Curry Recipes Online
Curry Chat => Talk About Anything Other Than Curry => Topic started by: George on March 29, 2015, 10:54 PM
-
Thread has now been pruned of all post non mix powder related and record archived of pruned content.
Back to mix powder :)
On the one hand I don't think that CH's action is such a bad idea but, when I suggested some pruning on another thread a few weeks ago, most people were strongly against, so what do you think of CH's action and if you support him, what's the difference? I strongly believe that moderators should be accountable - that's why I opened my feedback thread under the (members only) suggestions section. I hope CH will see this thread as potentially useful feedback and will not attempt to stifle any debate.
-
Of course i've seen it George. To be very clear, exactly what is the purpose of this thread? At the moment i am struggling to see any value in it. But maybe i'm missing something :) I don't doubt it will attract some comments but it would be good if people could understand exactly what they're meant to be commenting on. Is it about yours and my accountability or about my pruning of a thread :D
-
CH - The purpose of this thread is to gain some idea of how members compare and contrast my attempt at a consensual decision re. thread pruning to your approach of simply doing what you think is best without any consultation. I would tend to agree that the pruning of off-topic posts is not such a bad idea but when I tried it, there were howls of protest. Perhaps as you are the person deleting many posts, various members will find it more acceptable.
-
Thank you for clarifying the purpose George. Having said that i'm not sure what long term gain this post will have for the forum or its members. It could simply result in one mod being played off against the other, which isn't its real purpose, is it? ??? . Maybe it would be more beneficial to give members the opportunity to express what their expectations are of you and I as moderators :) I am sure many have views on what should and should not be done, how a moderator should and should not behave as well as whether a moderator should have the the choice of which hat he wishes to wear when posting ;)
Ultimately, the gain for the forum will only come when both of us review all the feedback and agree to moderate in line with the members requests and suggestions :D
I am sure people have plenty to say about both of us and our styles of moderation. I'm more than happy to listen providing the comments are of a constructive nature and the opportunity is not simply used as an excuse to make personal attacks. Does that suit you? ;) If so, then let the members begin to post and the forum move forward 8)
-
Since Curryhell has the necessary social awareness, diplomacy and leadership skills, I'm fully supportive of him pruning threads as necessary to fulfill his role of moderator effectively. You on the other hand George....
By the way this thread should have been started in the forum administration section of the forum, so you've demonstrated you can't even use the forum right, let alone correct other people's use of it. ::)
-
Thread has now been pruned of all post non mix powder related and record archived of pruned content.
Back to mix powder :)
On the one hand I don't think that CH's action is such a bad idea but, when I suggested some pruning on another thread a few weeks ago, most people were strongly against, so what do you think of CH's action and if you support him, what's the difference? I strongly believe that moderators should be accountable - that's why I opened my feedback thread under the (members only) suggestions section. I hope CH will see this thread as potentially useful feedback and will not attempt to stifle any debate.
The problem, as I see it, is that when a moderator uses his/her privileges as moderator to delete either individual messages that he/she has posted, or an entire thread to which he or she has contributed, then that moderator, if he/she acts unilaterally and without consultation with his/her fellow moderator, lays him/herself open to justifiable accusations of abuse of privilege. Clearly the expectation is (and should be) that no moderator will ever post anything that contravenes the terms and conditions to which he/she (and the rest of us) agreed when we signed up for membership, but sometimes matters get a little fraught and even the best-intentioned moderator may occasionally post something that he or she later regrets. But it is then /essential/ that, rather than unilaterally delete his/her post(s), either individually or as part of a mass-deletion or the deletion of an entire thread, he/she should consult with his/her fellow moderator, agree a course of action (which may well be the deletion of the offending message(s)), and then post a message, counter-signed by both, that says that they have jointly agreed to the message(s) being deleted.
Clearly when Stu appointed Curryhell as co-moderator, he fully expected that CH and George would work together for the common weal and for the good of the forum. So far, this has sadly not been the case, as was exemplified by yesterday's quite inexcusable series of personal attacks by and on each, but there is still time to rectify this. Curryhell and George, I call upon you publicly to work together, to put aside when moderating any personal differences that you may have, to agree a policy for firm-but-fair moderation, and then to /agree/ and implement a course of action, rather than act unilaterally, whenever moderation is required in the future.
** Phil.
-
Oh! Put a sock in it, Phil. George should go. As he vowed to. Problem solved.
-
Oh! Put a sock in it, Phil. George should go. As he vowed to. Problem solved.
And a new problem created. A third moderator (cf. CA, George) capable of acting unilaterally, of deleting his/her own messages retrospectively when it suits, of deleting entire threads without explanation, and with no checks and balances to ensure that the moderator is him/herself moderated. Those old enough to remember have already lived through two such reigns and abuses of power; surely no-one would really want this to happen for a third time. Either George must stay or a further moderator must be appointed -- never again must this forum be left open for abuse by a sole moderator who starts out meaning well and ends up a despot, abusing the very privileges with which he or she has been entrusted.
** Phil.
-
...The one person who I would be prepared to accept as a co-moderator would be Secret Santa. If you [curryhell] or almost anyone else is signed up, then I will resign.
That's it in a nutshell. I, for one, have full confidence in curryhell. Even if you don't. My last word on this. Fact.
-
I'm starting to come round to the point of view that CH's appointment as a moderator might be useful after all. I only pruned a thread of off-topic posts once (my feedback thread) and there were howls of protest, perhaps because I haven't posted enough recipes or photos to earn the kind of respect which CH has enjoyed (until recently). CH pruned the 'mix powder' thread of off topic posts this weekend and everyone seems happy. I agree with the concept of that kind of pruning and CH has done a good job, like somebody pruning a shrub, so it looks tidy rather than a mess.
I never locked any thread but if I had, I'm sure CH and others would have complained. CH locked my feedback thread and everyone seems happy but how long will the apparent love affair with CH's quite frequent post deletion and thread-lockings last? Let's review the situation in a few months/years time.
Yes, I previously wrote that I would resign but it was a bluff, like politicians frequently do. I changed my mind when I could start to see that CH might prove useful.
-
That's it in a nutshell. I, for one, have full confidence in curryhell. Even if you don't.
I /had/ full confidence in Curryhell when he was appointed. Sadly that confidence started to go downhill when he deleted a thread that Garp had started with no public explanation, and then went on to launch a series of personal attacks on George in flagrant breach of the Terms and Conditions to which he had agreed. It fell to an all-time low when he then (ab)used his powers as moderator to delete those self-same messages, along with a number of others, in what even the most open-minded member might reasonably view as an attempt to cover his tracks. This forum has had enough of despots -- it is time we were moderated by committee, not by any one individual no matter how significant his contributions to the forum may have been prior to his appointment as moderator (cf. CA).
"All power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely" -- never was this more clearly exemplified than in the sad history of the moderation of this forum, and yet some appear unable or unwilling to learn the lesson of this.
** Phil.
-
it is time we were moderated by committee, not by any one individual no matter how significant his contributions to the forum may have been prior to his appointment as moderator (cf. CA).
You're quite right Phil. Actions which are inherently controversial such as mass post deletions or thread locking should require a vote between the moderators. Many other forums work on this principle but to make it fair requires a minimum of three moderators.
We have, as you rightly say, seen the deleterious effects to both individuals and the forum as a whole of allowing a single moderator essentially unrestricted power. The moderator voting method reduces that effect substantially.
Edit: When I talked above about mass post deletions I was talking in generalities. But I've just seen the amount of pruning that CH has done to the "mix powder" thread! You've turned into CA, CH. If you're going to prune every thread of irrelevant comments you're really going to have your work cut out and you'll be killing the free-flow nature of discussion, not to mention friendly banter. Or do you suggest that every thought we have during a thread that is not exactly on topic demands a new thread be started?
Absolutely ridiculous behaviour. You're being too heavy handed and acting remarkably like CA. If we wanted that we could just go to his forum and be done with it. ::)
-
Any progressive community needs no have a clear out of old views. This makes way for the new generation to take over! It's always hard to except change, especial when your used to having it all.
-
it is time we were moderated by committee, not by any one individual no matter how significant his contributions to the forum may have been prior to his appointment as moderator (cf. CA).
You're quite right Phil. Actions which are inherently controversial such as mass post deletions or thread locking should require a vote between the moderators. Many other forums work on this principle but to make it fair requires a minimum of three moderators.
We have, as you rightly say, seen the deleterious effects to both individuals and the forum as a whole of allowing a single moderator essentially unrestricted power. The moderator voting method reduces that effect substantially.
Would you be willing to stand as third co-moderator, Santa ? Your appointment would, we already know, be acceptable to George, and I would hope that it might be equally acceptable to Curryhell.
** Phil.
-
Would you be willing to stand as third co-moderator, Santa ?
No. I'd have to behave then! ;D
-
Would you be willing to stand as third co-moderator, Santa ?
No. I'd have to behave then! ;D
Nonsense! As you know, I haven't changed my behaviour as a member. Go on, give it a try (take on the role of third moderator) to temper the apparent, extreme moderation style of CH!
I agree completely with the idea of voting. I was going to suggest to CH that no threads are locked or posts deleted unless we both agree but I quickly realised I'd be wasting my time. CH is clearly not a team player and more like a loose cannon.
-
Nothing infuriates me more than when a mod deletes or modifies someones post without a pm to that person explaining why the action was necessary / taken - or even a reason put in the place of the 'offending' post.
I am a mod / supermod elsewhere and have been on the receiving end of such actions - banned in some cases with the infuriating situation of having no access for redress.
Mods have to be as impartial as it is possible to be. I have seen my posts withdrawn / deleted and the mod concerned (not here I may add) has admitted they didn't bother to read the whole post - merely the 1st line. Got their knickers in a total twist by misinterpreting a post from one word in the 1st line. Modship sadly goes to the heads of some people.
PS - don't ask me to mod - I am not on here often enough!!
-
Regarding a third moderator, firstly Admin would have to agree.
If that were to happen, perhaps members should volunteer or be put forward (with their agreement) and a poll of members conducted. Could be better than the forthcoming general election :)
-
I just added a poll and voted 'yes' against my own question.
-
I hope CH will see this thread as potentially useful feedback and will not attempt to stifle any debate.
And i suppose this is just your idea of a debate George. I would term it more of a which hunt ::)
I am sure people have plenty to say about both of us and our styles of moderation. I'm more than happy to listen providing the comments are of a constructive nature and the opportunity is not simply used as an excuse to make personal attacks. Does that suit you? ;) If so, then let the members begin to post and the forum move forward 8)
Funny how two people only want to talk about me, isn't it. How surprising :) You're obviously the model moderator ;D
Curryhell and George, I call upon you publicly to work together, to put aside when moderating any personal differences that you may have, to agree a policy for firm-but-fair moderation, and then to /agree/ and implement a course of action, rather than act unilaterally, whenever moderation is required in the future.
Funny that, since that's what I PM'd George. Think this must have fallen on deaf ears Phil.
I /had/ full confidence in Curryhell when he was appointed.
No you didn't Phil. You're just saying the politically correct thing. You were as gobsmacked as your mate George.
If you're going to prune every thread of irrelevant comments you're really going to have your work cut out and you'll be killing the free-flow nature of discussion, not to mention friendly banter. Or do you suggest that every thought we have during a thread that is not exactly on topic demands a new thread be started?
I have no such intentions SS. I'm here to post about curry. If you all focused on that, any moderation would be minimal. As for the free-flow nature of discussion, I would suggest it has many times flowed far too freely without so much a murmur from the moderator or he's been right there in the thick of it. Friendly banter ;D ;D I certainly don't see that in many of threads that should have been moderated
Yes, I previously wrote that I would resign but it was a bluff, like politicians frequently do. I changed my mind when I could start to see that CH might prove useful.
Isn't that a surprise to all George ::)
I was going to suggest to CH that no threads are locked or posts deleted unless we both agree but I quickly realised I'd be wasting my time. CH is clearly not a team player and more like a loose cannon.
Now that's really funny George. It's a shame you didn't reply to my PM when i was first appointed
We can either work together to present a united and consistant front so all know what will and will not be moderated or you and I can do our own thing , which will be of no benefit to the forum at all.
Alternatively, you may choose to sit quietly by, and snipe at me from the sidelines.
And the only loose cannon around here is you George, as you have been now for so long and been allowed to get away with it.
I'm starting to come round to the point of view that CH's appointment as a moderator might be useful after all.
And well you might George. It's certainly taken the spot light off your normal antics
-
I'm here to post about curry. If you all focused on that, any moderation would be minimal.
Welcome back CA. We've missed ya mate! ;)
-
I'm here to post about curry. If you all focused on that, any moderation would be minimal.
Welcome back CA. We've missed ya mate! ;)
Forgive me SS, but i'm obviously under the wrong impression that this was the purpose of the forum. I don't for one moment dispute CA got many things wrong and i've no intention of following in his footsteps but one thing he did get right and was open about was that he certainly had yours, George's and Phil's number from the off ;)
-
All archived (as was the "Mixed powder" thread) just in case one of our moderators takes decides, with the benefit of hindsight, that some things were better left unsaid and decides to delete or drastically prune this thread as he did the last. I will respond to the individual points later, since I now have a bowls match to attend, but one part cannot be overlooked, even temporarily :
I /had/ full confidence in Curryhell when he was appointed.
No you didn't Phil. You're just saying the politically correct thing. You were as gobsmacked as your mate George.
I don't do political correctness, CH, I tell it as it is. I had full confidence that as soon as you were appointed you would (a) talk to George and agree a common moderating policy; (b) set an example to us all as to how a moderator should behave, and (c) stamp down on all forms of personal attack. All the evidence suggests that no such common moderating policy emerged, and far from setting an example and stamping down on personal attacks, you now seek every opportunity to make them. I am afraid that in my opinion you have now demonstrated that you are completely unfit to be a moderator.
** Phil.
-
Simply replying to those attacks made on me Phil. More than happy to let everybody have their say and let it be a permanent record for all to see. Now come along Phil. I've not been here anywhere near as long as George. I've a long way to go before i become anywhere near as unfit to moderate as George. He's been working hard at it for years now.
-
But George is though Phil?
At least CH seems to have the respect of most members on here unlike George
Even Admin called his bluff lol
-
At least CH seems to have the respect of most members on here unlike George
Yes quite possibly martinvic, but not the respect of the big three, which no new moderator was ever going to get despite whatever they may say. But am i really concerned by it, not in the slightest. I'm quite happy to be judged by my fellow curry posting peers of which there are more than three :)
-
...but not the respect of the big three...
The Big Three. The Three Amigos. Three of the longest-self-serving non-contributors on this forum. Plenty to say, but little to offer except long-winded, off-topic nonsense, a pathetic victim mentality and snide comment.
The "bluffing" moderator has chased many good members from this forum. He hasn't changed in years, and he still tries to chase good members from the forum. Here's what happened with Curry Barking Mad, one of the forum's most highly respected members, in 2012:
I have no desire to suppress you casting your opinion ::)
I'm sorry but why didn't you say something useful in your earlier post when, instead of giving reasons for disagreeing with me, you said my "baiting is rather tiresome."
I'm not 'baiting' anybody. I know my views are not shared by everyone but it was SP who, not unreasonably, raised the subject of RCR. If you don't agree with me, then give reasons, instead of trying to stifle debate by using daft words like 'troll' or baiting'. In your position it may have been better to have maintained a dignified silence.
Or, if you wanted to speak out, you may have declared your opinion which is probably along the lines that it's a first class site. the navigation and ease of use are better than here and there are genuine reasons (state them) why a whole host of previous promises by the site owner failed to materialise, like books for a start. Oh, and that he really did have 10 or 20 years previous experience of a BIR kitchen before starting the site.
OK George,
You've done me in.....
I didn't use the word "troll" ???
I really don't think I need to take advice from you about "my position"
I am frustrated by your attitude displayed over quite a period of time.
And I'm sorry, as far as your last paragraph goes... regarding Navigation, ease of use, better than here etc. What on Earth has that got to do with anything I have said? That's a rhetorical question by the way... I can't possibly debate anything with you or anyone who views their world in the twisted way you clearly do.
I would also want to make it clear, I have no animosity towards CR0 and it's membership.
To be honest I find the site V site stuff quite pathetic, hence my original comment to George about moving on.
My apologies to everyone of those decent people that make up the vast majority of the membership of this site.
I will leave you to it and wish you all a good Christmas and good luck with your future curry cooking.
Cheers,
Mick
PS Say what you have to George, I can't be dealing with you anymore.
CBM's post above could have been written this afternoon. Nothing has changed.
George, Phil and Secret Santa won't be happy until there's no-one else left to chase from this forum. Then they can have it all to themselves and they'll be able to have a nice wee chat between each other with no troublesome curry talk to disturb their cosy little cabal.
-
The truth has been posted above it's the same old snipes and trolling all the time.
-
Can someone please moderate (preferably delete) this topic as it is turning into the worst kind of advert for any newcomers to the forum, and is going nowhere :(
-
I've not been here anywhere near as long as George. I've a long way to go before i become anywhere near as unfit to moderate as George. He's been working hard at it for years now.
You may have only been a moderator for a few days but you've already locked more threads and deleted more posts than I did in several years. I don't think even CA reached your level of destruction anywhere near as soon after starting. My approach has always been minimal moderation and you consider that as 'unfit' because your approach is for a lot MORE moderation. I believe your thinking is also irrational (out of interest, what level of education did you reach?) because most of the things I write which you don't like are me as a member and nothing whatsoever to do with me being a moderator.
-
It's all a bit Lord of the Flies...
-
Right had a quick read through the thread and plenty of passion
And yes George A poll excellent But not for three It should be one
And that is CH
George everything runs it's course and your time has come
Calling your resigning a bluff Big mistake how can we believe anything you say from now on
I've met you and unfortunately you are a much better person in real life than on this forum
And I do not believe you mean no harm but you do have an amazing ability to get the wrong end of the stick
And to rub people up the wrong way
Not good for moderating
And George this thread for me is the last straw you've kicked off another stink
-
I disagree, George is not an intrusive moderator - and most importantly he's not a tyrant.
This has started to look like bullying.
-
Anybody cooked a curry. :o
Admins choice of new Mod was spot on!
Get over yourself George and stop creating lame threads
as your clogging up the forum yet again >:(
ChewyTikka
-
Totally agree with CT. This is not helping at all and it stops me going on this site as there is much less curry talk going on. I made a mild dhansak today so that the Mrs could try my recipe, so yes, I did cook a curry. Am I going off topic talking about curry?
-
Well Done SR, Love Dhansak me ;) ;D ;D
-
Chicken Tikka Chilli Bhuna ;) :D ;D!!!
(http://www.curry-recipes.co.uk/imagehost/pics/6526be0de9718046ed0c36bc7d509d50.jpg)
-
Great picture ;D ;D
-
Mmmmm, chilli bhuna works for me. :)
-
So far, seven members have voted against having a third moderator, together with voting before deleting posts or locking threads. What are the reasons? Would you prefer a single moderator like CH or CA who can run riot, with little accountability?
-
Another dig George
For your own grave
-
I dare say CH will live up to his word and start deleting the off-topic, irrelevant curry posts from this thread (from the usual suspects, predictably). I doubt he'd want to be seen as being biased. ;D
-
Stop trolling George, either get on with working together, or (moderated) and resign from mod
(http://www.curry-recipes.co.uk/imagehost/pics/05f17ad35a97c68edbd42204a41849bd.jpg)
-
Am I usual SS
-
So it's OK for CH to have been criticising me ever since I took over the role of moderator but the moment I start giving him a taste of his own medicine, his allies don't like it.
-
Now that Naan is definitely off topic! :o
-
It was delicious Sober R , as was the curry. Love those bullet chillies from Indian stores
-
I bet it was but you need to stop this as I should not be thinking about firing up the gas again tonight and if I do I will hold you wholly responsible. :) Which naan recipe was it by the way?
-
SoberRat
Very funny
GEORGE your doing it again a mod should be impartial Giving people a taste of their own medicine
-
h4ppy chris naan recipe SR
-
Of course. It's a very good recipe. I have some similar lurking in my freezer. Thanks
-
That Chicken Tikka Chilli Bhuna and naan look terrific, MA!
And, like Chewy, SoberRat, I'm a bit partial to a Dhansak myself. Still to try yours, so probably this Friday.
-
Guys, please keep it on topic. All this talk and pictures of curry so out of place ;D ;D. Actually, it's not, it
-
I hope it goes well for you Naga and that you enjoy it. ;)
-
I hope it goes well for you Naga and that you enjoy it. ;)
I'm sure I will. I've just dug out your thread on the Dhansak for the recipe and I'll give it s go this week. :)
-
George, if you stop being a mod, this will turn into another CA situation. :)
Rapidly.
-
I didn't know George had a sister
-
On the one hand, threads like this come in for a bit of stick, but isn't it weird how the viewer IDs go through the roof. Everyone must be enthusiastic, really, or they wouldn't post. And so many people enjoy going off topic, that we still don't know why seven people voted against having a third moderator.
George, if you stop being a mod, this will turn into another CA situation. :) Rapidly.
I suspect you may be right, so let's test it. I'll stop commenting on anything 'controversial' for at least one month, to let CH do whatever he likes, hopefully whilst remaining accountable.
-
Oh dear, really??? ???
I know. Let's have a good old fashioned bare foot shin kicking competition. No that wont work because the highlanders will have the edge. Perhaps the nipple twisting whistle game, or Chinese burns.
-
So far, seven members have voted against having a third moderator, together with voting before deleting posts or locking threads. What are the reasons? Would you prefer a single moderator like CH or CA who can run riot, with little accountability?
On the one hand, threads like this come in for a bit of stick, but isn't it weird how the viewer IDs go through the roof. Everyone must be enthusiastic, really, or they wouldn't post. And so many people enjoy going off topic, that we still don't know why seven people voted against having a third moderator.
Why have only 6 voted for it and what are their reasons?
-
The only way you'll get rid of George is to send a pm admin explaining you object to his malicious & vindictive posting style and his abuse of the moderator powers he has and that as a result you'll no longer be visiting the website.
-
Well CH has set out his stall. Not a single one of the irrelevant, off-topic posts has been deleted by him in this thread because they suit his purpose.
CA back in da house! ::)
-
Why have only 6 voted for it and what are their reasons?
Well it's relatively even at the time of my typing at 7 to 8. I voted yes because it was essentially my idea, taken from the way much better moderated forums operate. It adds checks and balances to a mods actions such that you can't easily have a rogue mod deleting (or, indeed, not deleting) whole threads because it doesn't fit his or her personal interpretation of the forum rules or just because they can. Unless, that is, all three (or more) mods are in collusion.
You should really be asking why any sensible, democratically minded person would vote no.
-
...but not the respect of the big three...
The Big Three. The Three Amigos. Three of the longest-self-serving non-contributors on this forum. Plenty to say, but little to offer except long-winded, off-topic nonsense, a pathetic victim mentality and snide comment.
What a bitter and thoroughly juvenile response.
Each member of the forum contributes in what way they can. I tend to offer advice at times to newbies with my pretty large knowledge of BIR cooking for example. You post beautiful pictures of your curries as a way of promoting CBM's e-books by refusing to give any details of the recipes and linking to them on Amazon. We each offer what we can.
And do you suggest that we cull the several hundred (thousand) silent forum memebers for not contributing at all?
-
Like I said, SS, nothing to offer but snide comment...
-
Like I said, SS, nothing to offer but snide comment...
You're confusing snide comment with fact. Easily done when you have an agenda.
-
Arm wrestling?
-
If the were to ever be a third mod, it would need to be an outside influence, certainly not yourself SS! That's why I voted for No.
-
If the were to ever be a third mod, it would need to be an outside influence, certainly not yourself SS! That's why I voted for No.
Then I would respectfully suggest, Little Chillie, that you may not have read the poll properly. It asks "Should there be a 3rd moderator with voting for post deletion or thread locking (apart from pure spam)? " and makes no mention whatsoever of Secret Santa. To vote against a motion because one does not like one potential candidate for the post were the motion to succeed would not seem to me to be a rational course of behaviour.
** Phil.
-
The only way you'll get rid of George is to send a pm to Admin explaining how you object to his malicious & vindictive posting style and his abuse of the moderator powers he has and that, as a result, you'll no longer be visiting the website.
I've tidied up the sentence construction in your post quoted above so it makes a bit more sense. Is your thinking any clearer and more logical than the way you write?
Please list your main allegations/objections under each of the two distinct categories:
1 Member
2 Moderator
Under 1 (member), you and others may not like to be told that, in my opinion, your ideas and recipes don't impress me much. For the most part, I rate intelligent arguments put forward by SS, for example, more highly than glossy photos submitted by CH and others. Anyway, what are your arguments for having me struck off as a long-standing member?
Under 2 (moderator) what are your arguments for having me removed as a moderator? Have I moderated too little, or too much, or how have I failed, exactly? Perhaps you'd have preferred me to leave all the spam in place, or to leave bad language untouched, or not delete some of my own posts in order to help cool things down.
-
I've tidied up the sentence construction in your post quoted above so it makes a bit more sense. Is your thinking any clearer and more logical than the way you write?
I would respectfully suggest, George, that it might be helpful if you were to set a good example to others by not making a tacit /ad hominem/ attack in a reply to another member. By all means write something along the lines of "It wasn't entirely clear to me what you meant in your message, but I have assumed that you probably intended to write something along the lines of the following ...", but a question such as "Is your thinking any clearer and more logical than the way you write?" is clearly not an appropriate question for any member to pose, let alone a moderator who should know better and who be setting an example to us all.
You are, after all, the senior moderator on this forum and have been in post for a considerable period of time; if you were to set a good example to others, then they would surely be encouraged to be similarly respectful in their own replies.
** Phil.
-
Would you be willing to stand as third co-moderator, Santa ?
No. I'd have to behave then! ;D
Nonsense! As you know, I haven't changed my behaviour as a member. Go on, give it a try (take on the role of third moderator) to temper the apparent, extreme moderation style of CH!
I agree completely with the idea of voting. I was going to suggest to CH that no threads are locked or posts deleted unless we both agree but I quickly realised I'd be wasting my time. CH is clearly not a team player and more like a loose cannon.
Phil, you just can't help yourself can you?
-
If the were to ever be a third mod, it would need to be an outside influence, certainly not yourself SS! That's why I voted for No.
Let's hope you wouldn't be in the running either then LC as your selective reading leaves a lot to be desired for the role.
In particular:
Would you be willing to stand as third co-moderator, Santa ?
No. I'd have to behave then! ;D
Pretty much gives the game away doesn't it LC...to anyone who's wise enough to read before making an ass of themselves that is.
And if that were not enough, to repeat Phil's comment, to vote no on the basis of one candidate you don't want as moderator (who in fact was never a candidate anyway) says much for your lack of bias and inability to focus on the crux of the matter.
-
Phil, you just can't help yourself can you?
I'm sorry, I don't understand the point you are trying to make Little Chillie.
** Phil.
-
I think the word Click comes to mind ;D yep Click, and three amigos.
-
I'm afraid you've lost me, Little Chillie.
* Phil.
-
I'm afraid you've lost me, Little Chillie.
* Phil.
I believe he means clique Phil! ;D ::)
-
[ quote author=Secret Santa link=topic=13776.msg118151#msg118151 date=1427800569]
I'm afraid you've lost me, Little Chillie.
* Phil.
I believe he means clique Phil! ;D ::)
[/quote]
SS, fortunately for me I don't discriminate regarding race, colour, or education! It's a shame people still feel the need in modern times! ;)
-
I've tidied up the sentence construction in your post quoted above so it makes a bit more sense. Is your thinking any clearer and more logical than the way you write?
I would respectfully suggest, George, that it might be helpful if you were to set a good example to others by not making a tacit /ad hominem/ attack in a reply to another member. By all means write something along the lines of "It wasn't entirely clear to me what you meant in your message, but I have assumed that you probably intended to write something along the lines of the following ...", but a question such as "Is your thinking any clearer and more logical than the way you write?" is clearly not an appropriate question for any member to pose, let alone a moderator who should know better and who be setting an example to us all.
You are, after all, the senior moderator on this forum and have been in post for a considerable period of time; if you were to set a good example to others, then they would surely be encouraged to be similarly respectful in their own replies.
** Phil.
But he won't he can't help himself, he has always been the same. Hence why, I believe, not many on here have any respect for him as a member, let alone a moderator.
Surely you must see that moderators are usually well respected, skilled, contributing, members, with good communication/people skills, within their community.
Which to me George has none of the above.
But you carry on supporting him Phil, for whatever reasons you may have.
Oh and I expect LC meant, Clique. Yes that would be it.
-
I believe he means clique Phil! ;D ::)
SS, fortunately for me I don't discriminate regarding race, colour, or education! It's a shame people still feel the need in modern times! ;)
I think SS was just trying to be helpful, Little Chillie. Had it not been for his helpful explanation, I would never have understood what you were trying to say. As to there being a clique, I am afraid you could not be more wrong -- I have lost count of the number of times that SS, George and I, in some combination, have disagreed with each other, sometimes expressing ourselves in less than moderate language which we might with the benefit of hindsight regret, but on the one issue of the need for better moderation on this forum, I believe that we are, for once, united.
** Phil.
-
Surely you must see that moderators are usually well respected, skilled, contributing, members, with good communication/people skills, within their community.
Which to me George has none of the above.
But you carry on supporting him Phil, for whatever reasons you may have.
I agree with many of your points, Martin, but as you will see from my message to George above, I do not support him when I feel that he may be in the wrong, just as I do not support Curryhell when I feel that he may be in the wrong. Neither has shown the respect to the other that should be expected of all forum members, and when one moderator publicly attacks another (as each has done), it brings the whole concept of moderator into disrepute. A moderator should behave like Madam Speaker in the Lower House -- respected by all, she warns any member when he or she is stepping out of line, but always using parliamentary language so to do. If our two moderators want to disagree with each other, then they should do so in private (face-to-face, or via PM); in public, they should present a united front, support each other, and set an example to the rest of us. Sadly neither has done this to date.
** Phil.
-
I believe he means clique Phil! ;D ::)
SS, fortunately for me I don't discriminate regarding race, colour, or education! It's a shame people still feel the need in modern times! ;)
I think SS was just trying to be helpful, Little Chillie. Had it not been for his helpful explanation, I would never have understood what you were trying to say. As to there being a clique, I am afraid you could not be more wrong -- I have lost count of the number of times that SS, George and I, in some combination, have disagreed with each other, sometimes expressing ourselves in less than moderate language which we might with the benefit of hindsight regret, but on the one issue of the need for better moderation on this forum, I believe that we are, for once, united.
** Phil.
Phil, please don't insult my undereducated intelligence! But I do appreciate the gesture.
LC
-
Phil, please don't insult my undereducated intelligence! But I do appreciate the gesture.
LC
No insult was intended, Little Chillie; you have my word on that.
** Phil.
-
Surely you must see that moderators are usually well respected, skilled, contributing, members, with good communication/people skills, within their community.
All those attributes count for nothing when it comes down to being a moderator, as can be seen by CH's very bad start. You'd probably claim he has many of the skills you list. Was it because of that, or in spite of it, that CH started locking threads and deleting posts, just because he disagreed with some of the opinions?
No, the best attribute, as I think I proved is restraint, in terms of locking nothing and deleting very, very few posts apart from pure spam. Plus the deletion of bad language, written by people who do it deliberately in order to stir up trouble. It's the only way. CH denied he aspired to moderate MORE but the doubters were proved right.
-
Phil, please don't insult my undereducated intelligence! But I do appreciate the gesture.
LC
No insult was intended, Little Chillie; you have my word on that.
** Phil.
Much appreciated Phil.
LC
-
Surely you must see that moderators are usually well respected, skilled, contributing, members, with good communication/people skills, within their community.
I agree with all of that other than that the person has to be a contributing member. The art of moderating requires no contribution from the moderator whatsoever. The fact that almost all moderators happen to be contributors as well dos not change that fact.
-
While in concept I agree that is true, I have never known that to be the case on the many forums/groups I frequent.
Can't see how a moderator can't be a knowledgable, contributing member.
Surely that's how their decisions are respected?
-
I say sack em both! ;D
Neither has what it takes to be a moderator.
A mod should ALWAYS bite their tongue and NEVER bite back. It was obvious to me and anyone else who has been around long enough to know that George and Dave was never going to work.
If admin was more involved over the past few years, he would've realised that too.
As members, I have no problem with them saying whatever they like. Ive enjoyed their occasional rants and spats over the years, its this passion and low level moderation that got me hooked.
But as moderators.. NO! It should never happen.
Stephen Lindsay
Graeme
Les.
These are the types of members who make good mods. Always around, never fighting or sniping and I believe, would diffuse a bad situation rather than fueling it.
-
I think you should be the new mod Dal Puri! ;D
-
Its always the same on a forum - there are many with thin skins regardless of whom who like to give a little to a post but cant take it back...
The moderation of this site has been done solely by George for a long time and he has done a great job!
There are a couple of folks on here that must be out of the time of Shakespeare with their golden shrouded words and terminology - which to us educated normal folks go straight over our heads to the amusement of others - yet when it comes down to making a curry do they contribute anything even with 3,000 plus posts most are just words - the moderating of the site is OK (was ok) how many moderators do you require for less than 20 constant contributors and 120000000000000 visitors, guests and non contributors
amazing this thread - im sure there are many visitors laughing
best, Rich
-
I think you should be the new mod Dal Puri! ;D
No chance! I can't hold me tongue either. :P
-
I asked for feedback on the reasoning behind voting 'no' to the idea of 3 moderators, as currently standing at 10 votes, to 8 votes for 'yes'. I don't think anyone has said why they voted 'no', other than littlechillie.
So that means that most of you prefer to leave the forum with 2 moderators, and no voting.
As I said, CH can do what he likes - why should I care after the large scale lack of gratitude for my efforts over several years. It's a thankless task.
-
This is indeed a treat after being out grafting all day (not plants or skin), with no 3G on my phone; what a great pile of shite (who wants to be first to mod it?) to return to.
I was torn between watching Emmerdale or reading all this crap - wishing I'd chosen neither to be honest.
Anyway, for what it's worth;
I asked for feedback on the reasoning behind voting 'no' to the idea of 3 moderators, as currently standing at 10 votes, to 8 votes for 'yes'. I don't think anyone has said why they voted 'no', other than littlechillie.
So that means that most of you prefer to leave the forum with 2 moderators, and no voting.
As I said, CH can do what he likes - why should I care after the large scale lack of gratitude for my efforts over several years. It's a thankless task.
I wonder why only 18 members have voted - could it be that the question was wrong? Or the person who created the poll was wrong?
All I can say is that if George is a mod, I'm a rocker - let's all go to Brighton and have a big punch-up :)
-
.... what a great pile of shite (who wants to be first to mod it?) to return to.
I was torn between watching Emmerdale or reading all this crap - wishing I'd chosen neither to be honest.
All I can say is that if George is a mod, I'm a rocker - let's all go to Brighton and have a big punch-up :)
Hahahaha possibly your funniest post Garp
Lets all meet up @Blue Mango Restaurant in Brighton on Saturday.
Seriously George all you've managed to achieve with this thread is more arguing and in fighting, Well done, you give yourself a large pat on the back .
-
If admin was more involved over the past few years, he would've realised that too.
A cynical man might think that was the whole idea.
-
Hello, George.