RogerThailand - Posted - 03/03/2011:  01:11:58

I do not regularly contribute (split infinitive) to the forums but when I do I tend to be finicky about spelling, grammar, punctuation and typos. If the restriction on editing results in increased civility then I am in favour. (That's not a spelling error - I'm English.) But fifteen minutes is not long enough for me. We tend to read what we think we have written and a little time is needed to proof read accurately with fresh eyes. I'd be happier with thirty or forty-five minutes.

The BHO forums are very civilised (English spelling again - I tell my computer I'm not American but the spell-check doesn't listen) places compared to most public forums and rarely I see moderator intervention. Rather than a long trawl looking for examples can someone enlighten me on policy when a post is removed by a moderator? Does the poster's name remain in the discussion thread with a moderator removal notice next to it with the reason for removal?

Don Borchelt - Posted - 03/05/2011:  08:05:05

RogerThailand asked "Does the poster's name remain in the discussion thread with a moderator removal notice next to it with the reason for removal?"

Not automatically, although some mods will occasionally choose to make a post describing actions they have taken and why. I might be imagining it, but it seems to me that we have seen a big uptick in the last year or so in the number of off-topic threads that are either blatantly political, or very coyly test the edges of what could be considered political. The latter threads usually morph eventually into a very political discussion, or attract a lot of political sniping, which I think is the intent of the OP all along. In the distant past I have had fierce arguments with mods over what constitutes a political discussion (I still contend that a discussion of Andrew Jackson and the presidential election of 1824, which came up in a thread about the 8th of January, was not political). But if anything, I think the mods may be erring too much on the side of open debate; there is a lot of thinly disguised political propagandizing that erupts in these Off-Topic threads. When, for example, a member posts the current size of the national debt, what do you think is going to happen? Who are we trying to kid? I'm one of those members who are beginning to think perhaps the Off-Topic section should just be removed altogether. Which would be too bad, because the corn-bread recipe I got off there recently turned out really great!

Edited by - Don Borchelt on 03/05/2011 08:07:50

minstrelmike - Posted - 03/05/2011:  08:41:19

I agree with Don about the political posts running around the edges of discussions all the time.

However, I think the problem is twofold:
1. the definition of political does not exist. imo, Andrew Jackson is political as is anything that has to do with the workings of society.
2. The mods are trying to regulate behavior via topic restriction which is never going to work. If folks can lose their tempers over Earl's tuning or the sound of a specific tone ring, then we ought to close those topics too but we don't.

If we wish to moderate behavior, then the mods need tools for that. Right now all they've got is a mandate to try to moderate behavior thru topic choice. Puts them in an untenable position.

Edited by - minstrelmike on 03/05/2011 08:42:01

RogerThailand - Posted - 03/05/2011:  19:43:54

Thanks Don for answering my question. I'm in two minds whether leaving the poster's name with moderator notice beside it is a good thing or not. A quiet private word in someone's ear is often more effective than a public rebuke. The latter is sometimes necessary for the hard of hearing. This is the ex - teacher in me talking.

I asked the same question in NickC's Censorship thread, so maybe I going off topic in both threads and a new discussion thread needed on more general lines regarding rules and etiquette.

Tom Hanway - Posted - 03/05/2011:  19:53:51

Man, let's not be so precious and concerned about rights. Love it or leave it.