Abel Holzing wrote:Mike
I am also rather surprised at your decision to prevent Matt / Sandra / etc from posting altogether.mgormez wrote:When we consider that perhaps children read here from the schools than we have to keep that in mind.
Are you sure that this is your true motivation? I have a sneaking suspicion that there is more to it - this guy is expressing some views, hidden in between his crazy utterings, that don't fit in the mainstream of the postings so far. Are you sure that protecting innocent kiddies is what you are about? I am not suggesting any deliberate manipulation, but maybe subliminally ...
Yes Abel, protecting the kids is one point, not having to wade through the vulgar language about his/her sexual organ is another.
Abel Holzing wrote:mike_w wrote:I think a bit of careful moderation by MikeG and some voluntary 'policing' by the more down to earth users can keep things in order.
In this case I see it differently. I like the soft approach but when someone is just out to wreck havoc then it is over as far as my tollerance is concerned. I am not talking about making a mistake of having some fun but this was way beyond that.
About half of readers' responses to MS' posts have been positive, half negative. Hardly a ringing endorsement by this community of your view that he "is just (sic!) out to wreak havoc". I feel you are overstepping the boundaries of an objective moderator.
Not at all. The (many) threads that have those reader responses are intact but locked. We can hold a poll to unlock those again. Infact I'll make one right away.
The only thread that was deleted was one in which s/he was having 'fun' and someone asking if this foul language could be dealt with.
Abel Holzing wrote:Also, what should a parent think who got the letter from Boddy, came on here via search engines and saw all that language? I'd think they would take the strories much less serious.
That is outright disturbing. That really says it all. It cannot be the role of a moderator to block certain contributions on grounds that they might undermine the credibility of others.
With arguments such as this, all you are going to achieve is the loss of some of this forum's hard-earned credibility.
I rather suspect that with sexual explicit language we would lose more credibility.
Abel Holzing wrote:Mike, think again!
Something obviously has got to be done, and I agree with mike_w that "a bit of careful moderation by MikeG" and "some voluntary 'policing' ..." might do the trick.
I stand by my decision to remove the sexually explicit thread. Perhaps it was overbroad by also deleting his/her initial posting which seemed vaugly coherent.
Let me add that I am in communication with Matt/Sandra/Sandy. There's talk of a final posting he would like have done. I have agreed to post it for him/her unaltered when it does not contain vulgar language, insults or is outright kookie. And after December the 15th I'll lift his IP ban so he can read but I will not let him have his way again here despite his apology. Threats to make a mess here with multiple IDs tend not to go well with me and I simply can't trust him/her anymore.