Someone put a dime in the meter over there

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.
 >> Stay informed about: Someone put a dime in the meter over there 

On Jul 3, 8:34 pm, 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.

How interesting. The "Who Me?" game begins.
 >> Stay informed about: Someone put a dime in the meter over there 

On Jul 3, 8:54 pm, John H. <salmonb... DeleteThis @removegmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 00:17:10 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
>
>
>
> <em... DeleteThis @swsportsremove.org> wrote:
> >On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 16:54:31 -0700 (PDT),
> >justwaitafrekinmin...@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.

Maybe because you and Reggie were the 2 you recommended.
 >> Stay informed about: Someone put a dime in the meter over there 

On Jul 3, 8:57 pm, JimH <osu... DeleteThis @oh.rr.com> wrote:
> On Jul 3, 8:54 pm, John H. <salmonb... DeleteThis @removegmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 00:17:10 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
>
> > <em... DeleteThis @swsportsremove.org> wrote:
> > >On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 16:54:31 -0700 (PDT),
> > >justwaitafrekinmin...@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.
>
> Maybe because you and Reggie were the 2 you recommended.

BTW: You are a whiner.
 >> Stay informed about: Someone put a dime in the meter over there 

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
 >> Stay informed about: Someone put a dime in the meter over there 

On Jul 3, 9:42 pm, "D.Duck" <D... RemoveThis @ald.duck> wrote:
> <justwaitafrekinmin... 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.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

You are right, I had a little fun for a while.. I think the excitement
is over.
 >> Stay informed about: Someone put a dime in the meter over there 

On Jul 3, 9:49 pm, justwaitafrekinmin....TakeThisOut@gmail.com wrote:
> On Jul 3, 9:42 pm, "D.Duck" <D....TakeThisOut@ald.duck> wrote:
>
>
>
> > <justwaitafrekinmin....TakeThisOut@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:f8ef6ca6-0fd0-42e5-846d-c826a3aeb2c8@i18g2000prn.googlegroups.com....
> > 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
>
> > ===============================
>
> > Earlier today you asked me to ignore him.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> You are right, I had a little fun for a while.. I think the excitement
> is over.

So your sole purpose here, as you admitted, was to troll and cause
problems.

Too bad.
 >> Stay informed about: Someone put a dime in the meter over there 

justwaitafrekinminute.RemoveThis@gmail.com wrote:
> On Jul 3, 7:25 pm, "Jim" <j....RemoveThis@boatnet.net> wrote:
>> It's melting away. Check it out.
>
> Too bad really... But I bet the blame game will be allowed to go
> unchallenged. And when we do, we will get warnings. Eventually when
> WAFA gets too beat up, the post(s) will disappear again. It's just a
> shame, a fair minded, confident moderator could have made quick work
> of this months ago with a few scattered timeouts.... But when the
> worst offender is untouchable, it just can't work.. and never will....
>
> Oh, and be ready for Jim H to suggest that we "wanted this", when the
> truth, for anyone concerned is, were felt we were defending ourselves.
> Weather you agree or not, if you dismiss our agenda, you are just
> taking sides, can you say, intellectual dishonesty?
>
> Nothing personal, and I admit I don't like this Gould sockpuppet, but
> I knew he couldn't do it. Moderation, is for moderates.


You wanted it; you got it. I suspect the proprietor will look less
kindly now on your shenanigans.
 >> Stay informed about: Someone put a dime in the meter over there 

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.
>


Chuck doesn't need any droolers to moderate.
 >> Stay informed about: Someone put a dime in the meter over there 

On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 19:25:54 -0400, "Jim" <jim.RemoveThis@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 

On Jul 3, 9:06 pm, "Jim" <j....RemoveThis@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....RemoveThis@removegmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1jsq64h6jrhacraj1gu44h0j4paquok2u3@4ax.com...
>
> > On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 19:25:54 -0400, "Jim" <j....RemoveThis@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/
 >> Stay informed about: Someone put a dime in the meter over there 

On Jul 3, 9:27 pm, JimH <osu....RemoveThis@oh.rr.com> wrote:
> On Jul 3, 9:06 pm, "Jim" <j....RemoveThis@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....RemoveThis@removegmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:1jsq64h6jrhacraj1gu44h0j4paquok2u3@4ax.com...
>
> > > On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 19:25:54 -0400, "Jim" <j....RemoveThis@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
 >> Stay informed about: Someone put a dime in the meter over there 

On Jul 3, 9:32 pm, justwaitafrekinmin... 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  

Whatever.

You are nothing more than white trash and a child abuser.
 >> Stay informed about: Someone put a dime in the meter over there