Tim?

I have already suggested this and had an email from Tim saying he would be happy for the PM's that were sent to John to be published on the forum for everyone to see.

Anyway, I too have had enough.

I am unsubscribing from this thread.

In my view the most depressing thing about this thread is that the many posts have so far failed to produce any kind of catharsis; instead there has largely been a continuous rehash of well trodden positions.

The way I see it this whole sorry episode has been the climactic conclusion of fairly persistent sniping and whinging about various aspects of moderation in recent weeks. As a testament to the thankless nature of that task, this has not only come from opposite sides of the same arguments but in certain quarters has also been carried out with the tedious enthusiasm of a bunch of old wimmin.

To the extent I have paid attention prior to current events, at the periphery there was nevertheless one complaint I have some sympathy with; a lack of clarity regarding suitable content for the “general chat” section, and the perhaps occasionally arbitrary nature of material deemed inappropriate.

It seems to me that a positive outcome of this process might be to review that board’s strapline “Area for open chat”, and if appropriate change it - or even the ToS - to something that reflects PU’s official position, as a guide for posters and moderators alike, in the case of the latter naturally always subject to standards of taste, etc..

How about that John?

Tim knows very well that JR/PU's position has always been that PMs must remain private. So should you.

Do I understand correctly that he now also wants this rule broken along with his other transgressions of customary behaviour here?

This is simply farcical.

I got to the mysoginist bit then I kind of gave up.

Or in fact cynically manipulative.

What is the purpose of the rule? The rule is in place to protect the parties in the communication, right?

If one of the parties declares that no protection is required, why still follow the rule?

In other words, there should be a principle that protects senders of PMs to have the contents of PMs disclosed against their will. I understand that the "PMs must remain private rule" is in place in that spirit. Yet, if no protection is required, why still hang on to the letters of a rule when the reason why it has been put into place does not apply in this case?

Ah class_A.

someone with clarity, someone who sees through the smoke screens and irrelevance to the heart of the matter.

Your two posts have been spot on sir

Well the glib answer is because it is a rule.

In fact the question of how normative standards or rules evolve is actually a philosophical question I find deeply interesting.

But it doesn’t really apply here; the apparent calls for some kind of realtime democratic decision making process contain not the path to nirvana but the seeds of constant bickering, anarchy, and what not. It is simply not practical on an internet forum.

That is not to say that the existing rules represent perfection or an ideal state; but the way to change them is not via a hysterical outburst and hissy fit, but to be argue for change within the context of existing rules.

I think we should call in T. Blair to mediate. He is well known for sorting problems out eg Middle East

Regards

I suspect bringing this whole episode out into the open will do little to resolve any differences. I guess the most vocal here have already made up their minds and even facts tend to be interpreted to suit opinion or allegiances.

The one thing that does strike me through out this thread is a lack of humility and goodwill. There appear to have been faults on both sides, yet no one prepared to admit their own errors.
Reconciliation requires someone to make the first move.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyzSk8HVZTc

now that post/link I do find offensive

I think we should draw a line under this now.

The line is drawn.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________

First, if the intent of the rule is to protect communication parties then no rules needed to be changed at all. If all parties offer their part of the communication to be published then this could be done right now without changing rules.

Second, I don't think anyone asked for realtime democracy or a rule change in a hissy fit. If a rule change would be required to allow situations like this to be clarified (only as long as everyone agrees, of course) then I'm very calmly proposing that it should be considered.

Third, I don't think rule sets that allow forum members to understand the actions of moderators (again, provided that all involved parties are happy to have private communication disclosed) lead to anarchy.

DISCUSSION CLOSED