Question Michael

Michael,

Would you be kind enough to explain all the closed threads?

I could see the reason for the first - although I would question the thread starters motives

But to close a thread for criticising your moderation seems on the face of it to be a little heavy handed if you don't mind me saying so.

 

See my reply to Mick's post.

I'll leave this thread open for the time being but if it starts to be used by anyone to start a discussion about the moderation of the forum then I will close it too for the same reasons.

Michael.

 

OK

 

Michael

I am going to stay off moderation but for future cases I think there needs to be a rule that a member should not accuse another member of committing an illegal act. That was precisely what happened.

When you have a forum with hundreds of members, you are bound to get this sort of thing and a few ground rules can only help things to run smoothly.

Regards

Mick

 

Your comments are noted Mick. I believe the current AUP already covers that. However, I disagree with your reading of what happened.

Michael.

 

I didn't see the thread in question as far as I know, so don't have anything to say about that, but regarding the 'few ground rules' that Mick mentions - isn't that what the AUP is for?

 

Looks like you read my mind, Michael - sorry about the cross-post.

Goomer.

 

Hi Michael.

At the other thread you said: Forum meta-discussions about moderation invariably end up becoming antagonistic and unconstructive.

You are meta-discussing meta-discussions. I guess that is all right, then. We can go on and meta-discuss meta-discussions on meta-discussions of forum discussions. That ought to be cool.

 

:lol: :rds2:

Michael.