Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Et Cetera, Et Cetera' started by D_Relentless Original, Mar 31, 2010.
Just a question? Why are the threads named above been closed?, serious question?
Did you read the last post in each thread?
Yes, something about bumping for no reason, is that why?
"It looks as though this thread has run its course - bumping the thread serves no purpose and devalues the genuine contributions made to date. On thast basis, we'll close this now."- Post 567
"It looks as though this thread has run its course - bumping the thread serves no purpose and devalues the genuine contributions made to date. On thast basis, we'll close this now."- Post 413
That's where my money is riding.
How about,apart from a handful of people, the whole thing just got really BORING!!
I doubt they invest that much emotion.
If they felt guilty they'd have let them back by now. It seems they made a decision and they are standing by it. End of.
Or perhaps it was time to put all that to rest. Both horses are not going to miraculously raise up and head out again....
Apologies for dumb Q, i thought that threads were locked and closed if it had got into an abusive slanging match or Verifications verified. Just me being nosy
What harm were they doing? and so what if it had "run it's course"? Why do you care?
Are we that tight for bandwidth? I doubt it.
Hi Vince, its not that i cared, i just wondered why mate.
Oh, sorry. I didn't mean you T. I meant the mod that closed them.
It has been the policy in the past (when members have been banned) to give the membership time to post their thoughts and feelings. Then close the thread. They have given us more than enough time to share our thoughts and feelings. More time than usual. So they did the right thing. It is time to move on.
Shrieek!!! A former mod breaks the <unwritten> oath and comments about past moderators business again! Woe! Woe!:17::cry:
Please be inconsistent, erhmm, I mean merciful and spare him from the horrible fate of banishment. :bowdown:
I agree. No offense to Mitch or Princip - but the threads had exhausted themselves.
However, my new 'JF and Flamey' Banned! threads, seem like a good idea, hehehe. :biggrin1:
They may be locked but can always be linked to.
No unwritten oath was broken here. To anyone who has been a member this is common knowledge. A member gets banned. A thread gets started about it. Members are given a chance to post their feelings about it. The thread either gets closed or dies on the vine. We were given our freedom of speech. They were more than fair about it. Case closed.
We've got issues here that are far bigger than Mitchymo or LPSG.
Right now we have on almost all internet sites - certainly including this one - the idea that there is an owner who decides what will and will not happen on the site. The owner may have help from other people - here mods and admins - but in the end the owner does what s/he jolly well pleases. There is no effective remedy for perceived wrongs. Basically if you don't like a site, bugger off.
Often this scenario is given a veneer of quasi-legality by terms and conditions which members tick on joining. Basically we have all agreed a string of terms and conditions which include the right of the site to ban anyone they want for any reason they want. So Mitchymo is exiled and we've all signed that we agree to this.
And of course there is a logic to this. The site has an owner who has invested money, time and energy and no doubt believes in their right to do whatever they like with the site - including pulling the plug on it. But this logic is beginning to be challenged:
* Sites which have government support, eg the BBC, are answerable to codes of conduct and ultimately to legal challenge.
* Sites which have gone for the WATP approach of wikis where the membership make all decisions - Wikipedia is the most obvious example.
* Sites which are businesses and which are subject to a lot of national law (eg Amazon).
The future is that sites like LPSG will beome accountable. Right now we are struggling with a mechanism. Legal challenge may technically be possible, but we all know it isn't practical. English law may feel that the treatment of Mitchymo has caused him distress and therefore seek redress against LPSG. But it is not going to happen. We could get members leaving in disgust - but I suspect the site would be quite pleased if such members left. We could get guerilla action by members. This could be members continually posting on the topic (which is probably what we have now).
Of course it could be resolved by Mitchymo rejoining under an alias. Indeed this might save everyone's blushes. Presumably the mods would know that Mitchymo2 is Mitchymo, but why make a fuss about it?
My guess is that the mods will close this thread. Shades of the USSR if they do. I would like to suggest to them a face saving way out, but I can't think of one. Their obvious solution was to let Mitchymo back - but they rejected this option. There has to be a caveat in that just possibly there is some story that none of us know, but if the events really were as we all think the mods were out of order, and in not resolving the issue they are demonstrating their own insecurity. Presumably they discussed the matter of closing the threads, and presumably they will discuss their response to this thread. They need a decision which has consensus behind it, not one they carry by a majority vote, or one which they carry unanimously but which significant numbers of their members feel is wrong. They need a solution which carries conviction.
Oh c'mon Jason, i am as you know an admirer of your posts, but i don't want this to turn into the debate of Mitchy going, been badly done too etc, that has been diced, disected, sewn up, chopped up and regrilled that many times that bits got no life in it whatsoever.
I got my answer form the people on this thread about my question. Lets leave it at that.