consider lessor beings..

… who may also not be able to spel…

Hmmm. I’m not aware I or anyone else has ‘bragged’ about moderating.

Bunnyhop should make special STW handbags for forum disputes!

Good idea Mrs Toast.
All decorated with pretty flowers and filled with a hearty breakfast (one needs sustenance before dawn).

Mark – Resident Grumpy
I disagree.

I think I should report this bloke for arguing – its not allowed, don’t you know 😉

STW’s version of an ASBO. Is there a symbol that goes next to your name like a premium subscriber’s badge?

VD with Scar 😉

Everyone in here is innocent, you know that

I think I should report this bloke for arguing – its not allowed, don’t you know

Didn’t your charge sheet say “arguing again” ? Mine did.

And to be fair Mark isn’t a habitual arguer. Just grumpy.

Just re-read this and;

Not a chance – to the appointing the worst offenders as moderators.

I couldn’t agree more. But that wasn’t the suggestion. There are folk on STW who do repeat offend but aren’t technically offensive, and they would be the type of people suitable for this type of intervention. By making them realise just how complex effective moderating is, you help to educate the masses.

I was thinking about this earlier,

I’d quite like a bit more transparency and consistency, so that when an infraction of the rules occurs it’s clear what’s happened and the offender has a chance to make their case before sentence is passed. I appreciate that the mods have better things to do than argue the toss, but it’d be nice to know whether replies (apologies / explanations) are ignored, acted on, or at least taken on board.

I appreciate that there’s a need for mods to remain anonymous as Mark has explained, but from a user’s perspective it’s difficult to know whether you’re dealing with the same person day to day.

How about, if each mod picked a pseudonym? Then, they could remain anonymous, but I’d get emails from “Colin” rather than a faceless machine?

ernie_lynch – Member
I think I should report this bloke for arguing – its not allowed, don’t you know
Didn’t your charge sheet say “arguing again” ? Mine did.

Cheeky 😉 no just a one word charge sheet – “arguing” – and considering TJ and I were banned for the same thread at the same time, you should have counted yourself lucky then (as you were just as argumentative as either of us on that thread) and now (the GG thread and your attacks on my pseudo lefty friend) 😉

I was only joking about Mark in the context of my ban!

Cougar – Member
I’d get emails from “Colin” rather than a faceless machine?

If you really are that unhappy about it, I’ll happily send you some emails….

… I didn’t realise I had so many fans.

Sorry, I picked that name at random, if it’s actually your name then that’s wholly coincidental. You can be Brian instead.

(But, you can’t all be)

Cougar +1 on this:

Cougar – Member
I was thinking about this earlier,

I’d quite like a bit more transparency and consistency, so that when an infraction of the rules occurs it’s clear what’s happened and the offender has a chance to make their case before sentence is passed.

I accept that I was arguing my corner on the one thread but no more than on others (in fact a lot less given who I was arguing with 😉 ) and much less than subsequent threads that went unpunished. It does seem a bit random and hence looks like people tread on egg shells for a few days and then revert. There doesn’t seem much point in that IMO?

‘eck, this thread is now three pages without any real “biff”, maybe these bans do work after all!!

Let Fred back in.

Let Fred back in.

😯

Let Fred back in.

Who’s to say he’s not?

but it’d be nice to know whether replies (apologies / explanations) are ignored, acted on, or at least taken on board.

always replied to me [ wel ldrac has but I have never done more than one e-mail and never really tired to have achat /argument over it – not worth it imho

I’d quite like a bit more transparency and consistency, so that when an infraction of the rules occurs it’s clear what’s happened and the offender has a chance to make their case before sentence is passed.

Yes true genuis ;ets let peole banned for arguing havea n argument about their ban

TBH i would support it as a forumite but not if I was Mark or a moderator. Not like the argumentative ones will get all humble now is it.

Wunundred!
😉