For the record, karma, that's not entirely true. I have tried to remain reasonably neutral, and have found myself struck by the venom of others. I am extremely frustrated with the fact that there is absolutely no respect to be found for a dissenting opinion here.

And yes, I am changing it. I am just trying to figure out a way to do it that doesn't involve leaving this site altogether.

I think JoeU represents a free marketplace of ideas; but like most markets it will experience the odd market correction. I must say I feel I've gotten gang(teamed) worse than Andy Dufresne on laundry day when registering dissenting opinion in a civilized manner, but that will pass I think. As the site grows, the prevailing ideas, social norms, and discussion formats will change.

Can you honestly say you would be "OK" with me deleting posts that you made or hiding your articles when I found them getting out of hand?  Or, would you bitch?  Or, do you simply feel that *you* are not part of the problem, so it wouldn't happen to you?

Yes, I'd be okay with it. I'd like to see a little more "moderator interference" around here. At least during the more heated periods, anyway. I say let them complain -- they do anyway.

Anyone who has moderated a community or hosted a BBS (us pre-Commercial 'net oldtimers) has had to develop policies to handle these sorts of things. My main bug-a-boo was attacking personalities rather than ideas. When somebody got out of hand I used to pull their posting privileges for a specifed period of time and send them an email explaining what the problem was and why. I didn't give them a chance to bitch. Then it was up to them whether it was permanent or temporary. If they wanted to get into an email flame war with me they were gone forever. If after suspension they kept on doing what got them suspended, I eventually banished them. (Not unlike what happened to Dan.)

I'd like to see you all be a little more forceful a little sooner. You all are too friendly.

Karma's gonnna lay the smackdown!

Seriously, though, there has to be a limit.  The civility has to start somewhere, so it may as well start with me.  Now, if people have a problem with me they can email me and we'll discuss it away from JU...but no-one wants to do that, there's no points and no glory involved there.

Anyway, I for one will be trying to be nicer.

KarmaGirl:

START POLICING.

I am beginning to get a foul whif from this blog, from the pseudo-adult infantile fears bandied about by the likes of ... (in the interest in non-specific flame) those who do such things.

I am beginning to resent the inclusion of the JU Widget into the WinCustomize/Stardock catalog. Yes, it is often "a fact that ...," whatever the un-self-examined blog-pest asserts, but it is inane and offensive to see it read so utterly simplisticly and then touted so piously.

You ask for common decency, but seem willing to tolerate apalling incecency in the actual content of assertions and suggestions when couched with the slightest wry, right-wing, self-aggrandizing "wit"m -- wich too offten is like the wit of the gravely maladjusted kid-in-the back who makes farting noises while adults try to educate them. Except, now of course they can vote- and speak-their-minds about (Uh, Hmmm, for example, no offense intended) passive-aggressive genocide in Africa, via polio and AIDS. (Hey, what-th'-F*?)

START POLICING, or your public will police this place for you by its slow deterioration into a full-blown real-life gothic horror such as haunts too many little minds that post here already.

... and (thank you Barry G) in their hearts they know I'm right about them and their pitifully abusive fathers.

DanMS Himself

JU Widget into the WinCustomize/Stardock catalog

That sounds interesting. What does it do, put the latest articles onto the desktop or something like that?

(As for the rest of the message, I can only imagine "start policing" meant "please delete my posts." )

** Well hello there, DanMS, whoever you are, so nice of you to respond to my article! Your comments, however, are off topic here, and its not nice to hijack Karma's thread, so why dont you respond on the thread in question, where i'll be happy to answer your numerous inquiries. There's no reason why you cant do that there, unless you happen to be one of the 2 individuals I've blacklisted, in which case all i can say is "tuff luck." **

Well, Little, you see, perhaps it has escaped your memory, but that thread is closed. No more comments. Are you moderator there? Do you remember closing it to replies?

Do you know, it totally escaped me that you might be one of the moderators/administrators. That might, though explain much of the tone of your pronouncements, and the, uhh, lack of equivalent or offsetting tone in the approved replies, were it not for a good, positive administratibve attitude.

** Admin note: Hey "Dan" don't write nasty notes to other JU users on this blog. Why don't you quit hiding behind an "anonymous" nick and make an account? **

Admin? Sounds suspiciously anonymous to me. Not Little_whip, perhaps, which is of course not an anonymous name but the one you legally received or took? Hmmm. Anonymous. I'll have to resort to the dictionary for that one, if I can find a dictionary sub-meaning antonym related to blogging under assumed name.

** Stay off this thread unless you have something to say that is on topic. **

Quite right, quite right. Good policing. I did ask for it, didn't I? Well done!

There, I hope that's back on topic. I would like to say I was just testing, but in reality I was quite angry and used appropriately (in my opinion) foul language in an inappropriate (in my opinion, again) context. Of course, you can always lead a reader to words and even make them read them, but can't make them understand. re. Samuel Johnson's kidking that stone in reply to Bishop Berkeley who was, well, not on the same runway.

Ah, but are you indeed the moderator/administrator? Well, then I hope you did get to read the deleted post, because I meant it. In fact, I thought it was well-written and not a little persuasive, but that's just my own inherited vanity of course.

OK, so I cannot and should not write nasty notes to other JU posters. Well, I have a reluctance to write nasty notes about people in other countries that my ancestors and fellow countrymen have oppressed and continue to oppress, economically and so on (you know what I mean), and I don't really like to piss on fellow bloggers either. Really don't like doing it, it just happens.

No I'm not blacklisted here on JU. Nor on any other blog for that matter. And I am a moderator of a group or two elswhere, where discussion of world matters is also commonplace.

Yes, like I said police or don't. If you don't then it will all drift somewhere. I think I suggested Gothic Horror. And if you do police it then it will also all drift somewhere.

DanMS Himself which will I think be adequate for a while. If not, then say so and I will retreat.

If I could make an off-topic suggestion, it would be to always pick "registered users only" when you post articles. I really don't see why we allow non-registered users to post here at all.

I think a lot of our unregistered friends are just registered members that want to troll with no accountability.

Here's a way to look at it:

You have relatively free reign on what to write on your blog.  But we have relatively free reign to decide what articles we promote.

We give users the OPTION to syndicate their articles to the forum which hepls them pick up additional readers. But moderators can choose to hide articles from the forums.  This doesn't affect your blog at all, it just means it doesn't show up in the forums.

I do NOT support deleting people's articles.  As far as I'm concerned, admins should not be monkeying around with people's actual blogs except in the most dire of circumstances.

Only on the forums do admins get serious policying rights IMO.