Feedback regarding Forumosa's Moderators 2002

Don’t want to be a stick in the mud here Angst, but that’s not terribly helpful. If a cop ever arrests me for breaking the law, I’ll just tell him i use the law as a guidline only, but abide by the spirit of it. Maybe the judge will understand at my trial.
All this prim and properness is getting a bit much for me. Can’t wait for a moderator to tell me to wear a shirt and tie and have a shave before I can post on the forums. :unamused:

And have a wash under yer armits while yer about it, laddie… :wink:
Anyway, Angst is a mellow, laid-back pussycat compared to that Jeff bloke on Living in Taiwan. Can you say “anal?” Some people like to moderate, others prefer to strangulate. I wish some of them would find a happy medium.

Nah, you missed it dude … more to the point at hand is whether Oriented members are allowed to tell the truth about other Oriented members. Under the moderators’ current guidelines, it’s pretty obvious that that this is not allowed.

so go figure …

Monkey, stop whining, for chrissakes! Yer pissed because a couple of your dumb flames got yanked, as they deserved to be. Grow up and get a life already!

You’ve got your roles reversed, monkey. Angst is the benevolent cop who lets you off with a warning for going 70 in a 65 mph zone, or the judge who gives you probation for your first offense. Not that I’m saying he/she’s putty in your hands, but he/she is fairly lenient. Kind of like Andy Griffith. JeffG, on the other hand, reminds me more of Barney Fife. :wink: Not that there’s anything wrong with that. :slight_smile:

Hear that, Angst? Andy Griffith! ROTFL! :stuck_out_tongue: :stuck_out_tongue: :stuck_out_tongue:

Andy Griffith? Judge Pickles is the image conjured up in my mind. :upyours:


“Might I instruct the jury in this case that with his provocative low-cut blouse and tight leather miniskirt clinging to the lucious curves of his full, creamy,… ahem… I digress … anyway, I put it to the jury that Angst was basically ASKING to be anally raped by the entire population of the Oriented website.” :smiley: :smiley: :smiley: :smiley: :smiley: :smiley:

It’s all coming together now. I always wondered where the members of the Village People went to. Angst, tell me it’s not true!

I didn’t post in my own thread (from an idea posted by V) because – and this may shock you, but don’t let it – I actually had other things to do that prevented me from hanging around a computer that week. I never dreamed that I would only have 7 days to get in my thoughts.

So a thread under your watch must be defined as containing “cerebral discourse”? That’s interesting to know.

Would a thread, “Define a good rave party” be banned because of its implied encouragement to ingest illegal drugs and its discussions involving less-than-cerebral matters?

Obtuse I may be, but square I am not! :smiley:

Just want to say the moderators are doing a great job. Keep up the good work.


I guess they are doing OK most of the time, but far from always. When a moderator goes in to my post, edits it for content and adds emphasis (bold text) I get really peed off.

Not making the slightest hint that changes have been made or that the changes and emphasis reflect the opinion of the moderator and not the opinion of the poster is really cheap.

A moderator is welcome to have comments on my posts, but they should be added under the moderator’s own name. No?

Maybe the moderators should flag threads and posts that are about to be edited. This would serve two purposes:

  1. It’ll give give people a chance to edit themselves.

  2. It’ll give the rest of us the chance to read the juicy stuff before it’s gone. :smiley:

JGeer, I banned your username because your posts require too much moderation. Your writing lately has been peppered with enough invective that some Segue moderators have indicated they will delete any post you make in their forums. Banning you outright saves them the trouble.

You could easily re-register and then continue your tirades. If there was something I could do to stop your taking this path, I’d probably do it. For now, if we believe you have a new username and are posting abusively with it, then we’ll ban that username outright. Fortunately for us, with enough moderators logging in at all times of the day ready to hit their red buttons should they have a whiff of you, we should keep you pretty busy re-filling out web registrations.

So, what earns one the distinction of being banned from Segue? It isn’t a science. Segue is managed by a widely diverse group of people, who apply their own judgement in how to deal with problematic posts. What about the forum rules that you see at registration? Breaking these will certainly give you a warning, but these are only guidelines for our moderators.

So with a moving target for a standard, what rule does apply? For me, it’s a “matter of time.” The moderators of Segue are volunteering their time – we should be protective of that. If a member gets out of line and defies warnings and challenges from the moderators, the person gets the boot.

When trouble does starts to brew, one of the moderators in the team@segue inevitably writes about it in our private forum. This way, opposing views are invited. After some time passes – usually enough time for the offending member in question to make peace with the forum – we look for a consensus within the team.

With the prospect of JGeer potentially re-registering, moderators will probably look more toward hitting the red buttons than before. This will be interesting

Another hole to be dug at Boot Hill Cemetary. RIP gunslinger JGeer. What a way to go … shot in the back by the sherriff on the advice of his deputies!

Can’t say I knowed the feller but I’da liked ta seed what sort of ca-ca he done stepped in.
Was the death sentence fer bein’ a dirty-mouthed son of a gun? Dang me!
I better a be watchin’ my own back…

His last posts resembled the ones of Mai Longdong. Wise decision.

Hi Folks,

I've received a direct complaint about the topic of this thread. I agree that such a thread can be taken to be a flame, and that each vote in a poll about a specific member can be taken as a flame against that person.

At the same time, having a poll about how WE -- the team@segue -- are doing is valuable. I, personally, like to think the team@segue represents the mainstream of the visitors at the site. I could be wrong -- perhaps we only represent the most vocal sub-set.

*monkey*, I apologize for lobotomizing your original thread. I've renamed it to something more general and will monitor it so that it moves in a a different, but equally constructive way -- without references to specific people. I believe this policy will agree with the spirit in which you orginally created it. I hope you will understand

I find it a bit disconcerting that a member should be told to go sling his hook after 539 posts. I assume the decision to ban him was weighed up carefully against the positive contributions he has made. I’m way too lazy to go see what he’s posted in the past, but the fact that he’s reached 539 without being banned must be some indication that he hasn’t always been a bad egg. Maybe he just flipped out recently.

Rather than having moderators hold secret meetings to decide the fate of Segue members, shouldn’t the decision to ban a member rest in the hands of his peers? Wouldn’t it be more sensible for moderators to temporarily suspend a member pending a general vote by rank and file Segue members as to whether we think his posts warrant punitive action?

This post isn’t appended to the official thread explaining the recent banning of a member, because I couldn’t add a poll to an existing thread. If someone has administrative priviliges to do this, please go ahead. [Will do. – g.]

Yea, I’m with you on this one; give people, a kinda cooling off period.

Everyone’s got their bad days and really bad days. His posts were sometimes weird, but not as bad as some of my mucho weird posts. :shock: :slight_smile:

You CAN plead temporary insanity and get away with murder, you know. A week in solitary confinement sounds about right.

Could someone give me a Reader’s Digest version of the posting crimes JGeer is alleged to have committed?

Presumably it was a flame campaign directed at certain people?

Could there not be a “three strikes” policy, or something similar? You would then know if you were in the danger zone and could tone down posts accordingly.