What is a General Topics for?

[JSLTIGER]

Originally Posted by waste gate

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."

[Gizzmoe]

Originally Posted by waste gate

So says Gaius Gizzmoe.

No, read the forum rules:
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/faq....rule4_faq_item

[Gizzmoe]

Originally Posted by Godalmighty83

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]

Originally Posted by Gizzmoe

Read the forum rules:
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/faq....rule4_faq_item

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

[August]

Originally Posted by Skybird

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]

Originally Posted by JSLTIGER

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

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

Originally Posted by ASWnut101

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

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]

Originally Posted by waste gate

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

Originally Posted by Konovalov

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

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

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]

Originally Posted by bradclark1

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]

Originally Posted by waste gate

If this is an insult, how does one compliment.

You used the term derogatorily, and it was obvious.

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

You used the term derogatorily, and it was obvious.

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

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by waste gate

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.

Originally Posted by 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."

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!