Discussion Moderators are afraid to reply

[Neil Stainton]

It might be entertaining to you, it is upsetting to me.

What about points 2 to 4?

Neil.

[Harry D]

Mr. M. Wood: Where's your Popcorn icon when it's so badly needed?

[jbourke]

Neil,

What is your point? That the moderators are unfair? I've been watching this and all I see is someone looking to create a big argument over nothing.

You put your website in your custom user title and had to remove it. Get over it.

Jim

[nauga]

Was this thread broken out from the "benefits of the upgrade" thread?

If not, who changed the original title?

Nauga,
an enquiring mind

[Jim T. Graham]

1. It was addressing a group of people, so *Personal Attack" seems inappropriate.
You are correct it should have been "group attack".
2. It was given after you had responded, why did the mod think it was a problem when you didn't mention it?
I saw the post after Jim posted and noted you had broken a rule and awarded you the point.
3. By awarding the warning, and not entering a comment to explain why, the mod was both exemplifying moderators' poor judgement and illustrating my point.
Your rule infraction was so blatent it did not warrant and explanation.
4. Most surprisingly the title of the thread was changed (before I changed it) possibly to make it more objectionable or personal, presumably by the mod himself. See the Google Desktop screendump, showing that "to reply to Neil" was added to the thread title.
Your post title was not altererd by a moderator.

Overall these unjust, arbitrary and unexplained sanctions are having the reverse than intended effect on my up-to-now unblemished conduct within RCGroups.
None of the points awarded to you were unjust or unwarranted.

Neil.

[jbourke]

I'm the one who made the title, when I split the threads.

It's irrelevant at this point since the warning is no longer in Neil's account.

Jim

[Neil Stainton]

Originally Posted by jbourke

I'm the one who made the title, when I split the threads.

It's irrelevant at this point since the warning is no longer in Neil's account.

Jim

It is hardly irrelevant. I only received the warning because of the thread's title. When you created this thread you, Jim took my comment out of context, promoted it to the title, and made it more personal - so you are the one responsible, and should have been awarded the point.

It is also relevant because it exactly exemplifies the heavy handed and often unfair immodertation handed out.

Which is my point, thanks for making it.

Neil.

[init4fun]

Originally Posted by Neil Stainton

It is hardly irrelevant. I only received the warning because of the thread's title. When you created this thread you, Jim took my comment out of context, promoted it to the title, and made it more personal - so you are the one responsible, and should have been awarded the point.

It is also relevant because it exactly exemplifies the heavy handed and often unfair immodertation handed out.

Which is my point, thanks for making it.

Neil.

So not only did you not end up with some free advertising , youve also proven your just looking for an arguement by suggesting the OWNER of this PRIVATLY OWNED AND MODERATED site should give himself points . Remind me to do business with you sometime in the near future NOT

[nauga]

Originally Posted by init4fun

...youve also proven your just looking for an arguement...

So what's *your* goal in this thread then?

Nauga,
rhetorically

[init4fun]

Originally Posted by nauga

So what's *your* goal in this thread then?

Nauga,
rhetorically

If I say Trollin would YOU report me ?

[Elmog]

...

[jbourke]

Originally Posted by Neil Stainton

It is hardly irrelevant. I only received the warning because of the thread's title.

Actually, you received the point for calling the moderators "cowards". Those were your own words.

Jim

[Magrat]

Originally Posted by nauga

Same for the one who decided "An Advertisement is any media which persuades the viewer to take an action". "Don't forget to breathe" is not an 'Advertisement' but will hopefully persuade you to 'take an action' should you need a reminder.

Strange definition.

"Don't forget to breathe" may not be an advertisement according to the definition.
The definition requires someone viewing the suggestion to take the suggested action before it is classified as an advertisement. They have incorrectly censored many "advertisements" without any proof that any viewer has actually been persuaded.

Exhorting you to "Buy all your RC requirements from Joe's RC" is not an advertisement under the definition unless someone is ultimately persuaded to buy from Joe's.

A more inclusive definition would read "An Advertisement is any media which attempts to persuade the viewer to take an action"
BTW an advertisement can use a media but it can't be a media.
Who wrote these definitions?

[slipstick]

Originally Posted by Magrat

BTW an advertisement can use a media but it can't be a media.
Who wrote these definitions?

I guess it must be someone ignorant enough not to realise that media is not a singular noun, it's the plural of medium.

Doesn't narrow it down much though, does it ?

Steve

[Magrat]

Originally Posted by slipstick

I guess it must be someone ignorant enough not to realise that media is not a singular noun, it's the plural of medium.

Doesn't narrow it down much though, does it ?

Steve

My wife got all uptight about the use of the plural when I read it out to her(also about "any media" being able to persuade; since it is the agency through which the message is carried, not the message itself) but I didn't think it worth mentioning as media is so commonly (ab)used as both plural and singular, particularly in communication and advertising. It seems to be used as a collective noun.

Bit like data; a single data point or multiple data points.