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, 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, 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.

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.

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.

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.


It's very effective, and when the quarrel occasionally (very occasionally) gets
carried over to another thread, it has lost most of it's steam. If not, the
moderator can temporarily pause that thread as well. I've never seen that become
necessary. A three day cool out on a thread WORKS. One big advantage of this
technique is it allows EVERYONE to carry on, including the ones who caused the
thread to overheat, without leaving any residuual noses out of joint. The
nastiness is quelled and the victims are satisfied that "something" was done to
stop it. If you have one person that continually goes nuts, you privately warn
them once, and if they continue after the warning, you privately dis-member
them. None of it is ever done publically, which only serves to keep the
controversy alive, and breed lasting rancor. By doing it all without public
humiliation, the perp can save face, and either shape up with a lesson learned,
or slink away.




Well, Chuckster wiped the slate...and we'll see what happens next. I for
one am hoping his scimitar is sharp...and that he uses it without
hesitation.