Moderators role

Started 3 months ago | Discussion thread
Great Bustard
Forum ProPosts: 15,678
Like?
Yep.
In reply to Steve Balcombe, 3 months ago

Steve Balcombe wrote:

Biggs23 wrote:

Detail Man wrote:

By the same logic (that pointing to a locked thread in order to engage in what has been deemed by the Editor in Chief as the "perfectly acceptable" process of discussing moderation policies, rules and interpretation - in this case surrounding thread-locking - constitutes a "no-no"), ...

... perhaps it may be that referring to the mere declaration of a "no-no" in order to discuss the nature and veracity of stated "no-nos" themselves constitutes a secondary "no-no" infraction ?

And, (following similar logic), perhaps it may be that making the point above itself may constitute a tertiary "no-no" ? If the answer to that question is "ya-ya", then we may all have to spend our recess-period writing neatly writing "ya-ya" 100 times on the blackboard using chalk with no eraser.

Our conversations "flow so freely" here on the "Open Talk" forum that I can hardly stand it ...

Oh wow. How does one even respond to such a comment?

Linking to another thread invariably will lead to conversation about that specific action, which is not allowed. So that's why it's going to get deleted. However, if you just came in and started a thread with a general question about moderation you'd be just fine.

It's because linking to a locked thread in order to carry on the locked discussion is undermining the action of the Mod who locked it.

The ultimate crime to an authority figure.

Criticising a Moderator's action is one thing

...but forbidden just the same.

...undermining it so the rule of law can't function is another thing altogether.

It's not "law", but rather "edict".

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow