Someone put a dime in the meter over there

Look in your PM box over there. Chuck left a note as to what his intentions
are. Krause has to be put on a very short leash if he's allowed to post at
Chuck's place at all. I won't cut him a bit of slack. He doesn't deserve it.


"John H." <salmonbait.TakeThisOut@removegmail.com> wrote in message
news:1jsq64h6jrhacraj1gu44h0j4paquok2u3@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 19:25:54 -0400, "Jim" <jim.TakeThisOut@boatnet.net> wrote:
>
>>It's melting away. Check it out.
>
> I tried to make some meaningful, nice, boater friendly responses to some
> of
> the messages, but all the threads are gone. Like ... disappeared.
> Ethereal.
>
> Once upon a time three guys went into a bar. They already had somewhat of
> a
> bad reputation, but they attempted to close the bar by starting fights and
> making slurs. They didn't get it closed, so they tried harder. Just one of
> them would make 50+ slurs in a single day, almost every one supported by
> the other two (or sometimes three).
>
> They would then go into a different bar, owned by a different guy, and
> find
> the same people there. In this bar, the three guys and the owner expected
> to find sweetness, gentleness, honey and roses from the same people who
> had
> put up with their slurs in the first place.
>
> Strangely, some of the ill will went into the new bar also.
>
> Hard to understand.
>
> But, there you go.
>
> What A Friendly Angel!
 >> Stay informed about: Someone put a dime in the meter over there 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Someone put a dime in the meter over there 

salty.RemoveThis@dog.com wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 17:34:08 -0700 (PDT), justwaitafrekinminute.RemoveThis@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> On Jul 3, 8:17 pm, Short Wave Sportfishing <em....RemoveThis@swsportsremove.org>
>> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 16:54:31 -0700 (PDT),
>>>
>>> justwaitafrekinmin....RemoveThis@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Jul 3, 7:25 pm, "Jim" <j....RemoveThis@boatnet.net> wrote:
>>>>> It's melting away. Check it out.
>>>> Nothing personal, and I admit I don't like this Gould sockpuppet, but
>>>> I knew he couldn't do it. Moderation, is for moderates.
>>> I knew it was going to happen and I even told Chuck so. It's not that
>>> Chuck isn't capable of moderating, but his dream was to have a lightly
>>> moderated forum in which everybody got along with the occasional spat
>>> that would dissolve quickly. It's a very "New Age" approach to forum
>>> moderating and doesn't work worth a damn because of three members in
>>> particular just couldn't drop what went on here and dragged it over
>>> there.
>>>
>>> Secondarily, it was too easy to just drop down to the last fifty posts
>>> which compacted the latest activity and became the defacto forum
>>> without reference to the various thread categories. I could have told
>>> Chuck that would happen too - been there, done that.
>>>
>>> Thirdly (thirdly?), he shouldn't have even gone with an off topic
>>> thread category - told him that too.
>>>
>>> Chuck wanted it to go his way and it didn't. He's also stubborn
>>> because this was evident two months ago shortly after he got it up and
>>> running, but he kept hoping. Instead of banning people or barring
>>> them for a day, three days, week, month, he deleted the posts and that
>>> never works.
>>>
>>> He had the resources if he only asked for some advice before he set it
>>> up and gotten some advice from former moderators who have been through
>>> the wars.
>>>
>>> Chuck needs to be the last court of appeal for the actions of a
>>> moderator or maybe two moderators who become the bad guys. That way he
>>> can isolate himself from his group and act as a "El Supremo Grande"
>>> when complaints come flying. He doesn't even have to be personally
>>> involved - he can read through the posts and give instructions to the
>>> moderators if there is something that he doens't like.
>> I tried to tell him months ago that one forum, and hefty groundings
>> for anyone who was a jerk would work. Also suggested opening up for
>> negative as well as positive karma. This allows folks to know right
>> off the bat if a responder is respected in the group. In other groups
>> I frequent, if you are a positive poster, with knowledge, you had a
>> lot of green leaves, if you were useless, you ended up with a huge red
>> bar...Also offered to help him moderate.. Like you said, he needs a
>> couple of helpers to do the sifting, and he needs to be the Court of
>> Appeals.
>
> In other forums, the most effective technique I've seen is when a thread goes
> nasty or too hot headed, the moderator just locks that thread for 3 days. By the
> time it gets unlocked, everyone is on to something else, and it rarely gets any
> fresh fuel after that. It's nice because it doesn't point any fingers, or make
> any one person wear a pointy hat that can lead to festering resentment.
>
>


In other forums, people like Reggie, BAR, Herring, justasecond, DK, et
cetera, are tossed out on their butts after three offensive posts.
 >> Stay informed about: Someone put a dime in the meter over there 

Jim wrote:
> Look in your PM box over there. Chuck left a note as to what his
> intentions are. Krause has to be put on a very short leash if he's
> allowed to post at Chuck's place at all. I won't cut him a bit of slack.
> He doesn't deserve it.
>


It ain't me, babe....it's the turd blossoms...like you.
 >> Stay informed about: Someone put a dime in the meter over there 

On Jul 4, 12:21 am, "Rudy" <NoS....DeleteThis@no-onehome.net> wrote:
> "Don White"  wrote in message
> > Weren't you the one who encouraged the Dwarf Army to go over there and
> > trash the place because Chuck wouldn't punish a couple of us
>
> WHERE is "Over there"?

http://boatingforum.proboards91.com/
 >> Stay informed about: Someone put a dime in the meter over there 

justwaitafrekinminute.TakeThisOut@gmail.com wrote:
> On Jul 3, 9:19 pm, HK <payer33....TakeThisOut@mypacks.net> wrote:
>> Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
>>> On Thu, 03 Jul 2008 21:11:24 -0400, sa....TakeThisOut@dog.com wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 17:34:08 -0700 (PDT), justwaitafrekinmin....TakeThisOut@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> On Jul 3, 8:17 pm, Short Wave Sportfishing <em....TakeThisOut@swsportsremove.org>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 16:54:31 -0700 (PDT),
>>>>>> justwaitafrekinmin....TakeThisOut@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>> On Jul 3, 7:25 pm, "Jim" <j....TakeThisOut@boatnet.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> It's melting away. Check it out.
>>>>>>> Nothing personal, and I admit I don't like this Gould sockpuppet, but
>>>>>>> I knew he couldn't do it. Moderation, is for moderates.
>>>>>> I knew it was going to happen and I even told Chuck so. It's not that
>>>>>> Chuck isn't capable of moderating, but his dream was to have a lightly
>>>>>> moderated forum in which everybody got along with the occasional spat
>>>>>> that would dissolve quickly. It's a very "New Age" approach to forum
>>>>>> moderating and doesn't work worth a damn because of three members in
>>>>>> particular just couldn't drop what went on here and dragged it over
>>>>>> there.
>>>>>> Secondarily, it was too easy to just drop down to the last fifty posts
>>>>>> which compacted the latest activity and became the defacto forum
>>>>>> without reference to the various thread categories. I could have told
>>>>>> Chuck that would happen too - been there, done that.
>>>>>> Thirdly (thirdly?), he shouldn't have even gone with an off topic
>>>>>> thread category - told him that too.
>>>>>> Chuck wanted it to go his way and it didn't. He's also stubborn
>>>>>> because this was evident two months ago shortly after he got it up and
>>>>>> running, but he kept hoping. Instead of banning people or barring
>>>>>> them for a day, three days, week, month, he deleted the posts and that
>>>>>> never works.
>>>>>> He had the resources if he only asked for some advice before he set it
>>>>>> up and gotten some advice from former moderators who have been through
>>>>>> the wars.
>>>>>> Chuck needs to be the last court of appeal for the actions of a
>>>>>> moderator or maybe two moderators who become the bad guys. That way he
>>>>>> can isolate himself from his group and act as a "El Supremo Grande"
>>>>>> when complaints come flying. He doesn't even have to be personally
>>>>>> involved - he can read through the posts and give instructions to the
>>>>>> moderators if there is something that he doens't like.
>>>>> I tried to tell him months ago that one forum, and hefty groundings
>>>>> for anyone who was a jerk would work. Also suggested opening up for
>>>>> negative as well as positive karma. This allows folks to know right
>>>>> off the bat if a responder is respected in the group. In other groups
>>>>> I frequent, if you are a positive poster, with knowledge, you had a
>>>>> lot of green leaves, if you were useless, you ended up with a huge red
>>>>> bar...Also offered to help him moderate.. Like you said, he needs a
>>>>> couple of helpers to do the sifting, and he needs to be the Court of
>>>>> Appeals.
>>>> In other forums, the most effective technique I've seen is when a thread goes
>>>> nasty or too hot headed, the moderator just locks that thread for 3 days. By the
>>>> time it gets unlocked, everyone is on to something else, and it rarely gets any
>>>> fresh fuel after that. It's nice because it doesn't point any fingers, or make
>>>> any one person wear a pointy hat that can lead to festering resentment.
>>> I've seen that done - unfortunately, it bleds over to other threads.
>>> Chuck needs to get a moderator for him - the hands off approach isn't
>>> going to work and he probably will end up talking to himself.
>>> But he's got to do it his way - good luck to him.
>> All that has to happen is for the turd blossoms from here behave. But I
>> don't think they can control themselves. Hope the chuckster kicks them
>> off and soon.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> You are WAFA


Is that some sort of initialism for someone who disapproves of parents
who allow their small children to ride motorcycles?
 >> Stay informed about: Someone put a dime in the meter over there 

<justwaitafrekinminute.RemoveThis@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f8ef6ca6-0fd0-42e5-846d-c826a3aeb2c8@i18g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 3, 9:19 pm, HK <payer33....RemoveThis@mypacks.net> wrote:
> Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
> > On Thu, 03 Jul 2008 21:11:24 -0400, sa....RemoveThis@dog.com wrote:
>
> >> On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 17:34:08 -0700 (PDT),
> >> justwaitafrekinmin....RemoveThis@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >>> On Jul 3, 8:17 pm, Short Wave Sportfishing <em....RemoveThis@swsportsremove.org>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 16:54:31 -0700 (PDT),
>
> >>>> justwaitafrekinmin....RemoveThis@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>> On Jul 3, 7:25 pm, "Jim" <j....RemoveThis@boatnet.net> wrote:
> >>>>>> It's melting away. Check it out.
> >>>>> Nothing personal, and I admit I don't like this Gould sockpuppet,
> >>>>> but
> >>>>> I knew he couldn't do it. Moderation, is for moderates.
> >>>> I knew it was going to happen and I even told Chuck so. It's not that
> >>>> Chuck isn't capable of moderating, but his dream was to have a
> >>>> lightly
> >>>> moderated forum in which everybody got along with the occasional spat
> >>>> that would dissolve quickly. It's a very "New Age" approach to forum
> >>>> moderating and doesn't work worth a damn because of three members in
> >>>> particular just couldn't drop what went on here and dragged it over
> >>>> there.
>
> >>>> Secondarily, it was too easy to just drop down to the last fifty
> >>>> posts
> >>>> which compacted the latest activity and became the defacto forum
> >>>> without reference to the various thread categories. I could have told
> >>>> Chuck that would happen too - been there, done that.
>
> >>>> Thirdly (thirdly?), he shouldn't have even gone with an off topic
> >>>> thread category - told him that too.
>
> >>>> Chuck wanted it to go his way and it didn't. He's also stubborn
> >>>> because this was evident two months ago shortly after he got it up
> >>>> and
> >>>> running, but he kept hoping. Instead of banning people or barring
> >>>> them for a day, three days, week, month, he deleted the posts and
> >>>> that
> >>>> never works.
>
> >>>> He had the resources if he only asked for some advice before he set
> >>>> it
> >>>> up and gotten some advice from former moderators who have been
> >>>> through
> >>>> the wars.
>
> >>>> Chuck needs to be the last court of appeal for the actions of a
> >>>> moderator or maybe two moderators who become the bad guys. That way
> >>>> he
> >>>> can isolate himself from his group and act as a "El Supremo Grande"
> >>>> when complaints come flying. He doesn't even have to be personally
> >>>> involved - he can read through the posts and give instructions to the
> >>>> moderators if there is something that he doens't like.
> >>> I tried to tell him months ago that one forum, and hefty groundings
> >>> for anyone who was a jerk would work. Also suggested opening up for
> >>> negative as well as positive karma. This allows folks to know right
> >>> off the bat if a responder is respected in the group. In other groups
> >>> I frequent, if you are a positive poster, with knowledge, you had a
> >>> lot of green leaves, if you were useless, you ended up with a huge red
> >>> bar...Also offered to help him moderate.. Like you said, he needs a
> >>> couple of helpers to do the sifting, and he needs to be the Court of
> >>> Appeals.
> >> In other forums, the most effective technique I've seen is when a
> >> thread goes
> >> nasty or too hot headed, the moderator just locks that thread for 3
> >> days. By the
> >> time it gets unlocked, everyone is on to something else, and it rarely
> >> gets any
> >> fresh fuel after that. It's nice because it doesn't point any fingers,
> >> or make
> >> any one person wear a pointy hat that can lead to festering resentment.
>
> > I've seen that done - unfortunately, it bleds over to other threads.
>
> > Chuck needs to get a moderator for him - the hands off approach isn't
> > going to work and he probably will end up talking to himself.
>
> > But he's got to do it his way - good luck to him.
>
> All that has to happen is for the turd blossoms from here behave. But I
> don't think they can control themselves. Hope the chuckster kicks them
> off and soon.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

You are WAFA

===============================

Earlier today you asked me to ignore him.
 >> Stay informed about: Someone put a dime in the meter over there 

D.Duck wrote:
> <justwaitafrekinminute.RemoveThis@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:f8ef6ca6-0fd0-42e5-846d-c826a3aeb2c8@i18g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 3, 9:19 pm, HK <payer33....RemoveThis@mypacks.net> wrote:
>> Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
>>> On Thu, 03 Jul 2008 21:11:24 -0400, sa....RemoveThis@dog.com wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 17:34:08 -0700 (PDT),
>>>> justwaitafrekinmin....RemoveThis@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> On Jul 3, 8:17 pm, Short Wave Sportfishing <em....RemoveThis@swsportsremove.org>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 16:54:31 -0700 (PDT),
>>>>>> justwaitafrekinmin....RemoveThis@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>> On Jul 3, 7:25 pm, "Jim" <j....RemoveThis@boatnet.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> It's melting away. Check it out.
>>>>>>> Nothing personal, and I admit I don't like this Gould sockpuppet,
>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>> I knew he couldn't do it. Moderation, is for moderates.
>>>>>> I knew it was going to happen and I even told Chuck so. It's not that
>>>>>> Chuck isn't capable of moderating, but his dream was to have a
>>>>>> lightly
>>>>>> moderated forum in which everybody got along with the occasional spat
>>>>>> that would dissolve quickly. It's a very "New Age" approach to forum
>>>>>> moderating and doesn't work worth a damn because of three members in
>>>>>> particular just couldn't drop what went on here and dragged it over
>>>>>> there.
>>>>>> Secondarily, it was too easy to just drop down to the last fifty
>>>>>> posts
>>>>>> which compacted the latest activity and became the defacto forum
>>>>>> without reference to the various thread categories. I could have told
>>>>>> Chuck that would happen too - been there, done that.
>>>>>> Thirdly (thirdly?), he shouldn't have even gone with an off topic
>>>>>> thread category - told him that too.
>>>>>> Chuck wanted it to go his way and it didn't. He's also stubborn
>>>>>> because this was evident two months ago shortly after he got it up
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> running, but he kept hoping. Instead of banning people or barring
>>>>>> them for a day, three days, week, month, he deleted the posts and
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> never works.
>>>>>> He had the resources if he only asked for some advice before he set
>>>>>> it
>>>>>> up and gotten some advice from former moderators who have been
>>>>>> through
>>>>>> the wars.
>>>>>> Chuck needs to be the last court of appeal for the actions of a
>>>>>> moderator or maybe two moderators who become the bad guys. That way
>>>>>> he
>>>>>> can isolate himself from his group and act as a "El Supremo Grande"
>>>>>> when complaints come flying. He doesn't even have to be personally
>>>>>> involved - he can read through the posts and give instructions to the
>>>>>> moderators if there is something that he doens't like.
>>>>> I tried to tell him months ago that one forum, and hefty groundings
>>>>> for anyone who was a jerk would work. Also suggested opening up for
>>>>> negative as well as positive karma. This allows folks to know right
>>>>> off the bat if a responder is respected in the group. In other groups
>>>>> I frequent, if you are a positive poster, with knowledge, you had a
>>>>> lot of green leaves, if you were useless, you ended up with a huge red
>>>>> bar...Also offered to help him moderate.. Like you said, he needs a
>>>>> couple of helpers to do the sifting, and he needs to be the Court of
>>>>> Appeals.
>>>> In other forums, the most effective technique I've seen is when a
>>>> thread goes
>>>> nasty or too hot headed, the moderator just locks that thread for 3
>>>> days. By the
>>>> time it gets unlocked, everyone is on to something else, and it rarely
>>>> gets any
>>>> fresh fuel after that. It's nice because it doesn't point any fingers,
>>>> or make
>>>> any one person wear a pointy hat that can lead to festering resentment.
>>> I've seen that done - unfortunately, it bleds over to other threads.
>>> Chuck needs to get a moderator for him - the hands off approach isn't
>>> going to work and he probably will end up talking to himself.
>>> But he's got to do it his way - good luck to him.
>> All that has to happen is for the turd blossoms from here behave. But I
>> don't think they can control themselves. Hope the chuckster kicks them
>> off and soon.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> You are WAFA
>
> ===============================
>
> Earlier today you asked me to ignore him.
>
>

You would pay attention to the resident child abuser?
 >> Stay informed about: Someone put a dime in the meter over there 

On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 18:32:33 -0700 (PDT), justwaitafrekinminute DeleteThis @gmail.com
wrote:

>On Jul 3, 9:27 pm, JimH <osu... DeleteThis @oh.rr.com> wrote:
>> On Jul 3, 9:06 pm, "Jim" <j... DeleteThis @boatnet.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > Look in your PM box over there. Chuck left a note as to what his intentions
>> > are. Krause has to be put on a very short leash if he's allowed to post at
>> > Chuck's place at all. I won't cut him a bit of slack. He doesn't deserve it.
>>
>> > "John H." <salmonb... DeleteThis @removegmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> >news:1jsq64h6jrhacraj1gu44h0j4paquok2u3@4ax.com...
>>
>> > > On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 19:25:54 -0400, "Jim" <j... DeleteThis @boatnet.net> wrote:
>>
>> > >>It's melting away. Check it out.
>>
>> > > I tried to make some meaningful, nice, boater friendly responses to some
>> > > of
>> > > the messages, but all the threads are gone. Like ... disappeared.
>> > > Ethereal.
>>
>> > > Once upon a time three guys went into a bar. They already had somewhat of
>> > > a
>> > > bad reputation, but they attempted to close the bar by starting fights and
>> > > making slurs. They didn't get it closed, so they tried harder. Just one of
>> > > them would make 50+ slurs in a single day, almost every one supported by
>> > > the other two (or sometimes three).
>>
>> > > They would then go into a different bar, owned by a different guy, and
>> > > find
>> > > the same people there. In this bar, the three guys and the owner expected
>> > > to find sweetness, gentleness, honey and roses from the same people who
>> > > had
>> > > put up with their slurs in the first place.
>>
>> > > Strangely, some of the ill will went into the new bar also.
>>
>> > > Hard to understand.
>>
>> > > But, there you go.
>>
>> > > What A Friendly Angel!
>>
>> For someone who has been banned from posting at Chucks place because
>> of your nasty behavior you remain obsessed with his board.
>>
>> Get help before you...............http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0073486/- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>You will hereby be dubbed HAFA2

Lots of angels around here.
 >> Stay informed about: Someone put a dime in the meter over there 

On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 16:54:31 -0700 (PDT),
justwaitafrekinminute.RemoveThis@gmail.com wrote:

>On Jul 3, 7:25 pm, "Jim" <j....RemoveThis@boatnet.net> wrote:
>> It's melting away. Check it out.

>Nothing personal, and I admit I don't like this Gould sockpuppet, but
>I knew he couldn't do it. Moderation, is for moderates.

I knew it was going to happen and I even told Chuck so. It's not that
Chuck isn't capable of moderating, but his dream was to have a lightly
moderated forum in which everybody got along with the occasional spat
that would dissolve quickly. It's a very "New Age" approach to forum
moderating and doesn't work worth a damn because of three members in
particular just couldn't drop what went on here and dragged it over
there.

Secondarily, it was too easy to just drop down to the last fifty posts
which compacted the latest activity and became the defacto forum
without reference to the various thread categories. I could have told
Chuck that would happen too - been there, done that.

Thirdly (thirdly?), he shouldn't have even gone with an off topic
thread category - told him that too.

Chuck wanted it to go his way and it didn't. He's also stubborn
because this was evident two months ago shortly after he got it up and
running, but he kept hoping. Instead of banning people or barring
them for a day, three days, week, month, he deleted the posts and that
never works.

He had the resources if he only asked for some advice before he set it
up and gotten some advice from former moderators who have been through
the wars.

Chuck needs to be the last court of appeal for the actions of a
moderator or maybe two moderators who become the bad guys. That way he
can isolate himself from his group and act as a "El Supremo Grande"
when complaints come flying. He doesn't even have to be personally
involved - he can read through the posts and give instructions to the
moderators if there is something that he doens't like.
 >> Stay informed about: Someone put a dime in the meter over there 

On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 00:17:10 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
<email.DeleteThis@swsportsremove.org> wrote:

>On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 16:54:31 -0700 (PDT),
>justwaitafrekinminute@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>On Jul 3, 7:25 pm, "Jim" <j....DeleteThis@boatnet.net> wrote:
>>> It's melting away. Check it out.
>
>>Nothing personal, and I admit I don't like this Gould sockpuppet, but
>>I knew he couldn't do it. Moderation, is for moderates.
>
>I knew it was going to happen and I even told Chuck so. It's not that
>Chuck isn't capable of moderating, but his dream was to have a lightly
>moderated forum in which everybody got along with the occasional spat
>that would dissolve quickly. It's a very "New Age" approach to forum
>moderating and doesn't work worth a damn because of three members in
>particular just couldn't drop what went on here and dragged it over
>there.
>
>Secondarily, it was too easy to just drop down to the last fifty posts
>which compacted the latest activity and became the defacto forum
>without reference to the various thread categories. I could have told
>Chuck that would happen too - been there, done that.
>
>Thirdly (thirdly?), he shouldn't have even gone with an off topic
>thread category - told him that too.
>
>Chuck wanted it to go his way and it didn't. He's also stubborn
>because this was evident two months ago shortly after he got it up and
>running, but he kept hoping. Instead of banning people or barring
>them for a day, three days, week, month, he deleted the posts and that
>never works.
>
>He had the resources if he only asked for some advice before he set it
>up and gotten some advice from former moderators who have been through
>the wars.
>
>Chuck needs to be the last court of appeal for the actions of a
>moderator or maybe two moderators who become the bad guys. That way he
>can isolate himself from his group and act as a "El Supremo Grande"
>when complaints come flying. He doesn't even have to be personally
>involved - he can read through the posts and give instructions to the
>moderators if there is something that he doens't like.

I gave Chuck an idea for a couple moderators. He didn't like it, I guess,
'cause he deleted the post.
 >> Stay informed about: Someone put a dime in the meter over there 

"John H." <salmonbait RemoveThis @removegmail.com> wrote in message
news:c4tq645tgjh0c8t9ufs06htehi2ujo4slo@4ax.com...
>
> I gave Chuck an idea for a couple moderators. He didn't like it, I guess,
> 'cause he deleted the post.

Weren't you the one who encouraged the Dwarf Army to go over there and trash
the place because Chuck wouldn't punish a couple of us for activities here?
Chuck is to lenient. He should have blackballed the lot of you as soon as
you started acting up.
 >> Stay informed about: Someone put a dime in the meter over there 

On Thu, 03 Jul 2008 21:11:24 -0400, salty.RemoveThis@dog.com wrote:

>On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 17:34:08 -0700 (PDT), justwaitafrekinminute.RemoveThis@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>On Jul 3, 8:17 pm, Short Wave Sportfishing <em....RemoveThis@swsportsremove.org>
>>wrote:
>>> On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 16:54:31 -0700 (PDT),
>>>
>>> justwaitafrekinmin....RemoveThis@gmail.com wrote:
>>> >On Jul 3, 7:25 pm, "Jim" <j....RemoveThis@boatnet.net> wrote:
>>> >> It's melting away. Check it out.
>>> >Nothing personal, and I admit I don't like this Gould sockpuppet, but
>>> >I knew he couldn't do it. Moderation, is for moderates.
>>>
>>> I knew it was going to happen and I even told Chuck so.  It's not that
>>> Chuck isn't capable of moderating, but his dream was to have a lightly
>>> moderated forum in which everybody got along with the occasional spat
>>> that would dissolve quickly.  It's a very "New Age" approach to forum
>>> moderating and doesn't work worth a damn because of three members in
>>> particular just couldn't drop what went on here and dragged it over
>>> there.
>>>
>>> Secondarily, it was too easy to just drop down to the last fifty posts
>>> which compacted the latest activity and became the defacto forum
>>> without reference to the various thread categories.  I could have told
>>> Chuck that would happen too - been there, done that.
>>>
>>> Thirdly (thirdly?), he shouldn't have even gone with an off topic
>>> thread category - told him that too.
>>>
>>> Chuck wanted it to go his way and it didn't.  He's also stubborn
>>> because this was evident two months ago shortly after he got it up and
>>> running, but he kept hoping.  Instead of banning people or barring
>>> them for a day, three days, week, month, he deleted the posts and that
>>> never works.
>>>
>>> He had the resources if he only asked for some advice before he set it
>>> up and gotten some advice from former moderators who have been through
>>> the wars.
>>>
>>> Chuck needs to be the last court of appeal for the actions of a
>>> moderator or maybe two moderators who become the bad guys. That way he
>>> can isolate himself from his group and act as a "El Supremo Grande"
>>> when complaints come flying. He doesn't even have to be personally
>>> involved - he can read through the posts and give instructions to the
>>> moderators if there is something that he doens't like.
>>
>>I tried to tell him months ago that one forum, and hefty groundings
>>for anyone who was a jerk would work. Also suggested opening up for
>>negative as well as positive karma. This allows folks to know right
>>off the bat if a responder is respected in the group. In other groups
>>I frequent, if you are a positive poster, with knowledge, you had a
>>lot of green leaves, if you were useless, you ended up with a huge red
>>bar...Also offered to help him moderate.. Like you said, he needs a
>>couple of helpers to do the sifting, and he needs to be the Court of
>>Appeals.
>
>In other forums, the most effective technique I've seen is when a thread goes
>nasty or too hot headed, the moderator just locks that thread for 3 days. By the
>time it gets unlocked, everyone is on to something else, and it rarely gets any
>fresh fuel after that. It's nice because it doesn't point any fingers, or make
>any one person wear a pointy hat that can lead to festering resentment.

I've seen that done - unfortunately, it bleds over to other threads.

Chuck needs to get a moderator for him - the hands off approach isn't
going to work and he probably will end up talking to himself.

But he's got to do it his way - good luck to him.
 >> Stay informed about: Someone put a dime in the meter over there