Coo I never done this before....

[DaveJB]

I just realised I've never (as best I can remember, anyhow) started a thread before....

I'm a tiny bit perturbed about reading this statement though...so I thought I'd bite the bullet....

Since it was you that started this thread and finally concluded it, I see no useful purpose in keeping it open any longer. Thread closed.

- I've read a few posts in Bramble's 'I don't like this' thread today, and had mixed feelings about it all - my feeling was that the pulled thread at the heart of the issue probably got pulled almost accidentally... Tony got a bit heated there, I think he saw more evil intent on the Mods' part than was the case. In a nutshell both sides had valid points to make - isn't that usually the way of things? However, (there's usually a however too, isn't there <g>)

....if members are contributing to a thread still, then why is the thread being closed or deleted rather than edited? If members exceed site limits they are (I thought) supposed to be banned and offensive posts deleted - I understand that Paul has devolved editorial power to the mods, and they have both the ability and the site owner's agreement to make these decisions, but I don't think they should be summarily executing whole threads unless the whole thread is actually a problem.

Tony raised the question of heavy handed censorship in his thread, he criticised the mods, and despite that thread drawing comment from other members a mod has decided to close it - to me that just looks like the mods are using there editorial powers to curtail criticism of their own actions...I would have thought it more appropriate to allow lack of member activity (ie lack of further posts) to see the thread die a more natural death.

I have a great deal of sympathy for the mods, there is some utter bilge posted on here from spammers and the like, the mods perform an excellent service in removing it. Mods are normally nice people, I DO think they should be a little more careful in deciding to axe a thread.

 

[Crap Buddist]

Hi Dave, being honest here and having made a few posts in the thread, when I saw it closed, my initial reaction was, hmm swift culling, Ironic, as that was the point The Bramble was trying to raise? I checked The Brambles post time and the thread closed time, 50 odd minutes or so later, I thought hmmm, double checked thought ok brambles cut to his point and the mod, taken that as ok bang thread closed.

What I thought was, hmm , hang on, 50 odd minutes or so is not a lot of time for the rest of the membership to be able to read and add any of their own comments, maybe a week or 2 ??

Small detail, and I thank the mods to, but I think ,and maybe the bramble does too, that some sort of standard approach needs to be in place...

Your thread here shows you thought as i did , a small point but it can set the tone maybe for the bigger picture or something... ??

Hai, hai hai..... old saying......


Pay attention to detail with small matters, treat big ones lightly....

Butterfly wings again ????

fair points mate , cheers ...

additional Dave, I'm smiling because I mention small details may be important in the grander scheme of things...... and here you are a member making their first thread on this small? issue Dave its beautiful... (ignore me mate, small things please me i think)

 

[peto]

...... when I saw it closed, my initial reaction was, hmm swift culling, Ironic, as that was the point The Bramble was trying to raise? ... .

Hmmm Brambles case well proven me thinks!

 

[rossored]

i think the thread was closed because it is clear from Tony's attitude that it will go on and on and on; he's like that in case you hadn't noticed

However he makes some points in his last post which i feel I should address here. I'm not feeling particularly inclined to comment on this much further than this but I may.

First things first - this site nor any of the mods will never respond well to ultimatums. Tony is giving just that by his silly threat of "I won't post anymore" - ok, fine - suit yoruself, but that by itself won't result in that or any other thread being reinstated.

Second, TheBramble was allowed back into the membership on very specific grounds that he agreed to and that are not for discussion here. However at the moment I think he is on VERY thin ice.

Third, TheBramble makes daft statements in his last post that he knows full well not to be true - such as "In any event, I thought Rossored had been taken off active mod duties because of the conflict with his sales revenue generation work for the site? Or has Sharky gone back on that now?" Now, why would he make statements like that when i have recent rep received from him (in the last two weeks), complimenting me on 'good honest moderation' and 'the most popular mod in history' ?? I see those statements - wrongly or rightly - as being there for no purpose other than to try and inflame things further. This, oddly enough, is getting a bit close to the same reasons he was banned before.

Fourth, as for closing threads, there is nothing in the guidelines about when they should be closed - moderator discretion is all that is required, and I personally have opened and closed threads before; it happens. But unless someone can make a really good case for it (and Tony failed to do that in our opinion) then no, it won't be reopened. Besides I am firmly of the opinion that that thread belongs in the trash, as are other mods. However I'll happily go to the mods forum now and conduct a poll amongst the other mods; If a majority rules against, then I'm happy for it to be reinstated.

 

[TheBramble]

I did wonder if I was setting myself up as a sitting duck for those with the need to do so by declaring I wouldn’t make any further posts in the current circumstances, but I didn’t expect to get shot at by the mods. Well, this old Mallard will have a few more quacks yet if the subject is going to continue to be aired on another thread and with a perhaps less than 100% accurate rendition on a number of points.

i think the thread was closed because it is clear from Tony's attitude that it will go on and on and on; he's like that in case you hadn't noticed

I’d made quite clear my involvement with that thread was finished. That thread was closed because a new mod decided it should be closed. Apparently against the wishes of other members it would seem. So, not just me then? It will go on and an and on without my involvement for the simple reason that the membership, not just me, don’t like it.

First things first - this site nor any of the mods will never respond well to ultimatums. Tony is giving just that by his silly threat of "I won't post anymore" - ok, fine - suit yoruself, but that by itself won't result in that or any other thread being reinstated.

Not an ultimatum. A statement of fact. If that thread isn’t reinstated (it should never have been deleted in the first place), it would be a clear indication of the state of the moderation system on this site and in those circumstances, where posts are deleted on a whim, I would choose not to expend further effort in public posting. I’ll hardly be the first in recent weeks to have gone down that route. You’ve lost good people from the ranks of the moderators too. There’s a problem, clearly, and I wouldn’t be surprised if there wasn’t a common denominator.

Second, TheBramble was allowed back into the membership on very specific grounds that he agreed to and that are not for discussion here. However at the moment I think he is on VERY thin ice.

For clarification, I was allowed back providing I adhered to the site guidelines. Simply that and no more. I am. Are you? And thin ice because I have the temerity to question moderation standards? Are things really that bad?

Third, TheBramble makes daft statements in his last post that he knows full well not to be true - such as "In any event, I thought Rossored had been taken off active mod duties because of the conflict with his sales revenue generation work for the site? Or has Sharky gone back on that now?"

http://www.trade2win.com/boards/showpost.php?p=284566&postcount=50

Obviously either Paul subsequently wasn’t happy to discuss it although it had clearly been suggested as ‘a good idea’. (Interestingly, the originator of that good idea’s post is nowhere to be found…) Or it was discussed but the decision or outcome not made public. My apologies for assuming it had gone further than just a post.

Fourth, as for closing threads, […] unless someone can make a really good case for it (and Tony failed to do that in our opinion) then no, it won't be reopened. Besides I am firmly of the opinion that that thread belongs in the trash, as are other mods. However I'll happily go to the mods forum now and conduct a poll amongst the other mods; If a majority rules against, then I'm happy for it to be reinstated.

The emphasis should not be on me or anyone else making a case for reinstating a thread. The onus should clearly be on the mods to show why closing a thread is appropriate where it does not obviously contravene guidelines.

The thing is, none of us are stupid. It’s clear when a post, or a thread or a member has gone too far – we don’t need to interpret or review or discuss the nuances. Or rather, we shouldn’t need to. Either it’s so obvious that nobody thinks twice, or as in this case, it’s so far outside the published remit of the mods that it’s generated enormous response.

Rather than poll the mods, poll the members. They’re the ones who surely should decide what content they are happy with.

 

[rossored]

Rather than poll the mods, poll the members. They’re the ones who surely should decide what content they are happy with.

No, you are wrong Tony. The mods are the ones who decide what stays and what goes; that's why they're mods. Furthermore, there has never been a requirement to state a reason for pulling of threads, and there never will be.

You’ve lost good people from the ranks of the moderators too. There’s a problem, clearly, and I wouldn’t be surprised if there wasn’t a common denominator.

Utter garbage. When you know what you're talking about I'll give you your due, Tony, but don't presume to know anything about the running of the site because you dont.

 

[rossored]

further thoughts...

...at the end of the day I don't want to have a ruck with anyone over things like this; we've all got better things to be doing I'm sure - I know I have. But we have mods for a reason, and we've got enough of them at the moment. Some are new and still 'learning the ropes' but give them a chance. I for one am very pleased with all the new mods, and they're all good choices. It's important to have a range of views with the mod team so that we have balanced opinions.

We're not here to drown out anyone's voice or walk roughshod over anyone's opinion, but when a mod makes a decision it really isn't up for debate. That's what they're mods for, to make decisions like that; questioning those decisions simply causes more aggro imo and winds everyone up - which seems a bit pointless.

Threads will get pulled from time to time and posts will get edited and deleted. You may not always agree with it but that's the way it is - sorry.

On that note, I have more pressing things to attend to.

 

[DaveJB]

Oooh,
well Matt - I suspect your fedupometer reading is similar to mine, in that you obviously believe that

However I'll happily go to the mods forum now and conduct a poll amongst the other mods; If a majority rules against, then I'm happy for it to be reinstated.

answers the issue - whilst I think it's a perfect illustration of what we're complaining (wrong word - 'concerned' would be better) about...

Tony most definitely gets himself wound up, he also then can't help injecting the odd throwaway remark into his posts that puts your back up...I've been reading his posts for years, he goes a wee bit OTT and then everyone concentrates on the questionable remarks and ignores the real issues he's raised. Oddly enough he often does have a good point or two in amongst the spluttering, feathers, and 'Outraged of Tonbridge Wells' bits.

If you can't see that deleting threads simply because a few mods don't like them (as opposed to deleting threads that contravene site rules) is a slippery slope then I respectfully suggest you stand back and think about that for a while.

There are lots of threads and sections, threads that do not draw general support slip very quickly down the pages and die a death. I personally think there is a place for threads where Soccy, Bully and that dafty whose nick I can't remember* swap insults... it's a bit of reality TV for the online trader community, allows one to go laugh at the loonies long after polite society gave up visiting Bedlam, and if you don't like seeing polarised arguments disappear up their own exhaust pipes you don't click to open the thread.

I don't give 2 hoots about the thread you deleted, it's the fact that you've decided to become arbiters of good taste over and above site guidelines that has me worried.

Dave

(*Soccy's chief cheerleader back at 'writing naked puts is a darn good idea' time)

 

[Profitaker]

There are lots of threads and sections, threads that do not draw general support slip very quickly down the pages and die a death. I personally think there is a place for threads where Soccy, Bully and that dafty whose nick I can't remember* swap insults... it's a bit of reality TV for the online trader community, allows one to go laugh at the loonies long after polite society gave up visiting Bedlam, and if you don't like seeing polarised arguments disappear up their own exhaust pipes you don't click to open the thread.

(*Soccy's chief cheerleader back at 'writing naked puts is a darn good idea' time)

I had to laugh Dave, but it's incompatible with the stated aim of T2W in providing:-

a professional trading resource that promotes mature, intelligent & respectful discussion in a positive & safe environment for everyone

 

[DaveJB]

Well, (with tongue similarly lodged in cheek) - if that's the criteria you're gonna use when axing threads, you probably don't need quite as much server space as you thought...

I honestly think it's up to members to choose not to read threads full of cobblers, whilst Mods remove material that contravenes site rules...removing material you simply don't like is decidedly undemocratic, and implies the membership aren't capable of forming their own opinions. In the case of the thread Tony screamed about the thread should have either been killed on day one, and the opener warned about trolling, or left to die a death following robust rebuttal by the jeering mob.

Frankly I usually enjoy the appearance of a new thread by some loony who is clearly several inches out of whack with the rest of the Universe, they provide colour in an otherwise drab world <g>
Oh (edit) and I hope this ends around now, as these arguments are usually cyclical by page 2....

 

[tafita]

deleting threads

FWIW, I'm inclined to agree with Dave and Tony on this one. If it is a pre-requisite of threads to be deleted as essentially being full on endless b*ll*cks, why was the Greek philosopher allowed to post such enthusiastic drivel? A thread about moderation has as much right to be here as a thread about trading. If moderators are feeling too precious for criticism, they perhaps ought not to be moderators in the same way that a sh*t shoveller should not complain about the smell of sh*t should they choose that job, voluntarily or not. Of course, it is accepted that there is an incredible amount of preverbial sh*t to be shovelling off of this site, and a splendid job is being done. It just appears to me that a heavy handed attitude is being adopted.

Thank you, I'll go back to sleep now.

 

[dbphoenix]

Lest the impression be left that the membership is single-minded in its view toward the allegedly-offending thread, I'll repeat here what I posted elsewhere on the subject: AFAIC, the new moderators are doing an excellent job, and the site's better than it ever has been, at least for those who are serious about discussing trading and trading-related subjects. Let those who enjoy turmoil take full advantage of ET. It's only a mouse-click away.

Db

 

[tafita]

Granted ET is ruled by the mob. One of many reasons why this site is superior. However, treating the membership like children by telling them what constitutes a serious thread or not leaves a nasty taste. When a thread is deleted there ought to be a compelling reason to do so. In this instance, that reason was simply not there. Those who care not just about trading but about this site have a right and should freely be allowed, to express their views in accordance with T2W guidelines.

 

[dbphoenix]

When a thread is deleted there ought to be a compelling reason to do so. In this instance, that reason was simply not there.

Actually, it was. And has been explained at length. Several times. More than several. Those who are dissatisfied should ask for their money back.

Db

 

[tafita]

Quite simply, you are wrong. The justification to pull the said thread was not compelling enough in my view. However, we will agree to disagree. I for one believe that this site is of superior quality to the like of those whom you have mentioned. Rule by the mob is equally unacceptable as rule by dictatorship.

No hard feelings

 

[dick_dastardly]

hmmm, it's a bit of a dilemma for the mods isn't it ?

I mean, it's the very act of deleting / withholding a thread from the members which stimulates interest in it ( sound familiar ? ).

I only vaguely remember the thread in question but my guess is that it would have died a natural death by now had it remained.

Although I must admit, I don't think I got the chance to read the post(s) which provoked the threads deletion ( something which irritates me ).

dd

 

[dbphoenix]

Quite simply, you are wrong. The justification to pull the said thread was not compelling enough in my view.

If you like. Though if it matters all that much to you, volunteer to become a moderator. Otherwise . . .

 

[tafita]

hmmm, it's a bit of a dilemma for the mods isn't it ?

I mean, it's the very act of deleting / withholding a thread from the members which stimulates interest in it ( sound familiar ? ).

I only vaguely remember the thread in question but my guess is that it would have died a natural death by now had it remained.

Although I must admit, I don't think I got the chance to read the post(s) which provoked the threads deletion ( something which irritates me ).

dd

This is something that the mods should consider before pulling a thread and has been mentioned before on this thread. It is interesting that in the forum where members are permitted to discuss feedback, any which is considered to be full of endless b*ll*cks is deleted. Perhaps the thread in question can be re-instated?

 

[TheBramble]

The mods are the ones who decide what stays and what goes; that's why they're mods.

I would suggest more properly, 'that's why they're mods - so they can decide what stays and what goes' and not the other way round as you suggest.

My apologies if my comment intimating there was a single senior individual in the moderator camp causing the recent slew of moderator resignations - my information was obviously incorrect.

Can we have our thread back now please?