Seriously, Roussak?

[amolitor]

There's a thread with, yes, not much interest, gradually fading to the bottom of the list.

I ask a photographically salient question wildly unlikely to provoke any kind of problematic debate, and you decide to lock the thread for "lack of interest" which is something you never do, and for which there is no reason.

I think I am justified in assuming that you did this specifically because you have some kind of hard-on for me, and you couldn't bear the thought of anyone actually replying to my.

Fuck you, Roussak, you incompetent dipshit.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Looks like some anger-management program is going to get a new client?

[faberryman]

Why would you close a thread that isn't getting much traffic?

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Jeremy, please unlock the thread.

[Alan Goldhammer]

Why would you close a thread that isn't getting much traffic?

For the same reason that he locked a thread that I started that asked a reasonable question.  Why not close down the Constitution thread that has  morphed into one discussing food safety.  I guess we are just confronted with random "kind" acts of censorship.  If this is the way it is to be, maybe the old policy of no political threads should be re-instituted.  Of course that would cut down traffic on this site by about 90%.

[RSL]

Oh, Alan, you poor thing.    To quote one of Dorothea Lange's subjects: "Life is hard and then you die."

[Robert Roaldi]

Oh, Alan, you poor thing.    To quote one of Dorothea Lange's subjects: "Life is hard and then you die."

Interesting reaction, albeit irrelevant.

Do you think closing the thread was warranted? To my mind, Jeremy's explanation was unconvincing.

[RSL]

I think the thread was asinine, Robert. Should have been closed right at the beginning. And Alan always has talked about the abuse he suffered when he was removed as moderator for one thread. Life is hard and then you die.

[Alan Goldhammer]

Interesting reaction, albeit irrelevant.

Do you think closing the thread was warranted? To my mind, Jeremy's explanation was unconvincing.

It's really useless responding to one trick ponies and you will have noticed that I've given up.  When I see RSL and a post, it is always ignored and maybe he doesn't like the fact that I pay him no attention.  The larger question is the selective censorship that appears to be taking place.  I posted an image that was released by the First Lady.  This is not a gotcha picture but one that was put out for everyone to see.  From my own perspective it was kind of like a weird Diane Arbus image that she would have taken were she a press photographer. 

[James Clark]

There's a thread with, yes, not much interest, gradually fading to the bottom of the list.

I ask a photographically salient question wildly unlikely to provoke any kind of problematic debate, and you decide to lock the thread for "lack of interest" which is something you never do, and for which there is no reason.

I think I am justified in assuming that you did this specifically because you have some kind of hard-on for me, and you couldn't bear the thought of anyone actually replying to my.

Fuck you, Roussak, you incompetent dipshit.

The last part is totally uncalled for, and you deserve a vacation for it IMHO.

But the question of the lock is valid...

[JaapD]

The role of an administrator or moderator is there to facilitate. The administrator or moderator should not be actively participating in the discussion topic itself.

Regards,
Jaap.

[faberryman]

It's really useless responding to one trick ponies and you will have noticed that I've given up.  When I see RSL and a post, it is always ignored and maybe he doesn't like the fact that I pay him no attention.  The larger question is the selective censorship that appears to be taking place.  I posted an image that was released by the First Lady.  This is not a gotcha picture but one that was put out for everyone to see.  From my own perspective it was kind of like a weird Diane Arbus image that she would have taken were she a press photographer.

So why did he lock your post?

[RSL]

It's really useless responding to one trick ponies and you will have noticed that I've given up.  When I see RSL and a post, it is always ignored and maybe he doesn't like the fact that I pay him no attention.  The larger question is the selective censorship that appears to be taking place.  I posted an image that was released by the First Lady.  This is not a gotcha picture but one that was put out for everyone to see.  From my own perspective it was kind of like a weird Diane Arbus image that she would have taken were she a press photographer.

Hi, Alan. I deliberately avoided the word "whined" and substituted "talked" about when I wrote that post. Now I think that word is entirely appropriate.

[Robert Roaldi]

I think the thread was asinine, Robert. Should have been closed right at the beginning.

Ok, so why are you participating in it then?

And why was your participation only to belittle another contributor?

[RSL]

And why was your participation only to belittle another contributor?

I wasn't the one who did that, Robert. He did it himself.

That's it. I'm outta here. You guys have at it.

[josh.reichmann]

No matter who is moderating, what the issue is, abusive language is not welcome.
Perhaps we need to assess the specific issue of the moderator’s roll and empowerment, if that is indeed the issue at hand.
A little perspective and basic decorum please.
Take a moment.


J

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

No matter who is moderating, what the issue is, abusive language is not welcome.
Perhaps we need to assess the specific issue of the moderator’s roll and empowerment, if that is indeed the issue at hand.
A little perspective and basic decorum please.
Take a moment.


J

+1

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

...  Perhaps we need to assess the specific issue of the moderator’s roll and empowerment...

So far, Jeremy's moderation has been stellar on balance. It is an extremely tough job, and he is doing it splendidly. There might have been an occasion or two, this example included, that I, or others, might not see the reason for closing a thread the same way Jeremy does. However, I am happy to live with a living, breathing person's judgment, even if imperfect on occasion.

[JaapD]

No matter who is moderating, what the issue is, abusive language is not welcome.
Perhaps we need to assess the specific issue of the moderator’s roll and empowerment, if that is indeed the issue at hand.
A little perspective and basic decorum please.
Take a moment.


J

I fully agree. Please also consider defining some kind of job requirements before assigning someone to the role of administrator or moderator. After assignment evaluate the person’s skills let’s say twice a year and take corrective measures if necessary. Just like with a ‘real’ job. See this as a general remark, I have no particular person in mind…..

Regards,
Jaap.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

So far, Jeremy's moderation has been stellar on balance. It is an extremely tough job, and he is doing it splendidly. There might have been an occasion or two, this example included, that I, or others, might not see the reason for closing a thread the same way Jeremy does. However, I am happy to live with a living, breathing person's judgment, even if imperfect on occasion.

+1

I have no idea what went on behind the scenes, but people need to cool down a bit (already a challenge on the global level).