Page 2 of 2
Posted:
Sat Jun 17, 2006 6:49 pmby Twill
Augusta, please see the edit made to my original post
As to why I chose to lock, rather than delete, that thread has entirely to do with "making a stand".
If that thread is deleted, then it never happened. We learn nothing from it, we go nowhere with it, we are "doomed to repeat it".
That thread exists to show that we wont let abuse, trolling and down right messed up crap like that continue here.
Deletion is always biased, it always hides an opinion, it will always kill debate. freedom of speach, as has been questioned here, is about allowing people the right to know as much as it is the right to say. If we do not know what has come before us, we cannot comment on what is to come ahead of us. Locking and deleting are two completely different beasts - one shuts down speach, debate, thought and knowledge based very much on what the mod team decides is right wrong and immoral. Locking on the other hand, while potentially influenced by the very same bias as deleting, allows for debate to continue in other arenas and extend to other topics, very much as this thread has shown it can.
So, when given the choice between delting a thread and locking it, I will take locking ninety nine times out of ten, specifically because I do not have the right to drive the direction of thought or discussion here through making ideas I do not agree with simply dissapear.
Posted:
Sat Jun 17, 2006 6:52 pmby KoolBak
My only problem is you keep bustin my chops in the Brit Isles!
Posted:
Sat Jun 17, 2006 6:52 pmby jay_a2j
hmmmm, I quoted and posted but it didn't show up in the forum..odd.
Posted:
Sat Jun 17, 2006 6:57 pmby Augusta
Twill wrote:Augusta, please see the edit made to my original post
As to why I chose to lock, rather than delete, that thread has entirely to do with "making a stand".
If that thread is deleted, then it never happened. We learn nothing from it, we go nowhere with it, we are "doomed to repeat it".
That thread exists to show that we wont let abuse, trolling and down right messed up crap like that continue here.
Deletion is always biased, it always hides an opinion, it will always kill debate. freedom of speach, as has been questioned here, is about allowing people the right to know as much as it is the right to say. If we do not know what has come before us, we cannot comment on what is to come ahead of us. Locking and deleting are two completely different beasts - one shuts down speach, debate, thought and knowledge based very much on what the mod team decides is right wrong and immoral. Locking on the other hand, while potentially influenced by the very same bias as deleting, allows for debate to continue in other arenas and extend to other topics, very much as this thread has shown it can.
So, when given the choice between delting a thread and locking it, I will take locking ninety nine times out of ten, specifically because I do not have the right to drive the direction of thought or discussion here through making ideas I do not agree with simply dissapear.
point taken
Posted:
Sat Jun 17, 2006 6:58 pmby AndyDufresne
The
mod strikes
again!
AndyDufresne wrote:I can't believe --- ------ -------- --- ------ --- ---- ------, seriously!
--Andy
Posted:
Sat Jun 17, 2006 7:06 pmby Twill
KoolBak wrote:My only problem is you keep bustin my chops in the Brit Isles!
I shall continue to kick your ass in the isles. A)it's the only place I seem able to do it and b) it's what I like to call "conservative bashing"
Posted:
Sat Jun 17, 2006 7:11 pmby wicked
Better watch out for Twill KB ... I saw him slinging fish down at the market ... he's scary with a salmon ... thwop!
Posted:
Sat Jun 17, 2006 7:19 pmby Twill
erm, wicked - I'm vegan as well as being a bleeding heart liberal...I dont throw fish, I'm what some might call a "tree hugger"
<twill walks away whistling>
By the way wicked, it's not the salmon you should worry about...
<twill pulls out the proverbial trout and smacks you in the face with it, winks and walks off again>
Posted:
Sat Jun 17, 2006 7:20 pmby AndyDufresne
And I use to think I was the only trout smacker around here....
--Andy
Posted:
Sat Jun 17, 2006 7:22 pmby HighBorn
quit smacking your trout guys
Posted:
Sat Jun 17, 2006 7:23 pmby wicked
well at least you're not giggling this time.
Posted:
Sat Jun 17, 2006 8:15 pmby KoolBak
Or mincing...bash away my friend! I truly enjoy it!! You are absolutely the best at it as well.......we need a new game, complete with forecast!
Re: Should modarators/founders be "neutral" or bias fr
Posted:
Fri Feb 28, 2014 10:21 amby notyou2
I am doing my thesis on chat boards and moderation of same.
Concerning this thread I have two questions:
1. What is "the alliance" referenced a couple of times?
2. Can anyone elaborate on this "trout smacking"?
I realize many of the members have left, but I hope that some remain and can enlighten me.
Andy?
Koolbak?
Re: Should modarators/founders be "neutral" or bias fr
Posted:
Fri Feb 28, 2014 12:49 pmby AndyDufresne
Yowza, I remember this. I haven't seen these other old usernames for a while. Notyou2, you'll need to make it worth my while. Your questions are toooooooooo general. Please provide me with a list of 5 detailed questions for analysis.
--Andy
Re: Should modarators/founders be "neutral" or bias fr
Posted:
Fri Feb 28, 2014 2:45 pmby BigBallinStalin
Isn't the debate over?
Re: Should modarators/founders be "neutral" or bias fr
Posted:
Fri Feb 28, 2014 2:56 pmby Dukasaur
BigBallinStalin wrote:Isn't the debate over?
Not until Dipholicterrata is defined.
Re: Should modarators/founders be "neutral" or bias fr
Posted:
Fri Feb 28, 2014 4:49 pmby KoolBak
.....................
Re: Should modarators/founders be "neutral" or bias fr
Posted:
Fri Feb 28, 2014 4:57 pmby notyou2
All responses are duly noted and will be referenced in my thesis.