Let's stay on topic...

[Mr Epee]

Originally Posted by Craig

All of this has been "suddenly brought to light" because Gav made a sticky post, not because something suddenly changed.

Actually, this has all been "suddenly brought to light" because Gav tried to quash discussion after he committed an act of ad hominem deletion*. Many many many threads on this forum drift and the extent of the drift is usually proportional to how many times the topic has already been discussed.

I would also like to point out that the thread which he pruned had already served it's purpose by answering the question put to the board.



* Removal of forum content by a sysop because of who was posting, and not what was being discussed

[Goofy]

Originally Posted by Mr Epee

Actually, this has all been "suddenly brought to light" because Gav tried to quash discussion after he committed an act of ad hominem deletion*.

I would also like to point out that the thread which he pruned had already served it's purpose by answering the question put to the board. That thread, like thousands of others, tend to drift when the subject is so incredibly simple (and has already been addressed many times).

* Removal of forum content by a sysop because of who was posting, and not what was being discussed

This is not accurate. The posts were not removed because of the individuals, but instead were removed due to being irrelevant to the discussion. And no discussion was quashed- the moderators welcomed comments in the appropriate area, and when that was ignored the sticky was opened for comment.

[Gav]

* Removal of forum content by a sysop because of who was posting, and not what was being discussed

I've kept out of this since I made my original post yet I find myself wondering what this comment is about.

What on earth made you think you that?

For the record the thread the precipitated this comment was the "My First NAC thread". It currently shows as having 13 posts. It DID have 28. 15were removed because of the sheer irrelevence (funny or not - 15 posts about faux bible quotes - were just not helpful to someone who was asking for some advice). No other posts were removed, by me, that day. Whoever posted the comments was irrelevent I even had to check today to see whose stuff I had pulled - Mr Epee is not even listed.

[Mr Epee]

Originally Posted by Goofy

This is not true. The posts were not removed because of the individuals, but instead were removed due to being irrelevant to the discussion.

There were hundreds of off-topic posts that day that weren't deleted. There were also several threads that were equally (if not more) off topic.

So ask yourself... why that one?

[Goofy]

Originally Posted by Mr Epee

There were hundreds of off-topic posts that day that weren't deleted. There were also several threads that were equally (if not more) off topic.

So ask yourself... why that one?

Because cleanup of that particular thread was requested by a forum member. The moderators do not have the time to read through every thread and review every post, so they depend on the Forum community to keep things on track and appropriate. Sometimes this requires thread cleanup on their part.

And not all requests for cleanup are acted on. The moderators may not have the time for review, or when they do they may not feel that the request was justified.

[Mr Epee]

Originally Posted by Goofy

Because cleanup of that particular thread was requested by a forum member.

The only way to know... is if you were the one who requested deletion.

Originally Posted by goofy

And not all requests for cleanup are acted on.

Absolutely correct.

So I ask again... why that thread, and not others.

If you did report that thread, then what is it about thread drift that you find so offensive?

[rory]

Originally Posted by Mr Epee

So ask yourself... why that one?

I prefer to ask myself "who cares?".
How much time has been spent on this discussion now?

The decision on whether posts should remain in the section of the forum they're originally posted in rests solely with the moderators of the forum: Craig, Gav and others.

If you don't like it - well that's tough isn't it. You only have 3 possible courses of action:
1) get on with your life
2) b*tch, moan and demean yourself in front of the people you profess to be speaking for
3) leave

I'd prefer it if you chose option 1) because the majority of your posts are useful and insightful. If you choose option (2) then personally I'm considering putting you on my ignore list until you grow up. Option (3) would be a shame.

It's Craig's forum - he decides what goes. Gav is his representative and proxy: thus he also decides what goes. The only decision you get to make is what content to post.

[Mr Epee]

Originally Posted by rory

I prefer to ask myself "who cares?".

I care... and as an American I've been learned that questioning the structure and power of a community makes it a better place. To avoid these subjects is to be derelict in my duties as a member of the community.

[keith]

Originally Posted by Mr Epee

I care... and as an American I've been learned that questioning the structure and power of a community makes it a better place.

... and also that *****ing and moaning tends to get you the attention you crave?

[Mr Epee]

Originally Posted by keith

... and also that *****ing and moaning tends to get you the attention you crave?

You're just lucky that there's no oil under any of these threads.

[keith]

Originally Posted by Mr Epee

You're just lucky that there's no oil under any of these threads.

well if Craig managed it properly this forum could probably produce enough methane for the eastern seaboard.

[purpzeyFCLI]

It is still my estimation there is some compromise to be had here.

It's a fairly simple one. Just try to stay on topic and the likelihood is your post isn't going anywhere. Just don't start talking about Bill Cosby, or the Tea in China in a thread about how to properly do a ballestra.

If you feel the need to make a joke, do it, and let it be over with.

I don't think Gav or Craig are looking to enforce cencorship or even limit fair discussion they are just trying to keep it within a certain boundary.

That being said, they are two people to the rest of the forum which at times might be as many as 75-100 people at least. They can't get to every thread, even if they were of a mind to.

So everyone relax.

In the words of Marcellus Wallace: "You ain't got no problem Jules. I'm on the mofo. Go back in there, chill them...out and wait for the Wolf who should be coming directly."

[Sciurus-Rex]

Originally Posted by purpzeyFCLI

It is still my estimation there is some compromise to be had here.

No compromise is necessary. Really, it's entirely a matter of certain people coming to terms with the fact that someone else holds ALL THE POWER, that they're not nearly as important as they think they are, and that no matter how justified and righteous they feel in throwing a fit, they're still playing in someone else's sandbox.

Most of us are OK with that.

[purpzeyFCLI]

Originally Posted by Sciurus-Rex

No compromise is necessary. Really, it's entirely a matter of certain people coming to terms with the fact that someone else holds ALL THE POWER, that they're not nearly as important as they think they are, and that no matter how justified and righteous they feel in throwing a fit, they're still playing in someone else's sandbox.

Most of us are OK with that.

Yes, I understand that, but I don't get the impression that that is the way Craig really wants the board to run. Maybe I don't get the proper impression from his posts, but, to me it seems he would like everyone to be happy, not just to be THE RULER OF ALL THINGS AND FORGET YOU IF YOU DISAGREE.

In the end yes, he is the last one to speak and act, always, but I feel the compromise is, respect his position a little more and he doesn't have to be as much of tyrant (not that he is at this point anyway...it's just the only word I can think of).

[Mr Epee]

Originally Posted by Sciurus-Rex

Most of us are OK with that.

Yes, squirrels are notoriously staunch defenders of autocracy.

But wait... as their KING, you already know that, right?

[KShan5[PrFC]]

It's Craig's website. However much you feel or think that it's your website, or our website, and however much of a community there is, in the end it's no one else's but Craig's. Therefore, it's up to him what stays and what goes, and it is kind of him to take into account our ideas, but he does not have to. You all need to stop trying to convince yourself that you should have a say in what is on the forum. It's his call, and he is listening, but that's about it.

[keropie]

'Peope shouldn't be afraid of the goverments, governments should be afraid of their people' - V for Vendetta (and quite likely elsewhere)

I know Craig (a little bit, not that well), and he's far from dumb. Fencing.net is a crazy successful site, and that is in no small part due to the community, and the presence of the community is due in no small part to how Craig runs the site. He (and Gav) have a very difficult job in maintaining enough freedom to attract people, and yet maintain enough order that some small number of posters don't drive others away.

Now, some of the posters who say crazy things (poulet, Inq, me ( )) also say things that have merit (well, ok, maybe I'm not REALLY in that list, but I'll pretend to be), and are valuable posters, even if we don't always agree with them. But most of us on the board have at some time posted something that wasn't amusing enough to outweigh the fact that it had little academic worth and distracted from the topic. Honestly, it doesn't bother me.

Occasionally, however, someone (either one of the generally 'meaningful' posters or a pure troll) posts things that are harmful to some groups of people. I may well have even been in that category, as at least in my personal life I say all sorts of horrible things about groups of people (which I don't mean, but I say them anyhow). I feel like in person, people know I'm kidding, but online, no one knows you, and they can't tell you're kidding. Some posts have offended me not directly, but because I worry that other people may be significantly offended by the post.

Craig and Gav have to deal with this site wide. They both have (or at least have chosed to deal with) the responsibility to make this forum a 'safe' place for posters and lurkers. I do not envy them the job, particularly Gav since I imagine he gets nothing out of it except personal satisfaction (and Craig at least gets some advertising for the f.net store, though that's more recent).

In closing, I'll say that overall I have remarkably few issues with the forum as it is and has been since I joined. I am rarely personally offended, and rarely really worried about other people being offended. I think Gav's original post might have been a bit heavy handed, and I am a bit disturbed by the deletion of posts questioning it. But I can easily see it coming from frustration, especially if there have been comments from users/lurkers about posts that have offended them. Like I said, it's gotta be a stressful job. But if the forum becomes a heavily regulated forum, where thread drift is a no no and off topic posts get deleted regularly and are grounds for banning, that it won't be the same. And I won't be around as much. Hence, my overall vote is that things stay more or less as they are.

[purpzeyFCLI]

Originally Posted by keropie

But if the forum becomes a heavily regulated forum, where thread drift is a no no and off topic posts get deleted regularly and are grounds for banning, that it won't be the same. And I won't be around as much. Hence, my overall vote is that things stay more or less as they are.

I don't get the feeling that, that is the intention. I think you are on point in saying that Gav's original post was probably a little strong. Perhaps his intentions were to accomplish something without having to read every thread (which might be impossible anyway).

I think (and I speak from my take on the elapsed discussion) that the idea is and was, let's try to keep all that to a minimum. Yes, this might result in a post being deleted here and there. By the same token, I don't see anyone being banned for that reason.

If we want to compare it to government as two people now have -- consider it a benevolent dictatorship. As far as I can tell Craig wants things to be fun, yet productive and education. As his right hand man Gav only wants the same. In enforcing this perhaps Gav overstated his case. But, if you threaten people with life in prison for Drunk Driving, yeah you'll still get a few idiots, but, it will deter more people.

If we all respect our "benevolent dictator" and his "cabinet" then we'll do our best not to do what they asked us not to do, and if we don't, they are not going to "chop off our hands" b/c they are "benevolent dictators." In theory, we are supposed to like them and therefore when they make a "decree" we should try to adhere, and in turn for our respect, I genuinely believe we will be given some in return from them.