic (so there can be no more discussion) and nuking a thread (so it no longer exists) would seem to be two different things.

Yes, but if the TMP community is against Locking a topic, doesn't it seem reasonable they would be opposed to the more drastic Nuking of a topic?

You made the specific statement that you weren't ready yet to change your mind – clearly implying that you might – but then never answered the direct question on what it would take to get you to change your mind.

Well, a cogent, well-reasoned argument might cause me to change my mind…

You tolerate troll like behavior out here, (even though in the threads in question the TMP community also made it clear they were opposed to the troll like behavior) but are more than happy to hammer those who step across your arbitrary lines in the sand (such as what is and isn't discussion of religion) so the troll who started and fed the thread walks scot-free while numerous others get DH'ed.

In other words, you think you're a better judge of a troll than I am. And so… what? I really hate to be so blunt, but I'm the moderator, you're not, so deal with it.
(Or, see above, make a persuasive case to cause me to change my definition of a troll.) Whining isn't going to get you anywhere.

I've always said "your page, your rules, your call" but that doesn't mean I have to or will quietly sit and not complain. As you well know.

And let me give you a word to the wise: If all you come to TMP for is to complain, we don't need that here. People come here to enjoy themselves, not to listen to you whine. You've made your point, now move on…

I don't think you get the point. You're complaining publicly, and I'm making the public point that (a) you have had problems with moderation on our sister site, The Blue Fez, (b) you're clearly disgruntled about it, and (c) you're carrying a personal grudge into this separate topic.

I get it completely. I'm complaining publically about what you have done publically in a number of cases. You are complaining publically about something that happened on the fez and supposedly stays on the fez. If the rules have changed, LMK as I have a lot more specific that I could have posted.

(a) you have had problems with moderation on our sister site,

My problem with "moderation" was, as you well know, specifically about the lies and racist implications of another member-which you tolerated, but my calling him on it was somehow immoderate and unacceptable

In other words, you got tossed off the Fez, and you think other people should have got tossed instead, so now you're imagining that these people are my "sacred cows"???

Not at all and don't put words in my mouth. My objection was to specif actions in posts that I asked you to address to the party in question. NEVER asked or suggested that they be banned. I did specifically ask that if you wanted me to change my posting habits, you should address the problem to the root cause, the liar, rather than punishing me for calling him on it and telling the truth.

so now you're imagining that these people are my "sacred cows"???

The sacred cow comments refer to the unnamed folks who never posted, nor PMed me noremailed me but supposedly complained to you about my posts-stating that they didn't care about the lies but they did not like my replies. Seems you could have moderated the situation by telling them that if they did not like my posts, they could certainly stifle me there, and as the result of you allowing the continued lies and racist implications to continue, but you take action against me for replying, it certainly gives the impression that you are also considering the liar in question a sacred cow.

Yes, but if the TMP community is against Locking a topic, doesn't it seem reasonable they would be opposed to the more drastic Nuking of a topic?

No. Not necessarily. In the recent Gunfreak religion discussion,a number of folks commented in the thread that it should be nuked to avoid the coming train wreck. i also did so in a PM to you. In the recent OFM discussion there weresimilarly a good number who IIRC suggested nuking the thread. Making it all go away seems must different to me than allowing a therad to sit there for allto see and get heated about as opposedto simply making stuff go away.

Well, a cogent, well-reasoned argument might cause me to change my mind…

And you couldn't have said that specifically in response to my direct question?

In other words, you think you're a better judge of a troll than I am

Apparently, from the comments in the threadsin question, several folks think they are better judges of troll-like behavior than are you.

In the Fez case, I'd submit that allowing lies and racist implications clearly DOES make me a better judge of troll-like behavior whan it is personally aimed at me. Wouldn't you? How would you respond to hatefullies told about you?

I really hate to be so blunt, but I'm the moderator, you're not, so deal with it.

xactly what I'm doing. Doesn't mean i can't state my case or complain.

And let me give you a word to the wise: If all you come to TMP for is to complain, we don't need that here.

There is ample evidencethat that is clearly not the case. I have and readily admit taking issue with you on the related topics to this, but if you compare that to the numbers of posts I have in the numbers of topics in which I post, it sounds more like you are simply tring to get me to stop pointing out my concerns – all true- than legitimately argue the case.

But, as I've repeatedly said-your page, your call your rules. You've made your point as well. I'm happy to move on unless you want to argue this further. But as you well know, I don't take shots or mischaracterizations of what I've said or implied, including the ones above without response. Putting words into my mouth and than attacking me for saying things I never said (…other people should be tossed instead…) is exactly the sort of thing with which i took issue on the Fez. If that makes me immoderate, so be it.

JJ

if you don`t like the club best thing to do is leave

Whoo hoo.. managed to be vote no 100 for just doing his own thang…

My problem with "moderation" was, as you well know, specifically about the lies and racist implications of another member-which you tolerated, but my calling him on it was somehow immoderate and unacceptable

You mean, the fact that you "called him on it" again and again and again and again, despite warnings from me, until it reached the point that you were tossed from the Fez.

He was able to control his behavior; you weren't.

I feel like I'm standing in a store listening to the owner argue with a customer…

I used to think that this was comical.
It was very funny when The editor bullied others.
Pastor Niemoeller's warning was never more apt.

I had my turn last August and September.
Then I thought it had ended. but it was just dormant.

This may indeed be, technically and legally, "the Editor's house," but as paying, contributing, supporting members I also believe, rightly or wrongly, that this makes us all shareholders and stakeholders, with certain rights as well as obligations. Some sort of unwritten Common Law, as it were, grants us some form of say-so. The times are a-changin' away from old-style forms of ownership and property rights and autocratic management. Slowly, but things are evolving. Social/capitalistic Darwinism is going to change or devour itself.

And I have no idea what this "Blue Fez" thing is (besides Ye Ed's avatar/icon)

I also believe, rightly or wrongly, that this makes us all shareholders and stakeholders…

Stakeholders, yes.

Shareholders? I've put almost 20 years of my life into this website, and you think you own a piece of it because… why? If you watch Wheel of Fortune every week, do you own a bit of Vanna White?

Not to say that I don't appreciate your support!

And I have no idea what this "Blue Fez" thing is (besides Ye Ed's avatar/icon)

Our sister site, where "hot topics" are allowed: thebluefez.com

Your analogy is crap. Watching wheel of fortune is not contributing to wheel of fortune.

Even non-paying members contribute to TMP in a couple of ways. They add to your membership numbers which in turn helps you gain/maintain advertisers, AND if they post they contribute content.

Paying members contribute more.

But you know that.

There is that.

This is a poll that really cannot be answered by a single descriptive term or phrase. Even a top 5 poll would be difficult.

I'm so not entering this fray!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Porn would be safer!

And again. And again.

Yes its a good job you are never repetitive, Eh John?

Remind me please, how many times have you flounced out of TMP, never to return? Or was it that you were going to confine yourself to the marketplace the last time?

I object to this poll for the same reasons I objected to the OFM polls – it's personal and really not necessary.

If you don't like being here, or the way it's being run, then please, just go.

Pastor Niemoeller's warning was never more apt

I feel moved to say that I find these references to the Pastor, in the context of these trivial self centered histrionic posturings, quite offensive.

When so much as a single individual actually recieves a bruise, or sheds blood, you will have my sympathy and active support. Until that time, for all you drama queens, please remember the old adage:

'Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me'

FOR HEAVENS SAKE GROW UP!

Even non-paying members contribute to TMP in a couple of ways.

They certainly do. But that doesn't make them owners. For one thing, they share none of the financial risk of running the business.

Stakeholders, yes. Shareholders, no.