On Jul 3, 9:27*pm, JimH wrote:
On Jul 3, 9:06*pm, "Jim" wrote:





Look in your PM box over there. Chuck left a note as to what his intentions
are. Krause has to be put on a very short leash if he's allowed to post at
Chuck's place at all. I won't cut him a bit of slack. He doesn't deserve it.

"John H." wrote in message

.. .

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!

For someone who has been banned from posting at Chucks place because
of your nasty behavior you remain obsessed with his board.

Get help before you...............http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0073486/- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You will hereby be dubbed HAFA2

wrote:
On Jul 3, 9:19 pm, HK wrote:
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Thu, 03 Jul 2008 21:11:24 -0400, 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.
I've seen that done - unfortunately, it bleds over to other threads.
Chuck needs to get a moderator for him - the hands off approach isn't
going to work and he probably will end up talking to himself.
But he's got to do it his way - good luck to him.
All that has to happen is for the turd blossoms from here behave. But I
don't think they can control themselves. Hope the chuckster kicks them
off and soon.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You are WAFA


Is that some sort of initialism for someone who disapproves of parents
who allow their small children to ride motorcycles?

On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 01:14:56 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Thu, 03 Jul 2008 21:11:24 -0400, 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.

I've seen that done - unfortunately, it bleds over to other threads.

Chuck needs to get a moderator for him - the hands off approach isn't
going to work and he probably will end up talking to himself.

But he's got to do it his way - good luck to him.

Heck, I suggested to Chuck that he make JimH and Harry co-moderators over
there. Pretty soon there'd only be three posters, but everything would be
all sweetness and light amongst the three.

Chuck deleted my idea. I felt pretty badly. But, I'll survive. Maybe.

On Jul 3, 9:32*pm, wrote:
On Jul 3, 9:27*pm, JimH wrote:



On Jul 3, 9:06*pm, "Jim" wrote:

Look in your PM box over there. Chuck left a note as to what his intentions
are. Krause has to be put on a very short leash if he's allowed to post at
Chuck's place at all. I won't cut him a bit of slack. He doesn't deserve it.

"John H." wrote in message

.. .

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!

For someone who has been banned from posting at Chucks place because
of your nasty behavior you remain obsessed with his board.

Get help before you...............http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0073486/-Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You will hereby be dubbed * * *HAFA2 *

Whatever.

You are nothing more than white trash and a child abuser.

wrote in message
...
On Jul 3, 9:19 pm, HK wrote:
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Thu, 03 Jul 2008 21:11:24 -0400, 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.

I've seen that done - unfortunately, it bleds over to other threads.

Chuck needs to get a moderator for him - the hands off approach isn't
going to work and he probably will end up talking to himself.

But he's got to do it his way - good luck to him.

All that has to happen is for the turd blossoms from here behave. But I
don't think they can control themselves. Hope the chuckster kicks them
off and soon.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You are WAFA

===============================

Earlier today you asked me to ignore him.

John H. wrote:
On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 01:14:56 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Thu, 03 Jul 2008 21:11:24 -0400, 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.
I've seen that done - unfortunately, it bleds over to other threads.

Chuck needs to get a moderator for him - the hands off approach isn't
going to work and he probably will end up talking to himself.

But he's got to do it his way - good luck to him.

Heck, I suggested to Chuck that he make JimH and Harry co-moderators over
there. Pretty soon there'd only be three posters, but everything would be
all sweetness and light amongst the three.

Chuck deleted my idea. I felt pretty badly. But, I'll survive. Maybe.


I co-moderated a boating discussion group. You and your pack of trashmen
wouldn't have lasted five posts.

D.Duck wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Jul 3, 9:19 pm, HK wrote:
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Thu, 03 Jul 2008 21:11:24 -0400, 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.
I've seen that done - unfortunately, it bleds over to other threads.
Chuck needs to get a moderator for him - the hands off approach isn't
going to work and he probably will end up talking to himself.
But he's got to do it his way - good luck to him.
All that has to happen is for the turd blossoms from here behave. But I
don't think they can control themselves. Hope the chuckster kicks them
off and soon.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You are WAFA

===============================

Earlier today you asked me to ignore him.



You would pay attention to the resident child abuser?

On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 18:32:33 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Jul 3, 9:27*pm, JimH wrote:
On Jul 3, 9:06*pm, "Jim" wrote:





Look in your PM box over there. Chuck left a note as to what his intentions
are. Krause has to be put on a very short leash if he's allowed to post at
Chuck's place at all. I won't cut him a bit of slack. He doesn't deserve it.

"John H." wrote in message

.. .

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!

For someone who has been banned from posting at Chucks place because
of your nasty behavior you remain obsessed with his board.

Get help before you...............http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0073486/- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You will hereby be dubbed HAFA2

Lots of angels around here.

On Jul 3, 9:42*pm, "D.Duck" wrote:
wrote in message

...
On Jul 3, 9:19 pm, HK wrote:





Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Thu, 03 Jul 2008 21:11:24 -0400, 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.

"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.