It's melting away. Check it out.

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

Too bad really... But I bet the blame game will be allowed to go
unchallenged. And when we do, we will get warnings. Eventually when
WAFA gets too beat up, the post(s) will disappear again. It's just a
shame, a fair minded, confident moderator could have made quick work
of this months ago with a few scattered timeouts.... But when the
worst offender is untouchable, it just can't work.. and never will....

Oh, and be ready for Jim H to suggest that we "wanted this", when the
truth, for anyone concerned is, were felt we were defending ourselves.
Weather you agree or not, if you dismiss our agenda, you are just
taking sides, can you say, intellectual dishonesty?

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

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.

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.

On Jul 3, 8:34*pm, 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.

How interesting. The "Who Me?" game begins.

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

Too bad really... But I bet the blame game will be allowed to go
unchallenged. And when we do, we will get warnings. Eventually when
WAFA gets too beat up, the post(s) will disappear again. It's just a
shame, a fair minded, confident moderator could have made quick work
of this months ago with a few scattered timeouts.... But when the
worst offender is untouchable, it just can't work.. and never will....

Oh, and be ready for Jim H to suggest that we "wanted this", when the
truth, for anyone concerned is, were felt we were defending ourselves.
Weather you agree or not, if you dismiss our agenda, you are just
taking sides, can you say, intellectual dishonesty?

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


You wanted it; you got it. I suspect the proprietor will look less
kindly now on your shenanigans.

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.



Chuck doesn't need any droolers to moderate.

On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 19:25:54 -0400, "Jim" wrote:

It's melting away. Check it out.

I tried to make some meaningful, nice, boater friendly responses to some of
the messages, but all the threads are gone. Like ... disappeared. Ethereal.

Once upon a time three guys went into a bar. They already had somewhat of a
bad reputation, but they attempted to close the bar by starting fights and
making slurs. They didn't get it closed, so they tried harder. Just one of
them would make 50+ slurs in a single day, almost every one supported by
the other two (or sometimes three).

They would then go into a different bar, owned by a different guy, and find
the same people there. In this bar, the three guys and the owner expected
to find sweetness, gentleness, honey and roses from the same people who had
put up with their slurs in the first place.

Strangely, some of the ill will went into the new bar also.

Hard to understand.

But, there you go.

What A Friendly Angel!

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.

John H. wrote:
On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 19:25:54 -0400, "Jim" wrote:

It's melting away. Check it out.

I tried to make some meaningful, nice, boater friendly responses to some of
the messages, but all the threads are gone. Like ... disappeared. Ethereal.


Two of those, and about 200 snarky, nasty, jerky comments is what I
remember.