What are you talking about? Please show me what I've said to suggest otherwise.Jeremy wrote:I know that every other forum I post on or have ever posted on (including modified for a time) had a rule about the size of images in signatures and it's very easy to enforce despite what Emily says.
Moderation & User Rules
"I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
Emily Kulczyk
Emily Kulczyk
It wasn't meant as a precise analogy it was meant as an example showing that some situations cannot be resolved to a customer's satisfaction because sometimes that satisfaction is simply unacceptable to the buisness.
It does relate to the situation though (if not entirely well, though the difference between customer-business relationships and user-mod team relationships prevent a perfectly apt analogy occuring in my opinion), the mods had decided not to step in and delete and edit out course language. Chris wanted us to do just that and no less. OK perhaps we could have asked Sam to change the signature, and it is understandable that Chris might feel that previous encounters may mean it would be wiser for a mod to make that request and keep its source anonymous - but in the end it all it could ever be is a request, we were never going to step in any further. At the time the focus was on resolving the situation without overstepping our authority which is why we were hesistent and in the end did not pm Sam. This is very different from an attitude of dismissal.
It does relate to the situation though (if not entirely well, though the difference between customer-business relationships and user-mod team relationships prevent a perfectly apt analogy occuring in my opinion), the mods had decided not to step in and delete and edit out course language. Chris wanted us to do just that and no less. OK perhaps we could have asked Sam to change the signature, and it is understandable that Chris might feel that previous encounters may mean it would be wiser for a mod to make that request and keep its source anonymous - but in the end it all it could ever be is a request, we were never going to step in any further. At the time the focus was on resolving the situation without overstepping our authority which is why we were hesistent and in the end did not pm Sam. This is very different from an attitude of dismissal.
Who wears short shorts?
Dylan Govender.
Dylan Govender.
Obviously this is false because every forum I've seen makes people get rid of signatures that make the forum hard to read.Emily in a pm to Chris wrote:If you're argument includes the forum being harder to read, fixing it would require us to take away everyone's signatures, not just Sam's; Footbag related or not. That's not going to happen. Also, this is not a matter of what I enjoy seeing in threads. I would be a pretty bad Admin if that were the way I to made my judgments.
Jeremy, These apply to Chris and his posts: "Guidelines" wrote:
- While coarse language is permitted derogatory remarks regarding religion, race, nationality, gender, sexuality and physical/mental disability will not be tolerated. Such remarks will be edited or deleted.
-“Spammingâ€
My quote is taken out of context. Chris listed "it makes the forum harder to read" as a reason to get rid of Sam's signature. Not because it was bigger or flashier than other people's, just because it was another reason to get rid of that one specifically. He didn't want the size changed, he wanted it removed whether Sam liked it or not. My point in that quote was that we weren't going to make Sam get rid of his signature for that reason, since it would be singling him out, and if we do something like that to one person and their sig, that we would need to do the same thing with everyone and their sig.Jeremy wrote:Obviously this is false because every forum I've seen makes people get rid of signatures that make the forum hard to read.Emily in a pm to Chris wrote:If you're argument includes the forum being harder to read, fixing it would require us to take away everyone's signatures, not just Sam's; Footbag related or not. That's not going to happen. Also, this is not a matter of what I enjoy seeing in threads. I would be a pretty bad Admin if that were the way I to made my judgments.
On Oct. 25th I asked Mike Hansen
because I didn't know, and thought it would be a good thing to have as a possibility. Yesterday he said he will be able to try out that Mod on Sunday, but that he is too busy with school until then.Moxie wrote:Is there a way to limit the size of logos in signatures like you did with avatars?
"I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
Emily Kulczyk
Emily Kulczyk
You're quibbling over semantics (which I admit when setting up forum guidelines *might* actually be productive), Jeremy. I'm not sure if you're simply as ignorant as you often present yourself as being or if this is actually a clever act of sophistry meant to beguile and subvert the forum mods.Jeremy wrote: I'm sorry but having seen both the pictures, I fail to understand how you can possibly call them "derogatory remarks regarding sexuality" - the remarks are insulting to you but you can't possibly claim that he is in any way attacking your sexuality or making any negative comment about your sexuality for that matter.
Let's stop beating around the bush, and cut to the chase:
Pictures that explicitly referenced Emily's sexual behavior and sexual activities were posted in an attempt to mock Emily and attack her in the most boorish, crudest possible manner. Here in the States we call this sexual harassment. There is a forum rule stating, that "derogatory remarks regarding sexuality" are NOT allowed. Anyone that can read and has access to a dictionary should be able to deduce that these pictures clearly violated this rule. Stop living in theory and text books and open your eyes, Jeremy. Emily was sexually harassed; there is a forum rule that, in my opinion, covers this behavior; Emily took appropriate action. If this is too vague for people like Jeremy, then I suggest that a rule be implemented that explicitly states that sexual harassment is not allowed on Modified.
Jeremy, based on your past posts, I honestly believe that you and I probably share very similar opinions on many of these issues. However, I worry that you feel jilted by the Modified community and/or current mod team and are now pursuing a somewhat fruitless grudge that only you really understand.
Matt Kain
A couple of quick comments and opinions:
1. Minor typo in rules: "degenerate" rather than "degenrate"
2. I agree with Jeremy's image signature size limitation rule. This is common practice on many forums. It makes the site easier to read and more professional looking.
3. I also support the elimination of secret forums. I have yet to see a cogent argument justifying how secret forums that, in my opinion, promote segregation and reduce administrative transparency are good for Modified or the footbag community
Finally:
True, but so what? Everyone has to start somewhere. To the best of my knowledge, no one is born a forum administrator. Emily is, however, one of the most intelligent, even-handed, mature, and articulate members of the footbag community. Those are all excellent qualities to have when placing someone in a position of leadership or authority. Experience will come with time. Give her a chance.
Matt Kain
1. Minor typo in rules: "degenerate" rather than "degenrate"
2. I agree with Jeremy's image signature size limitation rule. This is common practice on many forums. It makes the site easier to read and more professional looking.
3. I also support the elimination of secret forums. I have yet to see a cogent argument justifying how secret forums that, in my opinion, promote segregation and reduce administrative transparency are good for Modified or the footbag community
Finally:
Jeremy wrote:I also think that Emily has absolutely no experience running internet forums
True, but so what? Everyone has to start somewhere. To the best of my knowledge, no one is born a forum administrator. Emily is, however, one of the most intelligent, even-handed, mature, and articulate members of the footbag community. Those are all excellent qualities to have when placing someone in a position of leadership or authority. Experience will come with time. Give her a chance.
Matt Kain
I don't think Jeremy is harbouring any grudge against any of the mods or against modified at all, he is clearly expressing his opinion on the matter, and I encourage hima and everyone else to do so - that was the whole point.
I think the thing to remember is that obviously there can never be a set of firm rules - and there will always be some areas of interpretation - but previously that was completely undisclosed - now at least users can have a discussion regarding what is derogatory and more importantly if, given the ambiguity, it would be better dealt left outside of the guidelines because the line is too ambiguous to be meaningful. I think Jeremy is saying, in part, it is too ambiguous to be meaningful, and that mods should act on an individual basis anyway negotiating such issues between users so guidelines are the wrong approach (no doubt he will correct me if I'm wrong). I think that guidelines can supplement that approach and add a level of disclosure so users can have some idea of what to expect. Sure they will never constitute a set of firm black and white laws to be imposed, but they offer a focal point for discussion of what is and isn't acceptable. So While Martin Amis' new book might be derogatory in a sense it is probably expressed in a way to make it more acceptable than what the guideline is intended to stop and the only complaints we would get by letting his post go and a editing out a more obviously unnacceptable one will most likely be from whoever posted the unnacceptable one (and by more obviously unnacceptable I mean something like a specific derogatory term used in place of a racial category, for example) - I don't think the community will be too bothered by this situation? The whole idea is to find out now.[/i]
I think the thing to remember is that obviously there can never be a set of firm rules - and there will always be some areas of interpretation - but previously that was completely undisclosed - now at least users can have a discussion regarding what is derogatory and more importantly if, given the ambiguity, it would be better dealt left outside of the guidelines because the line is too ambiguous to be meaningful. I think Jeremy is saying, in part, it is too ambiguous to be meaningful, and that mods should act on an individual basis anyway negotiating such issues between users so guidelines are the wrong approach (no doubt he will correct me if I'm wrong). I think that guidelines can supplement that approach and add a level of disclosure so users can have some idea of what to expect. Sure they will never constitute a set of firm black and white laws to be imposed, but they offer a focal point for discussion of what is and isn't acceptable. So While Martin Amis' new book might be derogatory in a sense it is probably expressed in a way to make it more acceptable than what the guideline is intended to stop and the only complaints we would get by letting his post go and a editing out a more obviously unnacceptable one will most likely be from whoever posted the unnacceptable one (and by more obviously unnacceptable I mean something like a specific derogatory term used in place of a racial category, for example) - I don't think the community will be too bothered by this situation? The whole idea is to find out now.[/i]
Who wears short shorts?
Dylan Govender.
Dylan Govender.
Well put. I see your point. So in your model all disputes, editing, and censorship will ultimately come down to the subjective decisions of the moderators? But these decisions should and will be informed by a set of transparent guidelines that are constantly open to modification and debate. Is this correct? I think that with the right moderators, this could work.dyalander wrote:I think the thing to remember is that obviously there can never be a set of firm rules - and there will always be some areas of interpretation.... I think that guidelines can supplement that approach and add a level of disclosure so users can have some idea of what to expect. Sure they will never constitute a set of firm black and white laws to be imposed, but they offer a focal point for discussion of what is and isn't acceptable.
Upon further review, I think Jeremy's comments concerning Martin Amis are an excellent example of one of the key issues here. Perhaps a line needs to be drawn between general thought, criticism, opinions, and mature polemics (which can be very controversial and sometimes offensive) and the more directed, vitriolic, personal attacks that amount to nothing more than slander and libel. A clear distinction really needs to be made between the two. Who knows? Maybe that's impossible. Still, Jeremy is right, every effort to disambiguate the rules can only help. With that in mind, I propose that there needs to be some sort of guideline that more clearly addresses sexual harassment.
Matt Kain
Matt have you seen the image in question?
http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d18/c ... banner.jpg
http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d18/c ... banner.jpg
Can you explain to me what "derogatory remarks" regarding sexuality are made in those images?
When you consider that a cartoon like the following is allowed to be published by the most respected newspaper in Australia (www.theaustralian.com.au) - surely the rules for what's allowed on modified should at least allow the same content as a newspaper deems appropriate to print.
In any event I don't really care about if Chris is allowed to post his images or not since they were meaningless anyway. I do think it's clear that the rules aren't clear and that the mods weren't following them when they removed his picture. They should at very least change the rules so that they reflect the rules they actually use or stop making decisions outside of those rules.
The reason experience is so important is because a lack of experience leads to making mistakes that have been made before and making bad decisions. For months I disagreed with every censorship decision that the mods made and told them that that policy would lead to serious problems. I knew this from experience. They ignored me and then the forum developed serious problems. It's like I can read the future. While you are right that people need to start somewhere - Emily literally refuses to read or listen to what other people have to say. I gave the example of the changes I proposed to make where the overall reason for making the changes was giving control of the forum back to the community and I said 5 times that we should present the issue to the forum and get them to vote on it. Emily then responded saying that I was a hypocrite and that I had no right to make these decisions and that at very least we should ask the forum what they thought before making the decisions. It is clear from her comment that she cannot have possibly actually read what I had to say. And the concerning thing is that wasn't the only time that happened but it actually happened pretty much every time I complained about the censorship on the forum.
I used to think elections for mods was a bad idea but it's become clear to me that while it's not the ideal solution, it's the only practical solution to deciding who becomes a mod.
Being a mod/admin should not be a position of power and forums where it is not used as a position of power are run sooooo much better and are so much more enjoyable to post on. Look at the people who complain about the quality of modified these days and it's clear that something needs to change. I am sure that giving control of the forum back to the community and making the emphasis of the forum on building a community and not using it as resource will make the forum a much better place.
http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d18/c ... banner.jpg
http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d18/c ... banner.jpg
Can you explain to me what "derogatory remarks" regarding sexuality are made in those images?
When you consider that a cartoon like the following is allowed to be published by the most respected newspaper in Australia (www.theaustralian.com.au) - surely the rules for what's allowed on modified should at least allow the same content as a newspaper deems appropriate to print.
In any event I don't really care about if Chris is allowed to post his images or not since they were meaningless anyway. I do think it's clear that the rules aren't clear and that the mods weren't following them when they removed his picture. They should at very least change the rules so that they reflect the rules they actually use or stop making decisions outside of those rules.
The reason experience is so important is because a lack of experience leads to making mistakes that have been made before and making bad decisions. For months I disagreed with every censorship decision that the mods made and told them that that policy would lead to serious problems. I knew this from experience. They ignored me and then the forum developed serious problems. It's like I can read the future. While you are right that people need to start somewhere - Emily literally refuses to read or listen to what other people have to say. I gave the example of the changes I proposed to make where the overall reason for making the changes was giving control of the forum back to the community and I said 5 times that we should present the issue to the forum and get them to vote on it. Emily then responded saying that I was a hypocrite and that I had no right to make these decisions and that at very least we should ask the forum what they thought before making the decisions. It is clear from her comment that she cannot have possibly actually read what I had to say. And the concerning thing is that wasn't the only time that happened but it actually happened pretty much every time I complained about the censorship on the forum.
I used to think elections for mods was a bad idea but it's become clear to me that while it's not the ideal solution, it's the only practical solution to deciding who becomes a mod.
Being a mod/admin should not be a position of power and forums where it is not used as a position of power are run sooooo much better and are so much more enjoyable to post on. Look at the people who complain about the quality of modified these days and it's clear that something needs to change. I am sure that giving control of the forum back to the community and making the emphasis of the forum on building a community and not using it as resource will make the forum a much better place.
-
PegLegHolly
- Swashbuckler
- Posts: 2475
- Joined: 02 Aug 2006 17:43
- Location: Cleveland, OH
- Contact:
"eat a dick" is sexually derogatoryJeremy wrote:Matt have you seen the image in question?
http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d18/c ... banner.jpg
http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d18/c ... banner.jpg
Can you explain to me what "derogatory remarks" regarding sexuality are made in those images?
but its not derogatory towards any sexuality in the original signature because robots have no penises, or even mouths to eat penises with.
when the original signature was altered with emily's face in place of the robot, that made "eat a dick" worse because in today's world eating dicks means youre a slut.
i like the idea of using one image size in the signatures, but weeding out images based on if they look good or not is a silly idea. bad designs will always be there and trying to get rid of the dumb ones would be way too time consuming.
i dont think secret forums are a bad thing. let me explain before you attack me. secret forums dont promote segregation... it helps people talk when they arent comfortable with talking to the general public. women being active in the general modified obviously comes around and bites us on the ass sometimes. girl modified readers see the assholes before they see the nice people and are turned off by posting and having their own words turned around on them. they post in the secret forum until they are comfortable and then move on to general modified. its not there to keep people apart... its there to help people feel comfortable. people that post in secret forums dont only post in the secret forum. and the last time someone posted in the shredita forum was like... months ago. its hardly even used.
Holly Mathews
peglegholly.com
peglegholly.com
No it isn't. Many people eat dicks and enjoy it very much. Many people have their dicks eaten and enjoy it even more. When someones says "eat a dick" to me I say or think "I don't particuarily enjoy that activity, but I'm sure if you ask enough people you will find someone who wants to".PegLegHolly wrote:"eat a dick" is sexually derogatoryJeremy wrote:Matt have you seen the image in question?
http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d18/c ... banner.jpg
http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d18/c ... banner.jpg
Can you explain to me what "derogatory remarks" regarding sexuality are made in those images?
Just to be clear. The girls only forum was entirely my idea - nobody else suggested it. I did the modified survey, I tried to come up with solutions to the perceived problems and one of those perceived problems was the lack of active girls on the forum. I created the girls only forum with the sole purpose of encouraging girls to be more active. Before making any of these suggestions I put them to the mods/admin forum and then again to the forum and then when we had agreed on the decisions we went through with them. In the case of some of the specific decisions like the girls only forum I not only raised the issue in those two places - I also asked a number of people what specifically what they thought about it. In these discussions we did not come up with a consensus that it was a good idea but rather a number of the people involved in this discussion thought it would be a bad idea that would stop girls from posting on the forum instead of encouraging them (I mainly spoke with girls on this issue since I thought it was most relevant to them - although I don't think that's relevant now). However in the end we agreed to trial the secret forum and see if it worked with the specific goal of encouraging girls to be more active on modified. It is clear that the number of active girls on the forum since then has actually gone down. In fact 3 out of the 4 girls I spoke to on the issue no longer post on modified at all and I'm not sure about the 4th. As I said, we can only speculate as to if this trend is caused by the girls only forum but we can see that it hasn't achieved what it was trying to achieve at all. When we came up with this idea the shreditas.com website was very active. As the activity moved to modified shreditas.com became less and less active. Public promotion of female footbag is much more effective than a secret forum could ever be.
So to sum up: Since I was the person who created the forum, I know exactly what's it's purpose was and I now concede that it was a mistake and it should be removed.
So to sum up: Since I was the person who created the forum, I know exactly what's it's purpose was and I now concede that it was a mistake and it should be removed.
-
BainbridgeShred
- Post Master General
- Posts: 2352
- Joined: 10 Nov 2004 23:22
Was this before or after you actively censored numerous posts of mine? I'll assume after.For months I disagreed with every censorship decision that the mods made and told them that that policy would lead to serious problems. I knew this from experience. They ignored me and then the forum developed serious problems. It's like I can read the future.
I'd rather have Emily's inexperience than you're haughtiness. You started the policy of censorship on modified.
Jeremy,
I'll try to get back to your earlier question later tonight if I have time. I simply wanted to drop a quick thanks for explaining the history behind the girls only forum. It sounds like your intentions were in the right place. The sport definitely has a noticeable lack of women (or anyone other than white, teenage and twenty-something boys). It's been like that since I discovered organized footbag in 1996 (although some big steps have been taken recently - thank you, Ken). Regardless, it's nice to see that someone was at least *trying* to take steps in a forward direction.
MK
I'll try to get back to your earlier question later tonight if I have time. I simply wanted to drop a quick thanks for explaining the history behind the girls only forum. It sounds like your intentions were in the right place. The sport definitely has a noticeable lack of women (or anyone other than white, teenage and twenty-something boys). It's been like that since I discovered organized footbag in 1996 (although some big steps have been taken recently - thank you, Ken). Regardless, it's nice to see that someone was at least *trying* to take steps in a forward direction.
MK
Give me an example of a post of yours I edited. When I was a mod people constantly attacked me for decisions I didn't make. When you were banned for "threats of violence" I strongly disagreed and tried my hardest to have you unbanned.BainbridgeShred wrote:Was this before or after you actively censored numerous posts of mine? I'll assume after.For months I disagreed with every censorship decision that the mods made and told them that that policy would lead to serious problems. I knew this from experience. They ignored me and then the forum developed serious problems. It's like I can read the future.
I'd rather have Emily's inexperience than you're haughtiness. You started the policy of censorship on modified.
There was definitely a stage we went through that I initiated after the survey I ran where derogatory words used out of context that added nothing to the meaning of a post were edited out but we were very clear that it was only when the words were used out of context. I still support that idea in principle - which I don't feel has anything to do with free speech. Free speech in my opinion is the freedom to express opinions. In any event this policy was too hard to enforce and we stopped it.
And sorry for the triple post but there is no edit button.
When I became a mod it was through a discussion on modified talking about censorship on the forum and I suggested that if I were a mod I wouldn't do anything at all because my free speech ideals were so strong. Allan Haggett saw this as me offering to be a mod and made me one at footbag.org. Rob Fuller responded by making me one at modified. In that time on both forums I have locked a total of 4 topics to my knowledge. One was my own blog, one was a topic called "last person to post wins" (I won
) and two was a flame war about if Tupac was dead or not - which I now regret locking. In that time I have deleted a very small number of posts and none as far as I know since the new mods came on board. The last time I deleted a non spam post from footbag.org was 2004.
While there is no doubt I made mistakes while being a moderator and there is no doubt I will continue to make mistakes, I feel that I've largely completely upheld my free speech values.
Of course Dan, you're entitled to your own opinions. I am not offering a choice between Emily as admin or myself. What I'm saying is that the forum should be run by the people who post on it and not by arbitrarily selected people. Mods and admins should have the same amount of power as general posters - the editing powers they have should only be used to follow the will of the people on the forum. Not to push their own beliefs.
When I became a mod it was through a discussion on modified talking about censorship on the forum and I suggested that if I were a mod I wouldn't do anything at all because my free speech ideals were so strong. Allan Haggett saw this as me offering to be a mod and made me one at footbag.org. Rob Fuller responded by making me one at modified. In that time on both forums I have locked a total of 4 topics to my knowledge. One was my own blog, one was a topic called "last person to post wins" (I won
) and two was a flame war about if Tupac was dead or not - which I now regret locking. In that time I have deleted a very small number of posts and none as far as I know since the new mods came on board. The last time I deleted a non spam post from footbag.org was 2004.While there is no doubt I made mistakes while being a moderator and there is no doubt I will continue to make mistakes, I feel that I've largely completely upheld my free speech values.
Of course Dan, you're entitled to your own opinions. I am not offering a choice between Emily as admin or myself. What I'm saying is that the forum should be run by the people who post on it and not by arbitrarily selected people. Mods and admins should have the same amount of power as general posters - the editing powers they have should only be used to follow the will of the people on the forum. Not to push their own beliefs.
Yes, I've seen the images. Wow. Wow. Wow. I typed three wows so Jeremy would see how shocked I am. I stand by my earlier comment: you either have a serious grudge that's preventing you from seeing the obvious or your thinking on the issue is just unbelievably backwards and narrow-minded.Jeremy wrote:Matt have you seen the image in question?
http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d18/c ... banner.jpg
http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d18/c ... banner.jpg
Can you explain to me what "derogatory remarks" regarding sexuality are made in those images?
Alright. Here we go. Derogatory: tending to lessen the merit or reputation of a person or thing; disparaging; depreciatory. So the question is whether or not the images were in some way meant to lessen the merit, reputation, or in some way disparage Emily. Do you honestly not see this?
Mystery 1: Who are the cartoons about? Hmmm... who could it be? A female admin that has a relationship with someone known as Funk. Boy, big freaking mystery there. I'm no Encyclopedia Brown, but even I figured this one out. Still haven't figured it out, Jeremy? EMILY. THE CARTOONS ARE ABOUT EMILY! THE ONLY FEMALE ADMIN WHO HAS A RELATIONSHIP WITH SOMEONE KNOWN AS FUNK (I typed in all caps to ensure that Jeremy gets the point)
Mystery 2: Are these comics disparaging or meant to lessen Emily's merit or reputation? Boy, another tough one. Luckily I just watched Matlock so I think I can handle this one too. Let's see.. the comics refer to Emily as "bitch" and "adminbiatch." Sounds pretty disparaging to me. Case closed. Oh wait, there's more! The cartoons are also filled with numerous ribald, juvenile jokes, lascivious insinuations, and degrading accusations about Emily's private life and sexuality. I don't really need to quote them since any 3rd grader can take one look at the comics and see that they are insulting and disparaging.
Mystery solved! The comics were about Emily and they were derogatory! The poster broke a forum rule! Emily’s decision to remove the comics was totally appropriate! Hurrah for logic!
Jeremy, you need to do one of three things:
1. Read more Encyclopedia Brown and watch more Matlock (it might help you solve future "mysteries").
2. Pick up any introductory book on feminism, gender politics, or world history and learn about how women have been controlled, objectified, harassed, and generally shat upon by men for centuries. In fact if you can make it past a dozen or so pages, you might even find examples of how female sexuality has been used as a tool to mock, discredit, and humiliate women for a really, really, really long time. Seriously! No joke! Check out how I used “reallyâ€
I can only judge people on how the behave around me.
I'm not trying to get credit for what I may have done in the past or attack the mods/admins - I'm trying to improve modified so that people enjoy the forum again.
Have you read David Clavens Blog? Do you know what the second top topic in the "shredders anonymous" topic is?
I do not have the time or the effort to disagree with you. Arguing those points won't achieve anything.
This is why I hate modified so much - because whenever you try to make progress it ends up being a debate about points that won't achieve anything.
I'm not trying to get credit for what I may have done in the past or attack the mods/admins - I'm trying to improve modified so that people enjoy the forum again.
Have you read David Clavens Blog? Do you know what the second top topic in the "shredders anonymous" topic is?
I do not have the time or the effort to disagree with you. Arguing those points won't achieve anything.
This is why I hate modified so much - because whenever you try to make progress it ends up being a debate about points that won't achieve anything.
Ok sorry, that was an equally nonconstructive post. I've given this some thought and I think it would be a really good idea to put this debate on hold for a short period of time. You will know when it's a good time for the issue to be discussed but at this stage some of us are acting on information that other people don't have and apparently we're not allowed to say. I think it would be very good to re-evaluate the purpose of modified and make some significant changes but I can't see that happening until later on.
It's clear to me that the current structures don't work and I have a good idea of how it could be dramatically improved but now is the wrong time.
I will put forward a proposal when the time is right.
It's clear to me that the current structures don't work and I have a good idea of how it could be dramatically improved but now is the wrong time.
I will put forward a proposal when the time is right.