Hmm, I know well of what you speak here young sir, my son is a moderator and co-owner of an aviation forum website and people will polarise themselves one way or another, and for the record and benefit of all the other parties involved, I'm not taking sides or showing any favouritism by commenting here.
The trick with moderating as I see it is really one of ensuring that nothing gets out of hand by offensive and flaming takes over, we are all individuals and have our own opinions and it is the airing of those opinions that help understand each others points of view. We are, are we not all adults here and as such should respect each others view point and cut each other some slack?
Its my view that this topic about OS's is getting way out of hand and has been prolonged far longer then it would have done if objections to what was in effect very much related to the core subject of TEA, had not been raised in the first instance but we all have off days and react in a fashion that normally we wouldn't.
As to the use of bold or even capitals in a written message be it a letter or an email, then it very much depends on the amount used. If all the message in capitals, then yes it is considered to be shouting, but a few words here or there is not, it is considered as a way of emphasising something. This I know because I had to take legal advice with regard to an email I sent to a company director who had a thing about email etiquette. I used a few capitals for emphasis only and he took it personally that I was shouting at him and that in his view was not a proper way to communicate with a director. It was perfectly fine for him to draw certain assumptions about some actions that I was deemed to have done incorrectly etc and speak down to me and even used IIRC a few capitals but not the other way around. Anyway, the legal position is that the use of capitals, bold or italics as I had used them was a perfectly acceptable fashion of re-enforcing a point and that I was perfectly entitled to use them as a robust defense of myself. In my defense at the time that I received the email from the director, I had also that day received some very disturbing personal news and and my normal more rational side was suppressed by the news I had received so I reacted without thinking it through properly.
Another situation I got myself into hot water with the MD over my use of the word "pro-rata" in an email, meaning proportional but the MD had other ideas as to what it meant and rather then finding out its true meaning, took it out on me, without even giving me the courtesy of explaining what I meant, he was judge and jury and I was guilty as charged in his view 
Anyway, lets not dwell on this subject any longer and draw a line in the sand and move on.
Agreed, and I agree with the
"Everything in moderation, especially moderation." model of moderating. Until it turns flame-ey or ridiculously recursive (a little recursion can be amusing; I for one LOVE a good running gag) I keep hands off, then politely but firmly apply the brakes, then the time-out chair, then the ban-hammer in that order. That approach has never failed me.
I think
the main problem here, and one that is almost impossible to eliminate, is honest disagreement over where the "ridiculous" line lies. That, IMO, is precisely why we need moderation, and as long as the mods are reasonable and willing to hear civilized debate over those lines (provided it is KEPT civil, of course) then a forum is and will remain a successful, living entity. Otherwise we'd just be Face/Butt, where most of the moderation is done by bots.
Over here, we say "Stick a pin in it", but I think you mean the same thing, and I agree. Time to move forward.
mnem
Mindless application of the letter of the law is worse than anarchy; it in fact becomes its own form of anarchy.
Home
Help
Search
Login
Register
Topic: Test Equipment Anonymous (TEA) group therapy thread (Read 18796541 times)