What brilliant minded person moved this into here...politics.
yes, stick thy head in the sand....

Discussion of moderation policy is supposed to be in the Politics forum.

Show me where anyone has discussed moderation policy?

I beg your pardon, Michael, but this thread is all about moderation policy. What do you think these proposed "arbitrators" would be arbitrating? The initial post in the thread points out that moderators can make mistakes (I certainly agree), thus Mr. Daly seems to think that arbitrators are required (but as for that, I do not agree).

Nah man, it's about offering or conferring a beneficial, advantageous, or otherwise helpful suggestion..not a discussion of policy. When one discusses policy, a certain policy should at least be pointed out as either flawed or less than desireable. Show me where one policy is discussed?

Given your respone to me, or better...the way you REACT to these suggestions is highly predictable. Which was why the suggestion was made in the first place.

However, your point is well taken and I completely understand your need to shoo
away anything perceived negative and put it in the backroom...

---

What brilliant minded person moved this into here...politics.


yes, stick thy head in the sand....

Well, if you think twice, you will realize that it's possible to see it that way, that even this is politics: the politics of interaction between persons on an Internet message board ;)

hehe true dat :)

---

[[/quote]
I beg your pardon, Michael, but this thread is all about moderation policy. What do you think these proposed "arbitrators" would be arbitrating? The initial post in the thread points out that moderators can make mistakes (I certainly agree), thus Mr. Daly seems to think that [an additional number of] arbitrators are required (but as for that, I do not agree).[/quote]

Hey come on guys.

1st, I prefer the following, Pat, Patrick or PJ. There's no need for formality.

2nd I do not think that "an additional number" are required. I just stated that as mistakes are made (to which it was agreed that even moderators can make mistakes) was it possible to have an arbitrator/s to look at moderators decisions.

3rd ...and most important - I have found some very intelligent and thought provoking threads/posts which I enjoyed reading & wished to participate. This was the main reason why I started this thread & was expecting those very same intelligent people to participate.

4th Sadly, I was greatly mistaken & to prevent any more pettiness, please close this thread.

To all that participated, my thanks for the comments.

PJ

What brilliant minded person moved this into here...politics.
yes, stick thy head in the sand....

Discussion of moderation policy is supposed to be in the Politics forum.

Show me where anyone has discussed moderation policy?

I beg your pardon, Michael, but this thread is all about moderation policy. What do you think these proposed "arbitrators" would be arbitrating? The initial post in the thread points out that moderators can make mistakes (I certainly agree), thus Mr. Daly seems to think that arbitrators are required (but as for that, I do not agree).

Nah man, it's about offering or conferring a beneficial, advantageous, or otherwise helpful suggestion..not a discussion of policy. When one discusses policy, a certain policy should at least be pointed out as either flawed or less than desireable. Show me where one policy is discussed?

Given your respone to me, or better...the way you REACT to these suggestions is highly predictable. Which was why the suggestion was made in the first place.

However, your point is well taken and I completely understand your need to shoo
away anything perceived negative and put it in the backroom...

First, the Politics forum is not a "back room".

I reacted the way I did because there is already a mechanism for dealing with mistakes by moderators, not because I diagree with the concept.

I am glad you think my highly reasoned response to this thread is "predictable". Thank you for the compliment.

Finally, to address your first point, a discussion about how moderation works or should work is, in fact, discussion of moderation policy--your (rather predictable) opinion to the contrary notwithstanding.

What brilliant minded person moved this into here...politics.
yes, stick thy head in the sand....

Discussion of moderation policy is supposed to be in the Politics forum.

Show me where anyone has discussed moderation policy?

I beg your pardon, Michael, but this thread is all about moderation policy. What do you think these proposed "arbitrators" would be arbitrating? The initial post in the thread points out that moderators can make mistakes (I certainly agree), thus Mr. Daly seems to think that arbitrators are required (but as for that, I do not agree).

Nah man, it's about offering or conferring a beneficial, advantageous, or otherwise helpful suggestion..not a discussion of policy. When one discusses policy, a certain policy should at least be pointed out as either flawed or less than desireable. Show me where one policy is discussed?

Given your respone to me, or better...the way you REACT to these suggestions is highly predictable. Which was why the suggestion was made in the first place.

However, your point is well taken and I completely understand your need to shoo
away anything perceived negative and put it in the backroom...

First, the Politics forum is not a "back room".

I reacted the way I did because there is already a mechanism for dealing with mistakes by moderators, not because I diagree with the concept.

I am glad you think my highly reasoned response to this thread is "predictable". Thank you for the compliment.

Finally, to address your first point, a discussion about how moderation works or should work is, in fact, discussion of moderation policy--your (rather predictable) opinion to the contrary notwithstanding.

Ya'll crack me up. Hey, at least it's entertaining :)

---

My final comment on this thread!

Forum moderators & volunteer testers, the best leaders have always been the ones who have lead by example.

If members of the public viewed the seti project & joined to help science & then joined the forum, I am pretty sure, they would say BYE BYE!

At the moment, there is approx. 25% intelligent debates & 75% crap - Prove me wrong!

By the way, as I am the author of this thread I requested it be closed. This has not happened which proves to me that the comments & policy debated in the "Fond Farewell" thread were untrue. " A thread can only be closed by the author of that thread" - I believe that commemt was made by a moderator.

So why is this thread still open?

No closure until resolution!

:D

---

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

My final comment on this thread!

Forum moderators & volunteer testers, the best leaders have always been the ones who have lead by example.

If members of the public viewed the seti project & joined to help science & then joined the forum, I am pretty sure, they would say BYE BYE!

At the moment, there is approx. 25% intelligent debates & 75% crap - Prove me wrong!

By the way, as I am the author of this thread I requested it be closed. This has not happened which proves to me that the comments & policy debated in the "Fond Farewell" thread were untrue. " A thread can only be closed by the author of that thread" - I believe that commemt was made by a moderator.

So why is this thread still open?

A thread can be closed at the thread author's request, but that request does not have to be followed: 1) immediately, since moderators may not see the request; or 2) when the conversation is still on-going, since the thread author should not be allowed to stop legitimate debate by closing an active thread. Also, a moderator can close/lock or hide a thread when it turns into flames, even without the thread author's request.

When you put quote marks around a statement you are saying that is the exact wording that was used. Please PM me with the message number where you found that quote.