Forums | MacLife

So shut up.

I'll await word on your posts above, if none, then I assume we can use such; i.e., "so shut up" liberally in reponse to all posts, without penalty in due regard to Rule #4.

I invoke rule 10!

So basically, Neut is the standard against which all mods are mentioned?

Why is it suddenly a problem?

I never said it was "suddenly" a problem, merely that it is!

In the first half of your sentence you said you understood.  Which is it?  Do you or don't you?

I fully understand 'why' Rule #10 was created, but that doesn't, by itself, justify the rule in itself, only the Mod action for its creation. As the new "mod" you have, if I understand the rules, complete authority to do away with rules which Neut might have lived with... Again, as clearly as I can state, Rule #10 seems to be a self-aggrandizement measure of the rule-maker(s) (read Mod here) rather than guidance for general posters.. Is that clear enough?

Camp David

Why is it suddenly a problem?

I never said it was "suddenly" a problem, merely that it is!

In the first half of your sentence you said you understood.  Which is it?  Do you or don't you?

I fully understand 'why' Rule #10 was created, but that doesn't, by itself, justify the rule in itself, only the Mod action for its creation. As the new "mod" you have, if I understand the rules, complete authority to do away with rules which Neut might have lived with... Again, as clearly as I can state, Rule #10 seems to be a self-aggrandizement measure of the rule-maker(s) (read Mod here) rather than guidance for general posters.. Is that clear enough?

Camp David

Ok.  I sort of thought you were giving me a hard time because you could, but I think I see better now where you're coming from.

It's as much a public service announcement as it is a rule: that rule is the de facto law of the land there whether or not it's explicitly stated.  In every forum, the moderators are going to edit, prune, delete, or leave intact every post as they see fit.  Usually it's leave intact. For me, stating it explicitly in the rules is a way of making sure that the people posting here know that that's how things work; no one should be surprised.

...maybe you could allow a bit more porn...

shut up!

Can you add to #10 the following?

"-Moderators will post why they closed the topic"

I heartily second this!

Can you add to #10 the following?

"-Moderators will post why they closed the topic"

It always bugs me when moderators don't at least explain why they've locked a topic or why they've made an edit.  Or at the very least don't claim responsibility for being the one who made a change.

So while I'm not going to put that rule change down - sometimes other mods will feel it necessary to make a change and they're not required to say what it is - I don't have a problem putting in something like it.  'Cause I do it anyway.

10) You don't have free speech here. - Topics may be closed, edited, or removed at any time, at the moderator

- Topics with no discernable suggestion for the course of debate.

This is a restatement of one of the components of the stupid "soapboxing" thing. It's still stupid.

I make the assumption that human beings are capable of finding angles to discuss. I make the assumption that they don't need hand-holding; they don't need someone to tell them what to discuss.

While it's usually a topic-creator's perogative to guide the discussion, initially, with the first post, it is not necessary for topic creators to force their will upon the rest of the forum's constituents. Sometimes, I find it more interesting to present material without interjecting initial opinion in order to discover what angle will be discussed first.

The reason for this is not to foment chaos. It is to avoid narrowmindedness. When a person posts a topic and tries to control the discussion with the initial post, that person is generally being didactic. That person is trying to impart their opinion. Usually, that's not a bad thing. But, sometimes there are subjects that have a variety of interesting angles, any of which are worth discussing. Sometimes the topic's creator wants to avoid immediately narrowing the discussion. Sometimes the topic's creator doesn't have a strong or interesting opinion at the beginning, but will weigh in as the discussion progresses.

I don't see why a person who creates a topic has the responsibility to not only find interesting material worthy of discussion but to also add opinion in the first post. I think posters should be free to add opinion when/where they see fit.

Obviously, we don't want a lot of posts consisting of a linked article and nothing else. But, there's a big difference between that and when someone goes through several sources, quotes material that is relevant, and weighs in once the discussion has begun.

I don't see why a person who creates a topic has the responsibility to not only find interesting material worthy of discussion but to also add opinion in the first post. I think posters should be free to add opinion when/where they see fit.

Because a lot of us don't see what makes something interesting to you and this results in not seeing anything to discuss.

Plus, it's a really easy way to avoid taking responsibility for your opinions.

Air: Discuss.

Discuss what is the question.

There's not enough of it at 6500'.

Isn't it supposed to be "Gayer than a treeful of monks on nitrous oxide"?

Air: Discuss.

Discuss what is the question.

There's not enough of it at 6500'.

Isn't it supposed to be "Gayer than a treeful of monks on nitrous oxide"?

I don't think so.

Air: Discuss.

Discuss what is the question.

There's not enough of it at 6500'.

Isn't it supposed to be "Gayer than a treeful of monks on nitrous oxide"?

I don't think so.

"Gayer than a treeful of monkeys"? Surely not monkies?

Monkies looks cooler, always has.