[quote=“ironlady”]The “ground rules”, as you put it, are pretty simple. Post ONCE, to the most appropriate forum. The most frequent cause of threads being moved or deleted is cross-posting, which is generally not welcome.
Reading the “terms and conditions” on the page where you signed up to use Segue might offer some enlightening facts, too! :shock:[/quote]
So why were you bitching so much about Tealit?
I agree with Mr. Cough that it is inappropriate for moderators to be ‘involved’ in the discussion to the point where they are making comments about ‘Glossicock’. This seems very straightforward to me.
Of course, the people that run Segue are welcome to do things any way they like. That is their right. But if they let their own egos become too large, they risk letting Segue degenerate into another Tealit.
Again, I think the Glossicock comment was totally inappropriate.
many of the moderators were the first people to use this site. Why should we stop posting opinions just because we become moderators ? There seem to be as many opinions as to what a moderator is as there are members.
Opinions are like assholes. Everyone’s got one. 
I have no problem with moderators expressing themselves on any issue, moderately or im-. I am more worried about their attitudes toward others’ freedom of speech, which strikes me as ill-defined and liable to vary wildly according to circumstance.
May I swear? May I half-swear, with garbled yet recognizable oaths? May I attach a pornographic avatar?
May make political, anthropological, religious, linguistic, or vexillological comments which others consider beyond the pale of civilized discourse? (“What to look for in a whore”?)
May I make remarks directed at institutions or individuals which could be construed as libel/slander? (Which is it on the internet, anyway?)
I see the multiple-posting problem as a design flaw. Stacked message boards don’t have that problem, postings are expected to gradually scroll off the page. You’re trying to keep what naturally wants to be short-term threads, as long-term discussions. Some of them probably should be (legal stuff, for instance), but others clearly not, and these get all mixed together. (Offhand I remember a post by Hartzell advertising some long-expired event, but which still gets comments at the end of it.) The “ranking” system for determining list order doesn’t work very well, I’m afraid. For one thing, it can’t distinguish between substantive and non-substantive additions.
I like the design of the forums here. Don’t change that. You can see the flow of discussion that way.
It depends.
No.
Assuming the moderators are in agreement with the “others”, no. And vexillological comments are particularly discouraged, mostly because I don’t know what that means. If they’re beyond the pale of civilized discourse, however, I’m pretty sure all of us mods will be up in arms about them.
Probably not. Depends. Just because someone construes something as slander and/or libel, doesn’t mean that it is. Why? You got a beef with an English newspaper or a translating company? 
I don’t see why you wouldn’t be able to discuss flags.
Perhaps threads should be automatically locked after a certain amount of time has elapsed since the last post, say 6 months ?
Lama Ding Dong wrote: “May we make . . . comments which others consider beyond the pale of civilized discourse? (“What to look for in a whore”?)”
Answer: segue.com.tw/viewtopic.php?t … ht=hsinchu
Lama Ding Dong wrote: “libel/slander? (Which is it on the internet, anyway?)”
Answer: Slander is spoken; libel is written; defamation is either.
Hey Alley, I notice your name is green now. Another resume filler , good work. If we do the cricket thing, you better slip me one of those segue business cards. They DO exist don’t they?
My 2 cents: Moderators should surely be allowed to express their opinion and actively participate in the discusssions but they should not edit or delete a post/thread or ban a member because they disagree with his/her opinion.
Any such action must be in accordance with the rules set and should not be influenced by the moderators mood or personal view.
That said I must critizize one or two mods for being arrogant (at least I perceive it that way) and occassionally breaking the rules they are supposed to enfore themselves, especially if someone voices out some criticsm - justified or not.
A good mod would argue back in a friendly manner or just ignore the post.
Making snide remarks or responding with an insult won’t help the situation and surely are not an appropiate response by a moderator.
Moderators and the administrator can set or change the rules, but it should not become an elitist circle as else there is no point in having a public forum.
Just to add that I have no issue if the rules are enforced strictly but they must apply to everyone.
Who doesn’t subscribe to the published rules should stay away, else it’s one warning, 2nd warning and then you are out … 
Occam’s razor: “Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily.”
Good idea but I am afraid it won’t work as some people will feel insulted by the slightest comment and start reporting unnecessary things. Several mods aren’t too bad but perhaps the selection criterias should be reviewed.
Someone who uses insults or let’s his own opinion bias his decisions is IMHO unfit as moderator.
But really, how many would do that? And anyway, it only takes a few seconds to see if a gripe is valid or not.
I think the real thing here is that the moderators feel that they are an exclusive club and dissolving that club would not be popular.
As I have said elsewhere, what is really needed is a method by which a moderator can be yellow carded or red carded. Currently, it is an iron rice bowl – job for life.
Reminds me of that outstanding comic book series “The Watchmen.”
“Who watches the Watchmen?”
May happen, as well several mods means there might be someone present and take action before other user even note the offending post. Like the idea of the yellow and red card though …
Rascal, you can’t be referring to my editing of the link/image in Lucy’s post! Are you???
Nope, wasn’t referring to that …
speaking of warnings…the person formally-known-as-vincent now has 6 warnings. how many does one get?
I think it’s 10,so our village idiot is not banished yet- but he’s doing his worst, so he’ll succeed in time.