Alright, so basically, people know what they are doing and why it isn't okay. If you, as a third party, don't understand why it isn't okay, perhaps you should ask the person doing the inappropriate posting, because I think they know what the issue is in just about every case.

You're a mod, so that's your job to ask the username "out of control" what the issue is. If they continue after a warning has been given then continue with the ban.

I've seen what carnation wrote in this thead, and I thank her for posting it. I can see the frustration in it.

You're quite right that lots can be going on behind the scenes that the average CGer may not know about and probably doesn't need to know the details of. And I know as well as anyone that GC can have its drama, in-fighting and personality clashes. I remember some of the reports to HQs.

But here's the catch: Under those circumstances, it should be no surprise that average GCer, who doesn't know all the backstory, might raise an eyebrow at what happened in that thread. My point is that under those circumstance, I think it's in everyone's best interests, including the moderator's, to do something other than just lock or delete, even if it's just "We've been down this road before and we're not going again. Thread locked." That tells me, average GCer, that there's more to the story.

As I have said, what I have been asking about was the deletion of the original Wall of Shame thread. I don't recall anything there that rose to the level of harrassment or bullying. If there's backstory that the average GCer doesn't know (and doesn't need to know), I think the better practice is to lock the thread or delete the offending posts with a mod's note that the thread is veering into a repetition of harrassment or bullying. Then you avoid "What happened to that thread? What was wrong with it?"

Again, I've tried to be clear that I don't think anyone is entitled to an explanation. I actually think it does more harm than good to talk in those terms about this.

And of course we can't know all the context. But surely there is a middle ground between filling everyone in on all the backstory and saying nothing while those without context have the impression of arbitrariness.

I didn't mean to imply otherwise. I think I was trying to get more at that my focus in this discussion has been about what happened before all the drama started -- or at least when it seemed to me that the drama started. (And yes, I'd agree that this was DrPhil's swan song, at least for now. She knew what she was doing -- she saw an opportunity and used it.)

I guess this to me is why locking or deletions of posts rather than deletions of threads should be the way to go -- we're all talking about what we remember of the thread without having it to look at.

I feel like I've said all I can say on this, and I know I'm repeating myself. I think I've been heard, so I am going to fight really hard the urge to have the last word.

Y'all know how hard that is for me.

Where is that sarcastic font we were all looking for?????? I apparently needed it!!!!

Were you or weren't you? If you're being sarcastic now, fuck you.

No offense, but I think we'll not be taking moderating advice from you.

LOL I'm not offended. I really don't give a shit who you take advice from, I'm going to post my opinion regardless.

And we're all dying to know what you think.

--sarcasm, btw.

If you're not "dying" to know what I think, then don't read my posts. If you give a shit enough to read my thoughts, then you give a shit enough to know what I think.

Mkay. Well this delete/ban thing has been thoroughly hashed out here and on several other threads has it not? Neither side is moving and without some sort of mediation, on the scale of President Carter at Camp David, I don't see any middle ground being displayed at all. Therefore I anticipate that someone will make a comment that invokes Godwin's Law of Internet Threads in the next 24 hours.

I'm taking bets on when that will happen. Just PM me.

For the record, I don't have the power to ban anyone. Nor is moderating a message board my "job".

I never said what you had the power to do or not to do. I don't know what your job is in "real life", don't really give a shit, but you are a moderator, so it is "your job" HERE to moderate.

Yes I was being sarcastic. It was very obvious that DrPhil took her own ship down.

But thanks for the gentlemanly commentary.

You're fluent too, Shirley? Wish should get together and snark sometime :)