145 replies to this topic Post Order

[scotty]

Topwine, on 21 December 2010 - 12:16 , said:

or just plainly, an ass ?

Correct

[SwissVan]

Tumbleweed, on 21 December 2010 - 11:47 , said:

Personally, words like "kak" and "poephol" seem kinda inoffensive and are usually used in a light and jocular context. What I don't like seeing on here are both Afrikaans and English versions of the "p" word, the "f", "c" and "s" words.

+1
100% correct IMO.

[Tumbleweed]

Big H, on 21 December 2010 - 12:21 , said:

Sooooo selective moderation will be applied in the future??????

Er, aren't we still discussing the issue?

[Steven69]

This moderation thing might take a while to sort out.

[rouxtjie]

I have also been a member on another forum(ncr) where the mods made decisions regarding issues and what they said was final. Worked very well and to be totally honest, I am quite sure it will work here too. If you don't like the new sheriffs in town, you can hit the road.

[River Rat]

When the person that has a point of view that differs from mine but presents his /her argument in a logical manner without the name calling they have my respect.

But it is my contention that the name calling starts when the person doing the name calling has lost the argument and lacks the ability or humility to concede gracefully.

We can argue about semantics or whether a certain word is appropriate in context or not but for me when you resort to name calling you've lost the argument and my respect. It then becomes difficult to respect your point of view and any further debate is pointless.

Asking Admin to moderate is akin to asking them to protect people from themselves. Why bother I ask, as they will self destruct in any case when nobody values their opinion and hence don't bother to engage with those individuals who resort to name calling. They will be left talking to themselves in what can only be a form of intellectual masturbation.

Just my 5c.

[RodTi]

Context is everything, and imo, the only way to go - especially in light of Hubbers such as Oom Big H!

There needs to be a subjective element, to allow discretion to be applied, so as to provide for those instances where - when seen in context - the particular word / phrase / chirp, was ok. Maybe a bit naughty, but ok.

The minute you apply the "alles of niks" approach - where irrespective of the particular context/bakground etc, if a word used is on the no-no list and moderation is then automatically applied, you lose the fluidity of the forum, and imo go a long-way in taking away the particular spirit/character/personality of the forum...

In sohrt - trust that the moderators will get things wrong, but will do so whilst trying to get things right.

Things will be a bit tricky in the beginning, but over time, as the moderators become comfortable with the role, and build-up an inherent 'yardstick' about what is right, and what is not - things will return to 'normal'.

Most importantly, the actions of the mod's should impart the same 'yardstick' across to Hubbers, which will ulimately result in self-moderation...

My 2 cents!

[Topwine]

rouxtjie, on 21 December 2010 - 12:32 , said:

I have also been a member on another forum(ncr) where the mods made decisions regarding issues and what they said was final. Worked very well and to be totally honest, I am quite sure it will work here too. If you don't like the new sheriffs in town, you can hit the road.

I'll second that !

[RodTi]

River Rat, on 21 December 2010 - 12:33 , said:

Just my 5 2c.

Fixed it.

[eggsovereasywithteandtoast]

LeTurbo, on 21 December 2010 - 11:47 , said:

Da ... dash! Did I miss some excitement? Should I have had some popcorn set aside?

Dude, (if thats OK?)
May I answer your question?
jisss, twas ugly

Edited by eggsovereasywithteandtoast, 21 December 2010 - 12:39 .

[scotty]

rouxtjie, on 21 December 2010 - 12:32 , said:

I have also been a member on another forum(ncr) where the mods made decisions regarding issues and what they said was final. Worked very well and to be totally honest, I am quite sure it will work here too. If you don't like the new sheriffs in town, you can hit the road.

As long as those sheriffs are not biased.

[Steven69]

A hub with no swearing? Could be like the dream of a HIV free generation

[rouxtjie]

scotty, on 21 December 2010 - 12:38 , said:

As long as those sheriffs are not biased.

That's why we have more than one and if I look at the shortlist, it should be a good mix. For a start I think people will think a bit before posting knowing that they could get a hiding.