On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 08:31:08 -0400, wrote:

By doing it all without public
humiliation, the perp can save face, and either shape up with a lesson learned,
or slink away.

But the entertainment value is totally lost. :-)

wrote:
On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 17:34:08 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Jul 3, 8:17 pm, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:
On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 16:54:31 -0700 (PDT),

wrote:
On Jul 3, 7:25 pm, "Jim" wrote:
It's melting away. Check it out.
Nothing personal, and I admit I don't like this Gould sockpuppet, but
I knew he couldn't do it. Moderation, is for moderates.
I knew it was going to happen and I even told Chuck so. It's not that
Chuck isn't capable of moderating, but his dream was to have a lightly
moderated forum in which everybody got along with the occasional spat
that would dissolve quickly. It's a very "New Age" approach to forum
moderating and doesn't work worth a damn because of three members in
particular just couldn't drop what went on here and dragged it over
there.

Secondarily, it was too easy to just drop down to the last fifty posts
which compacted the latest activity and became the defacto forum
without reference to the various thread categories. I could have told
Chuck that would happen too - been there, done that.

Thirdly (thirdly?), he shouldn't have even gone with an off topic
thread category - told him that too.

Chuck wanted it to go his way and it didn't. He's also stubborn
because this was evident two months ago shortly after he got it up and
running, but he kept hoping. Instead of banning people or barring
them for a day, three days, week, month, he deleted the posts and that
never works.

He had the resources if he only asked for some advice before he set it
up and gotten some advice from former moderators who have been through
the wars.

Chuck needs to be the last court of appeal for the actions of a
moderator or maybe two moderators who become the bad guys. That way he
can isolate himself from his group and act as a "El Supremo Grande"
when complaints come flying. He doesn't even have to be personally
involved - he can read through the posts and give instructions to the
moderators if there is something that he doens't like.
I tried to tell him months ago that one forum, and hefty groundings
for anyone who was a jerk would work. Also suggested opening up for
negative as well as positive karma. This allows folks to know right
off the bat if a responder is respected in the group. In other groups
I frequent, if you are a positive poster, with knowledge, you had a
lot of green leaves, if you were useless, you ended up with a huge red
bar...Also offered to help him moderate.. Like you said, he needs a
couple of helpers to do the sifting, and he needs to be the Court of
Appeals.

In other forums, the most effective technique I've seen is when a thread goes
nasty or too hot headed, the moderator just locks that thread for 3 days. By the
time it gets unlocked, everyone is on to something else, and it rarely gets any
fresh fuel after that. It's nice because it doesn't point any fingers, or make
any one person wear a pointy hat that can lead to festering resentment.




In other forums, people like Reggie, BAR, Herring, justasecond, DK, et
cetera, are tossed out on their butts after three offensive posts.

On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 00:17:10 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 16:54:31 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Jul 3, 7:25*pm, "Jim" wrote:
It's melting away. Check it out.

Nothing personal, and I admit I don't like this Gould sockpuppet, but
I knew he couldn't do it. Moderation, is for moderates.

I knew it was going to happen and I even told Chuck so. It's not that
Chuck isn't capable of moderating, but his dream was to have a lightly
moderated forum in which everybody got along with the occasional spat
that would dissolve quickly. It's a very "New Age" approach to forum
moderating and doesn't work worth a damn because of three members in
particular just couldn't drop what went on here and dragged it over
there.

Secondarily, it was too easy to just drop down to the last fifty posts
which compacted the latest activity and became the defacto forum
without reference to the various thread categories. I could have told
Chuck that would happen too - been there, done that.

Thirdly (thirdly?), he shouldn't have even gone with an off topic
thread category - told him that too.

Chuck wanted it to go his way and it didn't. He's also stubborn
because this was evident two months ago shortly after he got it up and
running, but he kept hoping. Instead of banning people or barring
them for a day, three days, week, month, he deleted the posts and that
never works.

He had the resources if he only asked for some advice before he set it
up and gotten some advice from former moderators who have been through
the wars.

Chuck needs to be the last court of appeal for the actions of a
moderator or maybe two moderators who become the bad guys. That way he
can isolate himself from his group and act as a "El Supremo Grande"
when complaints come flying. He doesn't even have to be personally
involved - he can read through the posts and give instructions to the
moderators if there is something that he doens't like.

I gave Chuck an idea for a couple moderators. He didn't like it, I guess,
'cause he deleted the post.

On Jul 3, 8:54*pm, John H. wrote:
On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 00:17:10 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing



wrote:
On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 16:54:31 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Jul 3, 7:25*pm, "Jim" wrote:
It's melting away. Check it out.

Nothing personal, and I admit I don't like this Gould sockpuppet, but
I knew he couldn't do it. Moderation, is for moderates.

I knew it was going to happen and I even told Chuck so. *It's not that
Chuck isn't capable of moderating, but his dream was to have a lightly
moderated forum in which everybody got along with the occasional spat
that would dissolve quickly. *It's a very "New Age" approach to forum
moderating and doesn't work worth a damn because of three members in
particular just couldn't drop what went on here and dragged it over
there.

Secondarily, it was too easy to just drop down to the last fifty posts
which compacted the latest activity and became the defacto forum
without reference to the various thread categories. *I could have told
Chuck that would happen too - been there, done that.

Thirdly (thirdly?), he shouldn't have even gone with an off topic
thread category - told him that too.

Chuck wanted it to go his way and it didn't. *He's also stubborn
because this was evident two months ago shortly after he got it up and
running, but he kept hoping. *Instead of banning people or barring
them for a day, three days, week, month, he deleted the posts and that
never works.

He had the resources if he only asked for some advice before he set it
up and gotten some advice from former moderators who have been through
the wars.

Chuck needs to be the last court of appeal for the actions of a
moderator or maybe two moderators who become the bad guys. That way he
can isolate himself from his group and act as a "El Supremo Grande"
when complaints come flying. He doesn't even have to be personally
involved - he can read through the posts and give instructions to the
moderators if there is something that he doens't like.

I gave Chuck an idea for a couple moderators. He didn't like it, I guess,
'cause he deleted the post.

Maybe because you and Reggie were the 2 you recommended.

JimH wrote:
On Jul 3, 8:54 pm, John H. wrote:
On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 00:17:10 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing



wrote:
On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 16:54:31 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:
On Jul 3, 7:25 pm, "Jim" wrote:
It's melting away. Check it out.
Nothing personal, and I admit I don't like this Gould sockpuppet, but
I knew he couldn't do it. Moderation, is for moderates.
I knew it was going to happen and I even told Chuck so. It's not that
Chuck isn't capable of moderating, but his dream was to have a lightly
moderated forum in which everybody got along with the occasional spat
that would dissolve quickly. It's a very "New Age" approach to forum
moderating and doesn't work worth a damn because of three members in
particular just couldn't drop what went on here and dragged it over
there.
Secondarily, it was too easy to just drop down to the last fifty posts
which compacted the latest activity and became the defacto forum
without reference to the various thread categories. I could have told
Chuck that would happen too - been there, done that.
Thirdly (thirdly?), he shouldn't have even gone with an off topic
thread category - told him that too.
Chuck wanted it to go his way and it didn't. He's also stubborn
because this was evident two months ago shortly after he got it up and
running, but he kept hoping. Instead of banning people or barring
them for a day, three days, week, month, he deleted the posts and that
never works.
He had the resources if he only asked for some advice before he set it
up and gotten some advice from former moderators who have been through
the wars.
Chuck needs to be the last court of appeal for the actions of a
moderator or maybe two moderators who become the bad guys. That way he
can isolate himself from his group and act as a "El Supremo Grande"
when complaints come flying. He doesn't even have to be personally
involved - he can read through the posts and give instructions to the
moderators if there is something that he doens't like.
I gave Chuck an idea for a couple moderators. He didn't like it, I guess,
'cause he deleted the post.

Maybe because you and Reggie were the 2 you recommended.


I would have kept the post and deleted Herring, Reggie, Florida Jim,
BAR, Loogy, and Waitless, for starters. That would have rendered
unnecessary tonight's surgery.

On Jul 3, 8:57*pm, JimH wrote:
On Jul 3, 8:54*pm, John H. wrote:



On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 00:17:10 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing

wrote:
On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 16:54:31 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Jul 3, 7:25*pm, "Jim" wrote:
It's melting away. Check it out.

Nothing personal, and I admit I don't like this Gould sockpuppet, but
I knew he couldn't do it. Moderation, is for moderates.

I knew it was going to happen and I even told Chuck so. *It's not that
Chuck isn't capable of moderating, but his dream was to have a lightly
moderated forum in which everybody got along with the occasional spat
that would dissolve quickly. *It's a very "New Age" approach to forum
moderating and doesn't work worth a damn because of three members in
particular just couldn't drop what went on here and dragged it over
there.

Secondarily, it was too easy to just drop down to the last fifty posts
which compacted the latest activity and became the defacto forum
without reference to the various thread categories. *I could have told
Chuck that would happen too - been there, done that.

Thirdly (thirdly?), he shouldn't have even gone with an off topic
thread category - told him that too.

Chuck wanted it to go his way and it didn't. *He's also stubborn
because this was evident two months ago shortly after he got it up and
running, but he kept hoping. *Instead of banning people or barring
them for a day, three days, week, month, he deleted the posts and that
never works.

He had the resources if he only asked for some advice before he set it
up and gotten some advice from former moderators who have been through
the wars.

Chuck needs to be the last court of appeal for the actions of a
moderator or maybe two moderators who become the bad guys. That way he
can isolate himself from his group and act as a "El Supremo Grande"
when complaints come flying. He doesn't even have to be personally
involved - he can read through the posts and give instructions to the
moderators if there is something that he doens't like.

I gave Chuck an idea for a couple moderators. He didn't like it, I guess,
'cause he deleted the post.

Maybe because you and Reggie were the 2 you recommended.

BTW: You are a whiner.

"John H." wrote in message
...

I gave Chuck an idea for a couple moderators. He didn't like it, I guess,
'cause he deleted the post.

Weren't you the one who encouraged the Dwarf Army to go over there and trash
the place because Chuck wouldn't punish a couple of us for activities here?
Chuck is to lenient. He should have blackballed the lot of you as soon as
you started acting up.

"Don White" wrote in message

Weren't you the one who encouraged the Dwarf Army to go over there and
trash the place because Chuck wouldn't punish a couple of us


WHERE is "Over there"?

It may have been you, but someone suggested that Harry, JimmyH, and Donny be
the moderators.

I think that's a great idea, then we could just watch them jerk each other
off, since that's all that would be happening over there.

--Mike

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 00:17:10 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 16:54:31 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Jul 3, 7:25 pm, "Jim" wrote:
It's melting away. Check it out.

Nothing personal, and I admit I don't like this Gould sockpuppet, but
I knew he couldn't do it. Moderation, is for moderates.

I knew it was going to happen and I even told Chuck so. It's not that
Chuck isn't capable of moderating, but his dream was to have a lightly
moderated forum in which everybody got along with the occasional spat
that would dissolve quickly. It's a very "New Age" approach to forum
moderating and doesn't work worth a damn because of three members in
particular just couldn't drop what went on here and dragged it over
there.

Secondarily, it was too easy to just drop down to the last fifty posts
which compacted the latest activity and became the defacto forum
without reference to the various thread categories. I could have told
Chuck that would happen too - been there, done that.

Thirdly (thirdly?), he shouldn't have even gone with an off topic
thread category - told him that too.

Chuck wanted it to go his way and it didn't. He's also stubborn
because this was evident two months ago shortly after he got it up and
running, but he kept hoping. Instead of banning people or barring
them for a day, three days, week, month, he deleted the posts and that
never works.

He had the resources if he only asked for some advice before he set it
up and gotten some advice from former moderators who have been through
the wars.

Chuck needs to be the last court of appeal for the actions of a
moderator or maybe two moderators who become the bad guys. That way he
can isolate himself from his group and act as a "El Supremo Grande"
when complaints come flying. He doesn't even have to be personally
involved - he can read through the posts and give instructions to the
moderators if there is something that he doens't like.

I gave Chuck an idea for a couple moderators. He didn't like it, I guess,
'cause he deleted the post.

Mike wrote:
It may have been you, but someone suggested that Harry, JimmyH, and Donny be
the moderators.

I think that's a great idea, then we could just watch them jerk each other
off, since that's all that would be happening over there.

--Mike


Actually, being the group jerk-off would be a good job for you. You seem
to do it a lot.