Well - two questions now to the anonymous moderator(s)

[hermes]

it could be argued that people have the right to commit offences.

Crikey that's a bit deep. Do people have the right to interfere with other peoples rights?

 

[JohnD]

it could be argued that people have the right to commit offences.

Crikey that's a bit deep. Do people have the right to interfere with other peoples rights?

It could be argued that Geoffrey Archer is an honest man.

 

[hermes]

It could be argued that Geoffrey Archer is an honest man.

Even though he told lies? It could be argued that he is an alien in disguise!

 

[JohnD]

An equally convincing argument.

 

[keyplayer]

it could be argued that people have the right to commit offences.

Indeed.

 

[Softus]

My point, which seems to been at least partially missed, is that the relentless bombarding of moderators with the assertion that they don't have the right to act in the ways that they have (collectively), has achieved, does achieve, and will achieve, nothing.

That isn't to say that I haven't been critical myself, or challenged a moderator action, but I don't do it continually.

Rights, or absence of them, has nothing whatsoever to do with this site - all rights are waived when you become a member, because you agree to be bound by the rules. It's fallacious to argue that the criticism of another member as reasonable on the grounds that the criticism is deserved. Nothing that happens on the forum is reasonable unless the moderators (and site ower) agree that it is.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I will stop when they stop acting as though they have the right to delete posts, falsely accuse me of misbehavior and refuse to observe the common courtesy of explaining why.

To be pedantic, the moderators do have the right to delete posts and the right to decline or refuse to observe any common courtesy of their choosing.

No - they have the power, not the right.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

My point, which seems to been at least partially missed, is that the relentless bombarding of moderators with the assertion that they don't have the right to act in the ways that they have (collectively), has achieved, does achieve, and will achieve, nothing.

That sounds like the defeatist argument for not voting if the MP you aren't going to vote for cannot lose.

If nothing else, relentless complaining stops them from fooling themselves for one second that what they are doing is universally acceptable.

That isn't to say that I haven't been critical myself, or challenged a moderator action, but I don't do it continually.

Perhaps you should.

Perhaps if everybody who is the victim of their capricious and insulting behaviour complained long and loud every time then the message might get through and things might change.

Rights, or absence of them, has nothing whatsoever to do with this site - all rights are waived when you become a member, because you agree to be bound by the rules.

Do you remember what happened when I wanted them to explain what rule I was breaking, and they couldn't?

It's one thing to agree to be bound by the rules, but when the moderators act outside them, and remove posts to suit their own personal agenda, or to cover up their own incompetence then that is another matter entirely.

It's fallacious to argue that the criticism of another member as reasonable on the grounds that the criticism is deserved. Nothing that happens on the forum is reasonable unless the moderators (and site ower) agree that it is.

All I have ever asked for, (and if you don't believe me, go back and look at my history of complaints) is for consistent standards, and a consistent interpretation of what is reasonable for a forum which claims to suitable for family reading.

 

[JohnD]

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

John - wake up - you've fallen asleep on your keyboard and your empty posts are disturbing the grown-ups.

 

[Softus]

No - they have the power, not the right.

OK - I can see that distinction; you are correct.

My point, which seems to been at least partially missed, is that the relentless bombarding of moderators with the assertion that they don't have the right to act in the ways that they have (collectively), has achieved, does achieve, and will achieve, nothing.

That sounds like the defeatist argument for not voting if the MP you aren't going to vote for cannot lose.

I see the parallel, and would argue that every vote counts, therefore I have to agree that registering your 'vote' against moderator action is significant.

If nothing else, relentless complaining stops them from fooling themselves for one second that what they are doing is universally acceptable.

I suspect that this assumption is wrong - the frequency and voracity of a complaint can so easily increase or decrease the effectiveness of the complaint. Sometimes "less is more".

Perhaps if everybody who is the victim of their capricious and insulting behaviour complained long and loud every time then the message might get through and things might change.

That's a gamble, and not without risk - as per my previous comment.

Do you remember what happened when I wanted them to explain what rule I was breaking, and they couldn't?

I believe that I do - they deleted your posts and/or the topics.

It's one thing to agree to be bound by the rules, but when the moderators act outside them, and remove posts to suit their own personal agenda, or to cover up their own incompetence then that is another matter entirely.

I don't think the moderators break site rules, merely those of common courtesy.

All I have ever asked for, (and if you don't believe me, go back and look at my history of complaints) is for consistent standards, and a consistent interpretation of what is reasonable for a forum which claims to suitable for family reading.

I remember, without even having to look, and I believe that all of your complaints are well grounded; I just think that the relentlessness of the posting is reducing the likelihood of the moderators understanding.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

If nothing else, relentless complaining stops them from fooling themselves for one second that what they are doing is universally acceptable.

I suspect that this assumption is wrong - the frequency and voracity of a complaint can so easily increase or decrease the effectiveness of the complaint. Sometimes "less is more".

Perhaps if everybody who is the victim of their capricious and insulting behaviour complained long and loud every time then the message might get through and things might change.

That's a gamble, and not without risk - as per my previous comment.

I understand your argument, but then since they never act anyway, deciding to complain or not comes back to the voting argument.

It doesn't matter how polite you are, or how reasonable the question is, they just ignore you, or try to rub you out, so persisting has no downside.

Do you remember what happened when I wanted them to explain what rule I was breaking, and they couldn't?

I believe that I do - they deleted your posts and/or the topics.

Yes, over and over again, simply in response to the question "please tell me which rule I broke?". And then without a word they started allowing the post in question to stand, either because they realised they'd been wrong all along (but still I got no explanation or apology) or they did it for a quiet life, (which means that complaining works ).

It's one thing to agree to be bound by the rules, but when the moderators act outside them, and remove posts to suit their own personal agenda, or to cover up their own incompetence then that is another matter entirely.

I don't think the moderators break site rules, merely those of common courtesy.

Very badly worded on my part - what I meant was they ignore the rules - they delete posts which do not contravene them, and leave ones that do.

All I have ever asked for, (and if you don't believe me, go back and look at my history of complaints) is for consistent standards, and a consistent interpretation of what is reasonable for a forum which claims to suitable for family reading.

I remember, without even having to look, and I believe that all of your complaints are well grounded; I just think that the relentlessness of the posting is reducing the likelihood of the moderators understanding.

Oh I'm sure they understand.

I'm also pretty sure they think that by allowing this thread to continue, eventually it will run out of steam.

Which it will, but there are two important things which will not happen:

1) I will not forget that they lied about me.

2) It will not address the fundamental problem of their behaviour, so this sort of thing will happen over and over again, until they start behaving fairly and courteously.

 

[Softus]

I understand your argument, but then since they never act anyway, deciding to complain or not comes back to the voting argument.

It doesn't matter how polite you are, or how reasonable the question is, they just ignore you, or try to rub you out, so persisting has no downside.

It's dull. And I make that observation as someone who is often guilty of exuding dullness.

...they deleted your posts and/or the topics.

Yes, over and over again, simply in response to the question "please tell me which rule I broke?".

Some things in life aren't covered by rules. For example, if you were admitted to a [night] club, dressed and behaving according to the rules, then verbally attacked a vile but otherwise quiet racist, thereby drawing attention to yourself, then you would be ejected from the club. It's how the world works, whether you like it or not.

I refer you back to my schoolboy briefcase story - the one who complained the loudest was the one who got punished by the weak teacher.

And then without a word they started allowing the post in question to stand, either because they realised they'd been wrong all along (but still I got no explanation or apology) or they did it for a quiet life, (which means that complaining works ).

In my humble experience, people do go quiet when they realise either that (a) they were wrong, or (b) that they can't shut me up.

...what I meant was they ignore the rules - they delete posts which do not contravene them, and leave ones that do.

Which tells me that the fact of a broken rule is less important than the manner of pointing out that one has been broken. I can't think of another logical conclusion.

I'm also pretty sure they think that by allowing this thread to continue, eventually it will run out of steam.

Which it will, but there are two important things which will not happen:

1) I will not forget that they lied about me.

2) It will not address the fundamental problem of their behaviour, so this sort of thing will happen over and over again, until they start behaving fairly and courteously.

I think your supposition, and the two important things, are all reasonable and correct.

The problem is of the power presented by the delete button. I have no [current] gripe against any moderator personally (other than Mod 4, because of his/her style), but it's the parking attendant syndrome. PA's exist only to prevent people parking illegally, and act to deter future offences. If a PA never wrote out a ticket, or chastised or cautioned anyone, and never made any contribution to safety or freedom of passage, then they would be a waste of uniform.

So too it is with the role of moderator - the delete button simply has to be pressed occasionally in order to justify the existence of the role. It's just plain old human nature. A fine-toothed comb will catch nits, but also anything that's nit-sized and nit-shaped.