Quote:

FJ after all you went thru as a mod I'd expect a different reaction from you.


Really.

I'm all for standards and consistency. I don't like a lot of rules but I like whatever few rules there are to be applied consistently. Originally the standard was that anything offensive was not allowed to protect the women and children who may visit the site. Fine. Enforcing that was a fulltime job all by itself, but worth it because that's what Robert wanted. Then I chose to resign from the Lounge in the face of rampant political and religious arguments. The remaining moderators decided to ban politics and religion. Fine. Now, apparently any discussion of non-offensive, non-religious and non-political current events are to be banned if anyone gets a little agitated. Did I miss a memo? Am I really out of line? I think I'm drawing logical conclusions here. Just seeking clarification in the policy.

When I moderated here, I tried to not lock threads unless they were spinning their wheels or unless people were attacking each other. If someone started to get a little agitated, a simple word or three from me (showing but not swinging the Hammer of Smitingâ„¢) would usually settle them down and get things back on track. Again, as I said in the other thread, this is the Lounge. A certain amount of leeway in subject matter, within defined guidelines, should be allowed.

Look, I know moderating is a thankless job. Seems to me that well-defined guidelines would help make the job easier, not harder. Last time I checked the AUP hadn't been updated to reflect the politics and religion ban. Might want to see after that...

BA.com Caretaker | Friarsride | jb.com