What is a General Topics for?

[bradclark1]

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=99824

[Gizzmoe]

?????

[bradclark1]

The thread got locked.

[Gizzmoe]

That topic (Iraq/ME) has been discussed dozens of times already. The same viewpoints from the same people over and over again... A week or two without that would be nice.

[CB..]

ladies and gentlemen i present you with the world situation in a test tube...:damn:

[Coda]

It is possible that people who haven't commented in other threads might have something new to say. The situation changes every day.

It's just a discussion, people don't have to participate if they don't want to. I don't read every thread, just the ones that interest me.

[waste gate]

It is possible that people who haven't commented in other threads might have something new to say. The situation changes every day.

It's just a discussion, people don't have to participate if they don't want to. I don't read every thread, just the ones that interest me.

Agreed.

Based on the number of threads and the number of responses I'd vote to let it continue for all to see and exchange opinions.

[CB..]

here's a babbling brook piece of logic for you...there are millions of forums and subsections of forums spread all over the net each populated by some sort of cross-section of the net going public of their variuos countrys..

most will be of voting age...

in a globalised economic and political world which is encountering problems precisely because of that globailsation...peoples of vastly differing views are bumping into each other now as part of the normal day to day life of the world....

it will take decades to slowly learn how to find common ground and compromise.....yet every single time we try we get one micrometer closer to doing so...we like to believe our views are important..(a little too important granted..lots of trying to win these debates...:oops: ) but there is a sense here that in an suprising way that is the truth..
this is real grass roots politics in action...let it continue

[Gizzmoe]

It is possible that people who haven't commented in other threads might have something new to say.

Yes, that would be possible. They can then do that in one of the coming Iraq/ME threads, in a few weeks or so. But from time to time we like to pull the brake, so that a certain topic doesn´t dominate the forum too much.

[Coda]

It is possible that people who haven't commented in other threads might have something new to say.
Yes, that would be possible. They can then do that in one of the coming Iraq/ME threads, in a few weeks or so. But from time to time we like to pull the brake, so that a certain topic doesn´t dominate the forum too much.

fair enough.

See you in a few weeks.

[CB..]

hey your the boss...but
is there a list of currently available topics any where..? is this topic a currently available topic....for example

[The Avon Lady]

Maybe the intent was for threads about....well.......generals. :88)

[Gizzmoe]

is there a list of currently available topics any where..?

Que? List of currently available topics????? :)

[CB..]

is there a list of currently available topics any where..?

Que? List of currently available topics????? :)

well there does seem to be a list of currently UN-available topics.so you would assume that the converse was also true...no??

come on... you just got out of bed the wrong side to-day :up:

[Godalmighty83]

general topics is for-

the same old people whinging on and on about the same things and massively overreacting to tabloid headlines.

sorry but a few people are really killing this forum.

[waste gate]

general topics is for-

the same old people whinging on and on about the same things and massively overreacting to tabloid headlines.

sorry but a few people are really killing this forum.

Who and how are people ruining the 'General Topics' forum?

[MothBalls]

sorry but a few people are really killing this forum.

Don't be so hard on Gizzmoe, he's doing a good job of keeping order and keeping conversations civil.

[Gizzmoe]

Thanks, but I don´t think he wasn´t talking about me... :)

[Fish]

It is possible that people who haven't commented in other threads might have something new to say.
Yes, that would be possible. They can then do that in one of the coming Iraq/ME threads, in a few weeks or so. But from time to time we like to pull the brake, so that a certain topic doesn´t dominate the forum too much.

fair enough.

See you in a few weeks.

I don't think so, this is like Putin does in Rusland.:damn: :rock:
We want free press. :arrgh!:
Freedom of speech!

[waste gate]

Article 5 of Germany's constitution, or Basic Law, enshrines the right of freedom of speech and of the press.

"Everyone has the right to freely express and disseminate their opinions orally, in writing or visually and to obtain information from generally accessible sources without hindrance," states paragraph one of the law. "Freedom of the press and freedom of reporting through audiovisual media shall be guaranteed. There shall be no censorship."


But the next paragraph puts certain limits on that freedom, which were deemed necessary when the Basic Law was proclaimed in 1949, just four years after the end of World War II and the downfall of the Nazi dictatorship.

"These rights are subject to limitations embodied in the provisions of general legislation, statutory provisions for the protection of young persons and the citizen's right to personal respect," reads the second paragraph.

German law therefore constrains freedom, said Udo Branahl, a professor of media law at the University of Dortmund.


Perhaps this is the freedoms Gizzmoe is working under.

[Godalmighty83]

Who and how are people ruining the 'General Topics' forum?

worst offendor at the moment- steed, ive got nothing personal against the guy but the constant stream of depressing topics (pretty much all on the same bloody subject) dragged out from the tabloids is making general topics a grim place.

a bit too much doom mongery at the moment.

i have nothing against him personaly just the constant theme and occurance of topics, i certainly have nothing against gizzmoe.

[Gizzmoe]

Perhaps this is the freedoms Gizzmoe is working under.

WTH does that have to do with anything here???

[waste gate]

Perhaps this is the freedoms Gizzmoe is working under.

WTH does that have to do with anything here???

I'm thinking it has much to do with the perception of what free speech is all about.
The history of free speech in Germany.

I understand that this is a privately owned site. Yet the 'general topics' forum gives the impression that all opinions can and will be heard. Perhaps a disclaimer at the beginning of every post should state that the Subsim forum reserves the right to edit, arbitrarly close, and suspend any poster or post that the owner or moderater deems unworthy.

That's my ten cents.

[The Noob]

Who needs freedom of speech in a forum when everything runs nice without it? :hmm:

[waste gate]

Who needs freedom of speech in a forum when everything runs nice without it? :hmm:

???????????????? WHAT ????????????????????

Osterlich doesn't have any guarantee towards freedom of speech. Let me state it differently. Osterlich doesn't have any guarantee that the govn't cannot tell you what to say.

[Skybird]

That topic (Iraq/ME) has been discussed dozens of times already. The same viewpoints from the same people over and over again... A week or two without that would be nice.

I have no problem with people agreeing that certain topics should get less attention. Several weeks ago, we had such a thread where many people said something like that. I did not answer in that thread, but as a consequence reduced the number of my own according threads or answers accordingly. the number of threads I write about Islam is still reduced, about history and theology there is none sicne then, for example.

However, I have a problem with moderators deciding arbitrarily what to lock and what not, and not being in congurence with the published rules. This new example may not be a major thing, but it is the third time that Gizzmoe kills athread of mine and is acting in a way that I can't see to be a moderator's job, or the board policies. And without doubt I will receive a PM again soon telling me that i should not challenge a mod in public. :88) I miss constancy in the moderator's performance. Sometimes he acts swiftly, and sometimes he simply exaggerates.

This is not meant to be a private attack on Gizzmoe, and note that I do not use any offensive language. But the community must be allowed to reflect on the performance qof moderators - and must be allowed to do so in public. My complaint is about too much arbitrariness, and too little constancy.

I feel directly and personally targeted here, since it is a repeated case, and so I claim a case of self-defense. Therefore, I took the effort to count all threads that I personally have started (not only participated in while the thread had been started by somebody else) in the general forum since two months, since mid August. The Steel Beast and Game forum I do not count. That is the first 8 pages listing threads that you get when you search for threads with Skybir'ds participation, limiting the search to the GT forum. some threads may qualify for several categories, I then took the one that by my intention when starting it filled it best.

8 Germany
6 others
5 movies, music, books
4 US (excluding below mentioned sub-categories Bush-2, Iran-2, Iraq-3)
3 games (not moved to game forum)
3 Iraq war
3 computer, technical issues
2 Islam and the rest of us (not counting my sig :D )
2 lebanon war, Israel
2 global ethics, moral, society
2 sports
2 board, board members
2 France
2 Iran, nuclear proliferation
2 England, PC
2 Bush, elections
1 global economy, energy, environment, non-US-specific
1 fun, joke (2 if not counting a hijack)
1 Afghanistan
1 9/11
1 environment, energy (0 if not counting hijack)

Let's do not hairsplit if this or that thread belongs into this or that category. What should be clear is that nobody can accuse me of having a bias concerning threads I start myself. The impression that I am after Bush, Iraq/Afghanistan and Islam only is because so many different people start such threads, and then I see no reason why I should not participate. So if you plan to limit certain themes and exclude certain issues from discussion, ask Neal to make an according rule. A mod's personal taste is only acceptable as long as it is covered by at least a general rule.

[MothBalls]

Who needs freedom of speech in a forum when everything runs nice without it? :hmm:

???????????????? WHAT ????????????????????

He said we don't need written rules. We need to read moods, not rules.

[Gizzmoe]

I'm thinking it has much to do with the perception of what free speech is all about. The history of free speech in Germany.
What I do is part of my job as a moderator, it doesn´t have anything to do with me being German. Neal, the site owner and American, has recently also closed a bunch of threads because that topic dominated the forum.

I understand that this is a privately owned site. Yet the 'general topics' forum gives the impression that all opinions can and will be heard.
There are limits, some are set in the forum rules, some limits are set at the moderators´ own discretion.

[The Noob]

Who needs freedom of speech in a forum when everything runs nice without it? :hmm:
???????????????? WHAT ????????????????????
He said we don't need written rules. We need to read moods, not rules.

Exactley.

[waste gate]

I'm thinking it has much to do with the perception of what free speech is all about. The history of free speech in Germany.
What I do is part of my job as a moderator, it doesn´t have anything to do with me being German. Neal, the site owner and American, has recently also closed a bunch of threads because that topic dominated the forum.

I understand that this is a privately owned site. Yet the 'general topics' forum gives the impression that all opinions can and will be heard.
There are limits, some are set in the forum rules, some limits are set at the moderators´ own discretion.

Looks like you have a rebellion going Gizzmoe. Better run to Neal.

Its of your own making. Your strong arm tactics aren't going to work with free thinking people.

[Konovalov]

Looks like you have a rebellion going Gizzmoe. Better run to Neal.

Its of your own making. Your strong arm tactics aren't going to work with free thinking people.

I don't think that was called for with the "better run to Neal" insult. :nope:

[waste gate]

Looks like you have a rebellion going Gizzmoe. Better run to Neal.

Its of your own making. Your strong arm tactics aren't going to work with free thinking people.

I don't think that was called for with the "better run to Neal" insult. :nope:

Not meant to be an insult. I was suggesting a course of action.

[Gizzmoe]

and is acting in a way that I can't see to be a moderator's job
But it *is* part of the job.

What should be clear is that nobody can accuse me of having a bias concerning threads I start myself.
It is, generally speaking, not only about what kind of threads people start, but also in which threads their participate, and in which way. Islam/ME/Anti-Bush discussions sometimes appear in threads that had originally nothing to do with that.

A mod's personal taste is only acceptable as long as it is covered by at least a general rule.
There is a general rule about that. Besides, you can´t make a rule for everything.

[MothBalls]

At least we have something to talk about.

Given a choice between heavy-handed moderators, or mood-based-censorship, and Iraq, I would have gone with Iraq. But who am I to say [or not let people say].

I'm with Coda, I think I'll just leave now.

[JSLTIGER]

Look folks, there's always going to be some limit to the idea of free speech. Even here in the Good Ol' US of A, where the idea has been in use the longest, there are restrictions, such as shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater if there is no such thing. Leave the mods alone. They haven't restricted the speech of anyone posting rational thoughts. The majority of those censored have been censored because they were busy spewing off statements without thinking first and with no basis for their statements.

Free speech? :up:

Attacking the mods for asking people to at least make semi-coherent rational arguments for their stated beliefs? :down:

[Takeda Shingen]

1 environment, energy (0 if not counting hijack)

Yeah, I had a hand in that. Sorry.

[Gizzmoe]

Looks like you have a rebellion going Gizzmoe. Better run to Neal.

I and this forum in general have seen worse.

[Takeda Shingen]

Looks like you have a rebellion going Gizzmoe. Better run to Neal.

I and this forum in general have seen worse.

You are a nicer guy, and a better moderator than I, Gizz. I wouldn't have taken that from him.

[Skybird]

1 environment, energy (0 if not counting hijack)

Yeah, I had a hand in that. Sorry.
Many had, including me. And we enjoyed it! ;)

[waste gate]

Leave the mods alone. They haven't restricted the speech of anyone posting rational thoughts.

Oh yes they have. Just because the mods no longer publish the fact doesn't mean it doesn't happen. It happened to someone very close to me last week when he challenged a moderator limiting the debate.

[Konovalov]

Looks like you have a rebellion going Gizzmoe. Better run to Neal.

I and this forum in general have seen worse.

You are a nicer guy, and a better moderator than I, Gizz. I wouldn't have taken that from him.

I share your viewpoint 100%. :yep:

[Gizzmoe]

But the community must be allowed to reflect on the performance qof moderators - and must be allowed to do so in public.
Forgot to comment on that... No, the community isn´t allowed to do that in public, only via PM to the moderator or Neal. They can ask questions in public, but a major discussion about the performance of a moderator is not allowed.

[Godalmighty83]

i really have not seen the mods restrict anyones freedom of speech, hell most of the threads on here would have been locked long ago on most other forums.

i really cannot fault gizzmoe neal etc in there behaviour

[waste gate]

No, the community isn´t allowed to do that in public, only via PM to the moderator or Neal. They can ask questions in public, but a major discussion about the performance of a moderator is not allowed.

So says Gaius Gizzmoe. So let it be written, so let it be done.

[ASWnut101]

ok, shakespeare......:o :p

[JSLTIGER]

So let it be written, so let it be done.

Um...actually the line's: "So shall it be written, so shall it be done."
:D:lol::o:lol::D

[Gizzmoe]

So says Gaius Gizzmoe.
No, read the forum rules:
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/faq.php?faq=susbim_faq_item#faq_rule4_faq_item

[Gizzmoe]

hell most of the threads on here would have been locked long ago on most other forums.

Maybe not on most, but on many. The moderating style is actually quite tame here, though some people think it´s quite the contrary.

[ASWnut101]

So says Gaius Gizzmoe. So let it be written, so let it be done.
Read the forum rules:
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/faq.php?faq=susbim_faq_item#faq_rule4_faq_item

I was just about to ask for the link. You read my mind through my internet connection.:lol:

[August]

Therefore, I took the effort to count all threads that I personally have started (not only participated in while the thread had been started by somebody else) in the general forum since two months, since mid August.
So that's the reason for the several new German threads started in the last week or so. And here I thought you'd taken some suggestions to heart...

[August]

So let it be written, so let it be done.

Um...actually the line's: "So shall it be written, so shall it be done."
:D:lol::o:lol::D

And "it is written" that you have to imitate Yul Brenner when you say it.

[waste gate]

So says Gaius Gizzmoe. So let it be written, so let it be done.
Read the forum rules:
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/faq.php?faq=susbim_faq_item#faq_rule4_faq_item

I was just about to ask for the link. You read my mind through my internet connection.:lol:

Members should not publicly attack a Moderator or intentionally undermine a Moderator's actions by baiting or harrassing him.

Yes, but when the moderator continually makes arbitraty judgements as to the content, purpose or appeal of a thread like was done here
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=99836

Something must be said lest we all regress into the age when only the few have knowledge and the rest of us are damned into ignorance, or worse oblivion.

[Konovalov]

So says Gaius Gizzmoe. So let it be written, so let it be done.
Read the forum rules:
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/faq.php?faq=susbim_faq_item#faq_rule4_faq_item

I was just about to ask for the link. You read my mind through my internet connection.:lol:

Members should not publicly attack a Moderator or intentionally undermine a Moderator's actions by baiting or harrassing him.

Yes, but when the moderator continually makes arbitraty judgements as to the content, purpose or appeal of a thread like was done here
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=99836

Something must be said lest we all regress into the age when only the few have knowledge and the rest of us are damned into ignorance, or worse oblivion.

Waste gate,

PM Neal with your complaint if you feel so strongly. You can even put your name forward to be a moderator if you feel so inclined. Other than that I'm not sure what you are trying to achieve dragging things out here.

[Sailor Steve]

Something must be said...
But when in saying it you slander the person in question, as in accusing him of being a dictator ("Gaius Gizzmoe"), you cross the boundaries of taste and form. Disagreeing is one thing; calling people names to make a point is quite another.

I was very upset with the locking of the "Cat" thread(s), but I accept the fact that the moderator has to make decisions somewhere, and since I don't care to be a moderator myself I have to accept those decisions. As the rule says, questioning a decision publicly is fine, accusing someone of abuse of power should be done privately.

[waste gate]

So says Gaius Gizzmoe. So let it be written, so let it be done.
Read the forum rules:
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/faq.php?faq=susbim_faq_item#faq_rule4_faq_item

I was just about to ask for the link. You read my mind through my internet connection.:lol:

Members should not publicly attack a Moderator or intentionally undermine a Moderator's actions by baiting or harrassing him.

Yes, but when the moderator continually makes arbitraty judgements as to the content, purpose or appeal of a thread like was done here
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=99836

Something must be said lest we all regress into the age when only the few have knowledge and the rest of us are damned into ignorance, or worse oblivion.

Waste gate,

PM Neal with your complaint if you feel so strongly. You can even put your name forward to be a moderator if you feel so inclined. Other than that I'm not sure what you are trying to achieve dragging things out here.

Thank you Konovalov,
You have given me much more respect than Gizzmoe ever has. Gizzmoe has never asked for an explaination from me B4 today. I guess I feel our opinions are marginalized by his arbritray closing of threads or not allowing threads because he doesn't want to hear the topic, although by its continued posting, the topic is important to many people.. I'm also concerned about his ability to suspend, at will, anyone who doesn't conform to his view on the world. I understand his role to keep the board civil and on point. However, Perhaps he needs to lighten his view as to people who challenge his actions. When I, for one, question him its to allow others to speak their opinion.

In my country the First Amendment, 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances'.
It s there to protect unpopular speech. That is the speech in most need of protecting.

Thank you for your concern Konovalov

[waste gate]

Something must be said...
But when in saying it you slander the person in question, as in accusing him of being a dictator ("Gaius Gizzmoe"), you cross the boundaries of taste and form. Disagreeing is one thing; calling people names to make a point is quite another.

I was very upset with the locking of the "Cat" thread(s), but I accept the fact that the moderator has to make decisions somewhere, and since I don't care to be a moderator myself I have to accept those decisions. As the rule says, questioning a decision publicly is fine, accusing someone of abuse of power should be done privately.

Gaius or Caius was a common Roman praenomen derived from Etruscan Cai, meaning "I am glad".

If this is an insult, how does one compliment.

[SUBMAN1]

What is a General Topics for? http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=99824

For spilling Anti-Americanism. I think this is what it is for at least. :hmm: Or at least that is what some people think it is for. Am I one the right track? That is why I visit - to add logic to all of it and remove the anti Americanism with that logic. :p

-S

[Sailor Steve]

If this is an insult, how does one compliment.
You used the term derogatorily, and it was obvious.

[waste gate]

If this is an insult, how does one compliment.
You used the term derogatorily, and it was obvious.

Think what you like. If I had meant Ceaser, I'd have said it.

[Skybird]

Yes, but when the moderator continually makes arbitraty judgements as to the content, purpose or appeal of a thread (...) something must be said lest we all regress into the age when only the few have knowledge and the rest of us are damned into ignorance, or worse oblivion.

That's what I meant when expressing a mod's performance eventually must allowed to be made public. The rule of only PM him is for the occasional dispute over a single decision of him that happens from time to time. It is not for allowing to hide constant irritations about the figure in question from the public. Becasue that would be a problem for the whole community then.


You can even put your name forward to be a moderator if you feel so inclined.

No. In fact the FAQ says this: " Please do not e-mail the moderators or admins and nominate yourself. If you have to ask to become a moderator, you will dequalify yourself from consideration." ;)

Neal once told me something like that he does not care too much for the precise rules, and also does not modernise or change them, for whatever his reason is. I disagree with him on that, wondering why he set them up then, but it is his site, so it is his reign - no problem, if I am not willing to accept it, I am free to leave, right? But if I do raise rules for something, I tend to only include what I plan to be obligatory recognized and followed. That's why it is called a rule. If it is not important, delete the rule.

I agree that there cannot be a rule for every thinkable rare exception you even cannot imagine in advance. But if something comes up as a problem, and repeatedly, like theme selection in threads, for example, then it should be added and covered by the rules and made public. For example: banning all political threads, which then will be deleted without further warning if someone starts them. But to change such rules is not our job, or that of the mods, but Neal's job, and his job alone. He decides what is possible in these forums, and what not, because he owns this place, he founded it, he pays the money. In this understanding I am totally loyal to Neal even when disagreeing with him, or not understanding him. Moderators are not the King who makes the law, they are deputies only. They do not make rules, but watch that the existing ones are followed. Not less - but also not more.

There is almost nothing said in the rules about theme selection of threads (except the obvious things: no illegal stuff, no porno, no pirating, etc.). Let Neal ban certain things, and let it be told in a rule, so that it is obigatory. But do not leave it to arbitrary opinion-finding that depends on daily mood of a person. Reliability and clear orientation, no wischi-waschi and subjective law-and-order-interpretation.

Since some people seem to complain about politics being discussed too often, while others wish to leave theme selection free and leave it to the individual to decide to participate or stay away (that is my own position, too), I would like to see Neal finding an obligatory rule on what kinds of themes in the future in the GT forum are allowed, and what not. And I am by far not sure about how he would decide. But then we all would know where we are, and what the status is, and can freely decide if we want to participate in the forum or not, and nobody would have an excuse to complain. I think that would not be an excessive overregulation, but simply a reasonable thing to do that should satisfy all. Especially since irritations aboiut politics, US, ME, Islam, Germay-Nazi-comparisons etc etc time and again cause unrest in the audience: some say "leave it free, let people decide wether to participate or not", others say "it is anti-americanism, it is anti-.islam, it is anti-EU and anti-humansim, such things are happening far to often here." Let's get the spectrum of themes decided once and for all, Neal. But don't leave it to "sometimes yes, sometimes no."

You're the captain of this boat, Neal, so you decide the destination, and you set the course! http://www.langkawi.dk/smileys/a1130.gif

[Linton]

Gizmoe ,you may think that the Iraq/ME topic is boring ,but to those of us who have friends and relatives doing the fighting, and we whose nations are taking part are paying for the operations through our taxes, I feel that it still needs to be discussed,even if it is the same arguments and voices!

[Konovalov]

You can even put your name forward to be a moderator if you feel so inclined.

No. In fact the FAQ says this: " Please do not e-mail the moderators or admins and nominate yourself. If you have to ask to become a moderator, you will dequalify yourself from consideration." ;)

I stand corrected on that point.

But if people have a long term gripe/complaint with a moderator then they should raise it with Neal in private. I do not think that it is fair for a moderator to be openly criticised or have his or her character attacked in public. Moderators do a job which for the most part is a thankless task and that goes unrecognized. I just don't agree with the whole revolt style thread of hanging s$*t on a moderator.

[Skybird]

I agree, too. however, I do not personally attack Gizzmoe, and certainly have not thrown S##t at him, and the rule you refer to is exactly meant to prevent this. I also explained why I consider the current debate and my suggestion of changing/fixing/making the rules more precise as legitimate and in the community's interest. But I am not happy with the tone of one or two comments adressed at Gizzmoe. I hope everyone can see that I want to stay clear of that kind of challenging. I do not have any problems in the tank forum so there is nothing for me to moderate, nevertheless I would damage my own position both as GT member and tank moderator as well that way.

[Konovalov]

I do not personally attack Gizzmoe, and certainly have not thrown S##t at him, and the rule you rfeer to is exactly meant not prevent this.

I never said or implied that you did. I was referring to others. I think that you have raised some relevant points and issues.


I also explained why I consider the current debate and my suggestion of changing/fixing/making the rules more precise as legitimate and in the community's interest.

True and valid.

But I am not happy with the tone of one or two comments adressed at Gizzmoe.

That has been my primary concern within this thread.

[Gizzmoe]

It is not for allowing to hide constant irritations about the figure in question from the public. Becasue that would be a problem for the whole community then.
If there are constant and justified irritations about a moderator by a large group of people an admin will react accordingly. He would know that something is not right, for he would get a constant stream of complaints about the moderator via PM. A public discussion is not necessary and most forums don´t allow such discussions.

Moderators are not the King who makes the law, they are deputies only. They do not make rules, but watch that the existing ones are followed.
The King wants and expects me to do the job the way I think is best. It keeps a lot of decisions (=work!) away from him. We have a basic set of rules and if there is a situation where I think action is needed, but isn´t covered by the forum rules, I have the right to make a decision that I think is appropriate. So far it works just fine, except for minor disturbances - and these are normal.

But do not leave it to arbitrary opinion-finding that depends on daily mood of a person. Reliability and clear orientation, no wischi-waschi and subjective law-and-order-interpretation.
That would be extremely hard to achieve. It would need a strict set of rules and this is where the problem starts. One thing it would mean is less freedom for all members. I could now write a 1000-word essay about all the problems that could and would arise, but I´m too lazy... :)

Generally speaking, most forums, including Subsim, would be a better place if people would follow these simple rules:

1. First think, then post.

2. If you are enraged wait until you´ve calmed down before you post.

3. No thread-hijacking.

4. Don´t post if you don´t have anything useful to add to a thread.

5. Before you start a new thread ask yourself (or check) if that topic has already been discussed many times. If yes, don´t start a new thread.

6. Don´t repeat the same arguments over and over.

[Gizzmoe]

I'm also concerned about his ability to suspend, at will, anyone who doesn't conform to his view on the world.
Be glad that I´m in a good mood today...

I can´t suspend or ban people "at will". Even if I could, I wouldn´t. I need to report to Neal each time I ban/suspend anyone and I of course always include the reason for my action.

[CB..]

never the less..it does seem a tadge out of whack when the only place you cannot discuss a topic (that is head-line news) is your favourite internet forum..it is being discussed by heads of state...world leaders..international commitees..newspaper pundits and experts and non experts galore ...does subsim.com know something they don't??
get it together fer gawds sake:nope:

[Gizzmoe]

it does seem a tadge out of whack when the only place you cannot discuss a topic (that is head-line news) is your favourite internet forum
Feel free to start a new topic once something new or interesting happened over there. "Change of tactics" isn´t new, "US is arrogant and stupid" and "witnessing failure in Iraq" we´ve also heard very often already.

Until then there are so many things you can discuss here, maybe something nice even! Not always Middle-East, Islam, PC madness, ...

[fredbass]

Remember, you're free to start a thread and post about anything as long as it follows the rules of this "private" web site. But don't forget that our conversations here in this forum concerning the welfare of this planet aren't going to effect the outcome no matter how heated in gets in here, so enjoy life while you can. :up:

[CB..]

it does seem a tadge out of whack when the only place you cannot discuss a topic (that is head-line news) is your favourite internet forum
Feel free to start a new topic once something new or interesting happened over there. "Change of tactics" isn´t new, "US is arrogant and stupid" and "witnessing failure in Iraq" we´ve also heard very often already.

Until then there are so many things you can discuss here, maybe something nice even! Not always Middle-East, Islam, PC madness, ...


Gizzmoe i don't mean to talk out of turn...but those terms are the terms being quoted by the national newspapers....:hmm: we are in no position to censure the newspapers, the fact that the subject has been boiled dry by endless debate does not mean it is a dead subject..shall we ignore the subject simply because it has gotten boring? if our conversations reflect the topics being discussed in the media i fail to see how that can be considered innappropiate ...the number of threads on any given subject merely reflects the interests of those members who tend to actively get involved in the forum...it is all very well to be-moan the lack of more cheer-full topics (there are a variety of more cheer-full topics to discuss)..but unless a member feels interested enough to start those threads you cannot simply compel them to do so...it has to be a subject the member feels strongly enough about to "put pen to paper"

perhaps the forum needs to encourage those members who do not normaly start topics to do so, rather than restricting those who allready do ..out side of threads that have degenerated to flames there doesn't seem to be much point locking them because there is a chance that they might degenerate...perhaps looking back over time and examining the subjects (such as iraq etc) that might once have degenerated into "flames" and noticing that they perhaps have less of a tendency to do so these days might present some sort of progress.....why would you want to risk this positive development by restricting the subject..after all it is in part down to the moderators that this situation has improved...simply locking a thread on the off chance it might be old news, or risking the rehashing of individual points of view, shows disrespect not only for the individuals involved but for progess the forum as a whole may have made in dealing with these subjects..

and so on

[Skybird]

I start threads of a huge diversity, and I participate in as diverse threats. I stay away from threads I do not have to say soemthing in, or which I am not interested in, or find boring. I wonder what is so difficult for others to do it in the same way. If a thread does not find much sympathies from community, it gets lesser attention and participation. When it gets participation, obviously people are interested in it. It is a GT forum, no specialised forums we also have here: DW, SH3, tanks, movies&books...

I wonder what is the problem here. the only problem would be if the typical threads in the GT forum would be held in another fourm than the GT forum.

[Onkel Neal]

Gizzmoe said to me today that this discussion is good for all of us to communicate. I agree.


Neal once told me something like that he does not care too much for the precise rules True. We've tried to keep the number of rules to a minimum and the freedom of speech at maximum. I always say, "People want some moderation, but always the other guy's posts". ;)

I agree that there cannot be a rule for every thinkable rare exception you even cannot imagine in advance. Thank you for saying that. It’s a good reminder.

But if something comes up as a problem, and repeatedly, like theme selection in threads, for example, then it should be added and covered by the rules and made public. One item that has been mentioned by me and others occasionally (which never was made into an official "rule") was topic fixation. When one person seems to repeatedly make posts about essentially the same topic. Originally, this "gentleman's agreement" was conceived to limit the anti-USA topics so that the GT forum did not turn into a anti-US rant-fest. Sure, an "anti_USA topic" can be posted, and almost any topic can be discussed (if done with a little civility) here but if the same guy or couple of guys keeps hammering the same topic daily, it would discourage normal people from posting. The mods and admin will PM a guy and request he find something else to talk about if this guy keeps making posts about the same subject, provoking people, and making the atmosphere too negative.

As I've said before, doesn't matter what the subject is: anti-USA, anti-Bush, anti-France, swastika, health care, Sailor Steve's good looks, etc. is ok as long as it does not overwhelm the board. That's the main thing involved here. Certainly discuss Iraq, Muslims, and the ME, but do we want the GT to be top-heavy with numerous ME topics? I've suggested we merge unless the topic is really distinctive and should have its own thread. Which someone has to judge… in this case, let's allow the moderator to make that call.

I have gotten some e-mail/PMs from people saying the GT forum is too contentious. Not a flood of people, but some. Others may say there is too much moderation. But I have to hand it to Gizz, he tries to do a good job moderating and I score him pretty highly: he is here every day, he checks most if not all threads (something I could never do), and he follows the guidelines and tries not to let his personal feelings get in the way.

Giz and I do not always agree. I'm a pro-capitalist, red-white-and blue American who supports Pres. Bush (but I do not think he is doing a very good job), and Gizz is more liberal, a German, who does not like Bush. But we have a relationship where we support and check each other. I personally want this forum to be everyone's forum, not "Neal's forum", and Gizz, along with Takeda, Skybird, John, Bill, and the other moderators ensure this forum functions. Where the members come in is they abide by the few rules and the gentleman's agreements and work with the moderators to keep the discussions interesting, lively, civil, and varied.


You know, guys, things in a public forum won't always be super smooth and the admin & moderators are not perfect, but if we all put out the effort to cooperate, we can keep this ship afloat.


thanks for your support and participation!
Neal

[Godalmighty83]

moderation is fine here, just right.

exampls of too little - supercars.net a hive of stupidity
too much - the old bttc forums, many left when the moderators started goose-stepping.

ive moderated on another forum (mg-rover.org) while there was a motorsport section and the debates and thoughts behind the scenes about how to deal with problem members and issues went on for masses of posts. you couldnt just decide to ban anyone (unless its a moron posting porn etc.) every action had to be thought out and decided on.

but then they got rid of the motorsport section so i resigned.

without exception though locking a thread always really pissed off the OP, even though the lock was perfectly valid. then other members would get behind the OP becuase people like to rebel against 'the man'

[FIREWALL]

The only positive good thing Igot out of this thread is.... CB's little supermod. :rock:

[CB..]

i was really worried that underneath the wrangling the issue might be that the repetition of certain topics was being percieved as Anti-American..
i believe this is a classical American misintepretation of the rest of the worlds thoughts on the matter...and at the same time a classical rest of the World misterpretation of Americas thoughts on the matter (have to generalise here for the sake of keeping it reasonably concise:oops: )...

underneath all the overt critism of America there is an enduring love of huge sections of American culture and beliefs..(at the very least most of us Europeans etc have vast numbers of American DVDs in our collections and hugely enjoy them )

there is huge gaps in our knowledge of American culture and huge gaps in Americas knowledge of (for example) European culture..

do you wish to cross this gap??

the ony method we have here is thru open debate in the GT forum...boring dull repetitive and endless it may be, but eventualy we WILL understand each others point of view (and the reasons for those points of view)
just fractional better.....for me if that debate is in any way stiffled controled restricted (outside of the halting of flames etc) we lose far more than we gain...

what is considered Anti-USA is more often confined to a specific policy or action and not aimed at the entire country as a whole or national concept...if we are forced to accept that from Americas point of view it is not possible to have mixed feelings about a country or nation then this can only serve to polarise opinion..?

[CB..]

The only positive good thing Igot out of this thread is.... CB's little supermod. :rock:

he he!! nice one !!:oops: thanks!!:up:

[FIREWALL]

The only positive good thing Igot out of this thread is.... CB's little supermod. :rock:

he he!! nice one !!:oops: thanks!!:up:

Your very welcome:D

To answer the original ? at the begining of this thread it's to
"Blow smoke up everone's arses" .At least that's my guess
IMHO.

[Iceman]

:down:

http://www.cyberallies.com/miscpics/thumbs.jpg

Off with Gizmoes head...lol jk I could'nt resist..yea I think he is a little heavy handed at times but damn I would'nt want his job...pretty good job most of the time Giz...just watch it or the lions den with ya.. :) :up:

[SimNut]

Sucks when an open forum has to censor itself because of the mood of one moderator. When one person decides who can talk about what, or how, or when, it ceases to be an open forum.

I hate the thought of someone leaning over my shoulder with a padlock. This really, just sucks.

[Konovalov]

Sucks when an open forum has to censor itself because of the mood of one moderator. When one person decides who can talk about what, or how, or when, it ceases to be an open forum.

I hate the thought of someone leaning over my shoulder with a padlock. This really, just sucks.

Please read post number 72 (page 4) on this thread by Neal Stevens for a balanced and accurate viewpoint on this topic. Bottom line is that if you don't like it and can't change it, then go elsewhere. We all have that choice.

[Sailor Steve]

Sailor Steve's good looks,...
:oops: Trust me, Neal and I have never met. If we had, well, you know...:rotfl:

[SubSerpent]

Sailor Steve's good looks,...
:oops: Trust me, Neal and I have never met. If we had, well, you know...:rotfl:


Kinda makes me wonder what Neal does with your photo from the "Mugshot thread" on those long lonely nights. :hmm:


Come to think of it, I don't want to really know! :nope:

[JSLTIGER]

Sailor Steve's good looks,... :oops: Trust me, Neal and I have never met. If we had, well, you know...:rotfl:

Kinda makes me wonder what Neal does with your photo from the "Mugshot thread" on those long lonely nights. :hmm:


Come to think of it, I don't want to really know! :nope:

Um...wow...just, wow. :cry: