Home The Book Dr Articles Products Message Boards Journal Articles Search Our Surveys Surgery ESWT Dr Messages Find Good Drs video

Who wants to monitor messages?

Posted by Scott R on 3/24/03 at 23:22 (114389)

Does anyone want to volunteer to monitor and delete messages they view as mean or off-topic?

Re: Who wants to monitor messages?

Ed Davis, DPM on 3/24/03 at 23:26 (114391)

Scott:
Good idea. Can it be done by a small committee? We need to give that individual a specific set of rules to go by that all can view as fair and objective.
Ed

Re: emoticons

Ed Davis, DPM on 3/24/03 at 23:31 (114393)

Scott:
You need someone laid back and without strong political opinions such as myself to do the job.

By the way, can you get emoticons on this board. It would help enormously.
For example, some will actually take the first sentence on this post seriously without an emoticon.
Ed

Re: Who wants to monitor messages?

pala on 3/24/03 at 23:38 (114394)

i think that is a great idea. considering how polarized and how uncivil this baord was along political beliefs, i think the comittee would need to have an equal number of liberals and conservatives. either that or just agree that politics not be discussed here anymore. maybe with that idea in mind, some of the liberals who left this board would want to come back.

Re: Who wants to monitor messages?

pala on 3/24/03 at 23:47 (114395)

i wonder if marie on the liberal side and suzanne on the conservative side sound like a good idea to others. they would both make wonderful moderators in my opinion. neither one ever attacked anyone no matter how heated it got.

Re: emoticons

Scott R on 3/25/03 at 06:50 (114401)

I second the motion by Dr Ed that Dr Ed be the committee of one. I also vote 'yes' on the proposal which makes it unanimous. hooray!

I love the idea about emoticons. I'll look into stealing yahoo's set of emoticons. I'll be out of town today.

Re: Who wants to monitor messages?

Sharon W on 3/25/03 at 07:07 (114403)

Those both sound like good suggestions to me.

Sharon

Re: Who wants to monitor messages?

Richard, C.Ped on 3/25/03 at 07:58 (114410)

I would like to be on the committee...but I am afraid that if I deleted a message, someone would get mad or offended that I did...then lash back at me. The emoticon idea is wonderful.
Richard

Re: Scott

wendyn on 3/25/03 at 08:11 (114412)

I don't really like the idea of message monitoring Scott - but if you seriously want someone to do it, I would volunteer.

I seem to have much less emotional involvement in this discussion than most people here - I can see both sides of the issues but the mud slinging and insults (on both side) are getting on my nerves.

I have no problem with people presenting their point of view, but I would hope that most people (by now) would have learned to do it without insulting whoever they're talking to (seems to not be the case).

Of course, posts and email are notorious for being misinterpreted - they can be read with any tone of voice.

Whatever - let me know. Otherwise I'll continue to ignore the 'political' posts.

Re: Who wants to monitor messages?

marie on 3/25/03 at 08:22 (114413)

I occasionally post on and read the MS boards. It grew from 350 to now over 3500 registered posters. They have a 6 moderators. That way the it's spread out between several folks. They don't delete things. They just remind folks to abide by the rules....like you can't sell stuff on the boards. If the posts continue after gentle warnings than an email is sent to the webmaster and the post is removed. Because there are six no one knows which moderator sent the webmaster the orders to remove the posts. The moderators are usually polite folks. Moderators change yearly if necessary. The moderators make a pact not to pit against each other. For instance...if someone posts something that is not suitable for the web and amoderator gives a gentle warning that it is not appropriate another moderator should not disagree at least openly on the boards.

I suggest that we have 4-5 moderators and scott work with those moderators to set up some guidelines that we can all live by.

I wouldn't mind doing it but would like to see at least 3 others. with all the different timezones we would at least need that. I think Richard would be a good choice as well. Are there any other folks willing to do it?

Re: Scott

Kathy G on 3/25/03 at 09:03 (114417)

Well, since I brought up the idea of doing something before the board totally falls apart, Scott, I'll do whatever you suggest. I don't know as I would be able to monitor without worrying about hurting people's feelings but maybe I could do it all right. I have no problem with political discussion on either side of the issue. Further down, in an article about hawks (the birds, not the other type we're hearing about lately), I jokingly said maybe we should indicate in our message lines whether the post is political or non-political.

Like Wendy, I'm a middle-of-the-roader on the war and can see both sides, despite the fact that I have always dubbed myself as a Liberal. I do usually favor liberal stances but would like to think that I could allow fair and respectful debate. The tone of the board of late has been very upsetting.

I do believe the emoticons are a good idea. I have never used them in my email (I have AOL) but sometimes I drive my daughter, who's away at school, absolutely crazy by changing fonts, colors and peppering my IM's to her with them! I just want to prove that her Mom is with it!

Re: Scott

pala on 3/25/03 at 09:11 (114420)

wendyn, if the monitoring is to be by only one person and not a comittee, i agree that you are a good person for the job. you have never, in my experience, attacked or insulted anyone on this board. i don't know how the monitor thing would be decided but i would love to hear others opinions on tihs

Re: Scott

pala on 3/25/03 at 09:14 (114421)

hey kathy, i cannot remember a time that you ever attacked or insulted anyone either, so i also think that you would make an excellent monitortoo.. and after all, you are the one who brought the idea here of doing something and got us all civil again.

Re: Scott

pala on 3/25/03 at 09:15 (114422)

that's monitor, altho i have no doubt you would also make an excellent monitortoo as well.

Re: Scott

marie on 3/25/03 at 09:21 (114423)

Kathy,

I think you and Wendy would make very good moderators.

I agree I don't have a problem with anyone discussing the war or politics. A problem ensues when one group of individuals are insulted, whether it is direct namecalling or subtle decalrations about sanity or intellect of specific groups. Comments like those will always get folks riled up. I would like to interject one other thought...copy and pasting is a copywrite infringement....I know I am guilty as well and I have stopped. I feel it appropriate to refer to a link. I only click on the links I am intereted in. It's much easier to not get drawn in. To be honest this is the most I've seen the guys on. Moderators can't catch everything but it can help this board. I feel we have tried every route and still end up with a battle. Scott shouldn't be put in charge of us...we should be able to moniter ourselves.

marie

Re: Scott

pala on 3/25/03 at 09:24 (114424)

how abot including yourself as a monitor marie. you are close to sainthood in these discussions and you waded into the mess constatntly with words of peace and moderation to all sides.

Re: Scott

Kathy G on 3/25/03 at 09:24 (114425)

Actually, I have always believed my true calling in life was to be a monitortoo!

I was just thinking, I would be very uncomfortable deleting posts as that smacks of censorship which I cannot abide. I wouldn't have a problem with letting the webmaster, lucky Scott, know if I thought things were getting out of hand. I don't know if this is how Scott wants to go but I am willing to do whatever I can to save this board and make it a welcoming place for people who have sore feet to come and talk - about anything, as long as it's in a fair, respectful manner.

I feel so badly for anyone who has found this site while surfing. It took me a long time to get up enough nerve to post back when I first found these boards. I kept coming back and even went so far as to write messages and then chicken out before I actually posted them. I can't even imagine a new person daring to post for the last month or so.

Re: emoticons

Sharon W on 3/25/03 at 09:32 (114429)

Dr. Ed,

Actually, I think the first sentence of that post also serves to illustrate something else besides that it's hard to tell when someone's joking. You wrote it this way, 'You need someone laid back and without strong political opinions such as myself to do the job.'

On my first read through, I saw that as, 'You need someone laid back and without strong political opinions, such as the strong opinions I hold, to do the job.'

That's the sort of miscommunication problem that can occur verbally, too --
but at least, verbally, you would probably be able to see that the person was making a little joke.

Sharon
.

Re: Scott

marie on 3/25/03 at 09:42 (114434)

Scott wouldn't have to do to much all a moderator does is send him the number of the post and it's gone. He doesn't have to read it or agree with it....it's all about trusting those that are moderating....plus folks would have ample warning. I have never seen anything deleted at the MS site but that doesn't mean it hasn't happened.

marie

Re: Scott

Sharon W on 3/25/03 at 09:56 (114436)

Marie,

I liked Pala's idea of finding an equal number of people from both sides, and I liked Ed's idea that monitors should not be people who hold strong political opinions. I also liked the idea that when someone writes a political thread it should be identified as such in the subject line.

As for how many monitors there should be -- that depends on whether all of the monitors would have to agree before deleting a post, or only one monitor is required. If they must all agree, it would be good to keep it down to two, because the more people you have involved the more difficult it will be to get unanimous agreement.

Another question: would this monitoring apply only to the social board, where heated arguments seem most likely to occur, or will monitors be expected to examine all the posts, on all the boards?

You brought up the question that remains: precisely what would be considered an infringement? Will the monitors just be using their personal judgement on whether they think someone's post is acceptable or not, or will they have a list of possible infringements to compare the post against?

If there is to be a list of possible infringements, I suggest that perhaps the monitors should get together and come up with a preliminary list, then post it on the social board for discussion by everyone. (In fact, if all the boards are to be affected by this, then the preliminary list should be posted on each of the other boards as well.)

Sharon
.

Re: Scott

pala on 3/25/03 at 10:06 (114440)

sharon, that was my idea when we first thought of it but now i think it is much more important that a monitor has never attacked, insulted or, written infamatory posts.

Re: Scott

Sharon W on 3/25/03 at 10:10 (114441)

Yes, I understand your point, and I think it should be a consideration, but I don't think it should be a requirement. Recent arguments have made it extremely obvious that we do not all agree as to exactly what an 'attack,' an 'insult,' or an 'inflammatory post' IS. That, itself, is definitely a matter of opinion -- and who would make that judgement call?

Sharon

Re: Scott

pala on 3/25/03 at 10:23 (114442)

i'll grant you that it might be debatable what an inflammatory post is. so i'll rescind that part of my suggestion. i think it would be totally obvious who are insulting attackin folks here . and so i will reword what i said for clarity: i think it is very important that the monitor (s) be people who have never hurled an insult at any one here and are not known for their attacking and partisan behavior. and i think it should be the only requirement . we cannot have a fair or decent monitor if that person is an partisan insulting attacker. in fact i nominated wendyn, kathy and marie for the monitor job and i wuold love to hear from anyone who feels they are insulting attacking partisan posters. i have no doubt if anyone felt that way they would un nominate themselves immediately because that is the kind of fair and moderte people they are.

Re: Scott

Sharon W on 3/25/03 at 10:23 (114443)

Also, I think it would be very hard to find someone who has been posting on these boards for a long time but has NEVER written a post that upset or angered someone else. And not everyone responds to anger by striking back, or by protesting. In many cases, a poster's sharp words to someone else have never been challenged, even if the person being addressed did take offense. There are many people who, if they have been angered by someone else's post, will react the way I usually do -- by ignoring it.

Sharon

Re: Scott

john h on 3/25/03 at 10:24 (114444)

Kathy: at one time Scott did exercise some censorship when someone got out of hand. You would be allowed three strikes and you were out. I think I remember two persons being kicked off the board. In recent days he would have probably kicked us all off. On my sports board we do have a moderator and he will bring you into line if you get nasty. People may cry freedom of speech but this is Scott's board and he can block us or take it down as he pleases. We have had a few spats over the years but usually return to normal after a while.Scott I think can pickup your IP number so even if you come back with a name he is blocking your IP address so nothing from that computer can get in. It would be a nightmare overlooking the Social Board.

Re: Scott

Sharon W on 3/25/03 at 10:28 (114445)

I was not objecting to any of those people, but I'll bet if I were willing to take the time to research I could find examples where they have answered someone back sharply. Noone is perfect.

Sharon

Re: Scott

john h on 3/25/03 at 10:29 (114446)

Wendy walks like a duck. She also made Scott remove her picture she did not like from the board. sShe must have to much control over Scott. Can you imagine voting for a moderator? Sort of like voting for a President. The war would start all over. What was it Lyndon Johnson said? 'If nominated I will not accept.If elected I will not serve'. That would be my words.

Re: Scott

pala on 3/25/03 at 10:34 (114447)

maybe so sharon. but i think it is obvious here who were the partisan, insulting, attacking posters. and i think it is also obvious that it would be rediculous and a farce if one turned out to be a monitor. i am not asking for perfection here, just reason and fairness and good faith opinions on this issue. and i think when it comes to reason and fairness and good faith, the monitors we are discussing are exemplary.

Re: Scott

Sharon W on 3/25/03 at 10:36 (114449)

I'm sure we both feel that it is obvious who were the partisan, unsulting, attacking posters. But what is obvious to me may not be obvious to you, and vice versa.

Sharon

Re: Scott

pala on 3/25/03 at 10:42 (114450)

i'm sure if we discussed it in good faith we would come up with the same people.

Re: Scott

pala on 3/25/03 at 10:46 (114451)

maybe i should clarify my last post. i mean i think the posters we are discussing are so glaringly obvious that , with continued discussion, we will come to a fair agreement. just as you and i agreed, more or less, about marie, wendyn and kathy

Re: Who wants to monitor messages?

john h on 3/25/03 at 10:47 (114452)

I am not sure how a monitor would function. Certainly offensive words could be censored but not ideas. It would take someone with the wisdom of Solomon to be effective and not let bias or their own life's experience creep in. For example would a monitor censor out 'right wing hawk' 'left wing liberal' words such as 'hitler' or 'mein kampf'. Depending on what context these phrases and words are used they may be perfectly appropriate. Other words and pharases which are usually just ever day words can become triggers when used in some comments 'the likes of you', 'You' at he beginning of a sentence, 'you do not know what you are talking about'. How many of us do not get really offended sometimes by editorials we read in magazines or newspapers. Being mean or offended is often in the eye of the beholder. A monitor/censor could be a real nest of worms if not handled with delacacy and wisdom. I think we could all agree that the obvious four letter words is not appropriate but scanning each and evry post and judging it;s contents is going to be very difficult and may or may not work. .

At the U.N. the current nation heading the committee on Human Rights is Lybia

Re: emoticons

john h on 3/25/03 at 10:50 (114453)

Scott have you ever changed sheets or made up your bed yet? Is the kudzu still there?

Re: emoticons

john h on 3/25/03 at 10:52 (114455)

Scott have you ever changed sheets or made up your bed yet? Is the kudzu still there?

Re: Who wants to monitor messages?

pala on 3/25/03 at 10:56 (114456)

to a certain extent, we will have to see how the monitoring goes. i am sure some of it is just seat of the pants decisions and good , fair, sense. i imagine much will get through that many do not like. just the most egregious posts will be deleted. if anything really offensive got thru, then someone would complain and the monitor could take a look at it. anyway, i really don't know exactly how it works either but these are some of my conjectures.

Re: Who wants to monitor messages?

pala on 3/25/03 at 10:57 (114457)

almost anything would be better than the last few months in my opinion.

Re: Scott

Sharon W on 3/25/03 at 11:02 (114458)

I agreed that all three of them would be acceptable, not that they should be the only members of the committe. I liked the idea of Suzanne being on it (and/or perhaps Necee or Carole); I think they all probably lean toward the conservative side and are not sharp-tongued or hotheaded. Marie (and, I think, Kathy) are moderately democratic. I will conceded that Wendy seems to be very neutral in this instance (and she may not feel as intensely about these political issues as others do because she is not from the USA).

I really do think it would be important to maintain a political balance on the committe, because I do believe that what is considered insulting is a matter of personal judgement, not a fact acknowledged universally by everyone. Personal judgement involves an individual's point of view, and when politics are being discussed, then a monitor's leaning toward liberal or conservative is an important factor.

Of course, it is not all up to you and I, in any case.

Sharon
.

Re: On committee membership

Sharon W on 3/25/03 at 11:08 (114459)

Richard,

You would be a good choice for the committee, although I have no idea of your politics.

I liked the idea of Suzanne being on it (and/or perhaps Necee or Carole); I think they all probably lean toward the conservative side and are not sharp-tongued or hotheaded. Marie (and, I think, Kathy) are moderately democratic. I will conceded that Wendy seems to be very neutral in this instance (and she may not feel as intensely about these political issues as others do because she is not from the USA).

I really do think it would be important to maintain a political balance on the committe, because I do believe that what is considered insulting is a matter of personal judgement, not a fact acknowledged universally by everyone. Personal judgement involves an individual's point of view, and when politics are being discussed, then a monitor's leaning toward liberal or conservative is an important factor.

Re: Scott

pala on 3/25/03 at 11:13 (114462)

that is right sharon , luckilty it is not all up to us. i think it is much more important that the monitors have shown themselves to not be partisan along conservative lines in who they have interacted with in a fair and pleasant way and have shown themselves to be consistently non attacking and peace making. with that in mind i can wholeheartedly agree that suzanne would make a fair and i might add a kind and considerate monitor. i think everyone here has been touched by her gentle, kind, peaceful, supportive and loving presence here.

Re: Scott

pala on 3/25/03 at 11:16 (114463)

as it is also necessary that liberal monitors can live up to that same high standard.

Re: Scott

Sharon W on 3/25/03 at 11:19 (114465)

Wendyn,

I think it would be great to have you acting as a monitor! It makes sense for you to neutral and more objective, since you are not from the USA. With you involved, there could potentially be a committee of 5 people: two who lean toward liberal, two who lean toward conservative, and you -- since you are neutral, you would be able to use your judgement and break any ties.

I liked Pala's idea of Suzanne being on it -- and I would love to see someone else such as Necee or Carole say they are willing to do it. I think they all probably lean toward the conservative side and are not sharp-tongued or hotheaded. Marie (and, I think, Kathy) are moderately democratic.

I really do think it would be important to maintain a political balance on the committe, because what is considered insulting is a matter of personal judgement, not a fact acknowledged universally by everyone. Personal judgement involves an individual's point of view, and when politics are being discussed, then a monitor's leaning toward liberal or conservative is an important factor. That is where your point of view, being more objective and detatched, would be incredibly valuable.

Sharon

Re: Scott

pala on 3/25/03 at 11:21 (114466)

sharon, it just occurred to me that only kathy and wendyn have volunteered to monitor. do you think it is insensitive of us to be bandying non volunteers names around here like this? maybe we should stop this.

Re: Scott

pala on 3/25/03 at 11:23 (114468)

now that i think of it i think it is potentially awkward and embarrasing to have one's name mentioned in this discussion unelssl they have volunteered because they would then be up for opinions about them and they are just innocent bystanders who did not ask for that.

Re: Scott

john h on 3/25/03 at 11:24 (114469)

Sharon you are right probably. Who is so perfect as to make these judgements which is why we have the Constitution and Freedom of Expression. I sure get offended by some of the protesters and their signs such as 'We support our troop killing their officers' but I clearly recognize their right to do so. The more I think about this the more it seems to me that in any discussion with opposing views some people will be offended.

Re: Scott

Sharon W on 3/25/03 at 11:29 (114470)

I think Marie indicated that she might consider doing it, and I hope she will. But you have a point, none of the others have volunteered, and they seem to have stopped posting on this social board so they may not be reading it either. So this is all completely theoretical, an ideal committe that we are dreaming up, and it probably will not turn out the way we've imagined.

But I see nothing wrong with ASKING the people we have mentioned whether they would be willing to serve as monitors. I should think it might be rather flattering, to be 'nominated' for that position so to speak...

Sharon

Re: Scott

pala on 3/25/03 at 11:31 (114471)

the more i think on it the more i see that just as people who run for office invite a vailid investigation and discussion of their qualifications and personalities, so those who do not volunteer to monitor or moderate should not be brought up because then they would be exposed to a discussion of themselves in a context they did not ask for and are not even aware of. now i see the wisdom of scott's asking who would like to volunteer. i would be very happy with the two who did. and i think i will only feel comfortable discussing other's fairness if they came forth and volunteered.

Re: Scott

pala on 3/25/03 at 11:32 (114473)

if marie volunteered than i would be very happy to have her as a monitor as well.

Re: Scott

john h on 3/25/03 at 11:34 (114474)

Sharon if I really get upset with a poster I just skip over his/her post Until I am ready to resume reading them. Sort of like TV if you do not like Fox then do not watch it. Really sort of simple. If you are spoiling for a fight you can usually find one. I am still wondering why all of us come back here to join in on this. If it drives us crazy then we would need a Psychiatrist to tell us why we do this. Why do we rubber neck at car wrecks? It is really sort of simple to do like Julie and Nancy and just go away but I knew Julie would be watching and just could not stay away. She is much to involved to become the invisible woman. Yes Nancy N I know you are out there watching on your MAC..

Re: In summary

Sharon W on 3/25/03 at 11:39 (114475)

Yes, I went back and looked over her posts -- Marie did not volunteer, or even say that she would consider it. But her post didn't seem to be completely ruling out the possibility, either. I certainly hope she will, because I think she is fair-minded, very diplomatic, and slow to anger.

But that is really as far as we can really go with this until and unless some of the people we have mentioned actually decide to volunteer.

Sharon

Re: Scott

john h on 3/25/03 at 11:48 (114476)

Pala: yes some post you could probably get 99% of the people to agree it was rude but even in our court system we have disputes over what is totally obvious and what is not. We all come to the table with different backgrounds, different taste, different religions, different ages, different values so very few things are obvious to all people.

In our country a thumbs up signal is an obvious show of everything is ok. In the Iraq culture the thumbs up is the same as giving some one the bird or middle finger signal. We have so many different cultures in America where words take on different meanings. I often print things in jest in my post and have found some people take them as serious post.

A monitor might not be much different than a censor. I know that I am not wise enough to hanlde a task such as this regardless of my beliefs. Most board monitors eliminate bad language (4 letter words) and recommend that posters be nice.

I think this may not work as people from one side or the other are going to think they are being discriminated against.

Re: I hope they will ALL return

Sharon W on 3/25/03 at 11:48 (114477)

John,

I hope she is! I would love to have all those people come back.

But by no means are they the ONLY ones I miss! I would also love to see the return of all the other posters who never posted a declaration that they were leaving (and why), just decided not to leave the social board. I could name half a dozen people I think who are moderate or somewhat conservative that seem to have simply stopped posting here.

Sharon

Re: In summary

pala on 3/25/03 at 11:50 (114478)

thank you sharon. i i realize now that if a name is mentioned who did not volunteer the potential for un asked for hurt is there wether there is a reply from others or not. if no one seconds the motion or if only a few do or if the seconds are luke warm etc etc . there is no way to win for anyone and an awful lot of ways for hurt or embarrassment. i take back anyone i nominated who did not vollunteer. i apologize for bringing them up in this context. . they are out of the discussion as far as i am concerned.

Re: John

Sharon W on 3/25/03 at 11:51 (114479)

John,

That is my big worry -- that people from one side or the other will feel that they are being discriminated against. The only thing I can think of that MIGHT avoid that problem, is making sure that the committee is evenly balanced.

Sharon

Re: In summary

pala on 3/25/03 at 11:53 (114480)

only if someone volunteers will i assess their fairness as i spoke up about wendyn and kathy.

Re: Sorry for the blooper, John

Sharon W on 3/25/03 at 11:55 (114481)

Oops! I meant to say, 'I would also love to see the return of all the other posters who never posted a declaration that they were leaving (and why), just decided not to post anymore on the social board.'

Sharon

Re: John

pala on 3/25/03 at 11:57 (114482)

i think what will avoid that problem is as a volunteer comes forward for folks to say if they think that person is a fair person who does not insult and attack and if we feel comfortable with that person. open discussion is the key. and i must say i have appreciated this discussion with no insults or attacks this morning. it shows how ideas can flourish and how thoughts can develop and expand in a neutral atmosphere of civil discourse.

Re: John

pala on 3/25/03 at 12:07 (114485)

i say let wendyn and kathy start monitoring ( assuming no one is opposed to them) and then add more volunteers if folks are not pleased wtih the arrangement.

Re: John

Sharon W on 3/25/03 at 12:09 (114486)

I have always tried not to insult or attack. However, I do not have a natural talent for diplomacy, and my words have sometimes been taken as an attack when they were not intended as such.

Sharon

Re: Scott

wendyn on 3/25/03 at 12:16 (114487)

Sharon - my gut feel is that moderation on a bulletin board isn't really about politics (for or against) - the moderation should focus on not allowing things to get so personal and ugly that they detract from the board.

I think that if two people want to hurl insults and accusations - they need to take outside (aka email).

Other than that - I think that personal opinions, on either side are fine.

I do have a problem with people cutting and pasting political propaganda from other websites (just as much as I would have a problem with people cutting and pasting a bunch of advertisements).

I think posting a link is fine (since it doesn't clutter the board - and it still gives an option to view other information).

I have to get back to work.

Re: John

pala on 3/25/03 at 12:17 (114488)

i have even less talent for diplomacy. but i have no doubt that our two volunteers will not be quick to jump to conclusions because that is their history on this board (i only wonder how my new york humor is going to come accorss. but you know what, i think they will be slow to assumeand quick to 'get' where folks are coming from. (unless theyve been mugged by a new yorker and then i'm in a fix)

Re: Scott

Pauline on 3/25/03 at 12:41 (114492)

Wendyn,
You've got my vote on this one. I think you make a very good point especially about the link idea.

Re: John

john h on 3/25/03 at 12:41 (114493)

Sharon: I have no problem with what ever happens. Having served on many committees as you probably have trying to get 3 or 4 people to come to some consensus is not an easy thing. I am probably still in the military mode where we operated by one law and when the commander said jump everyone jumped. When you are sending out post or emails to people telling them they are doing something wrong there are going to be some real hurt feelings unless you show a lot of restraint.Watch your City Board of Directors argue every night about what is right or wrong to get an idea of how this can go. They never agree on anything and get really irate.

Re: Scott

john h on 3/25/03 at 12:45 (114494)

Pala: Is not a monitor a form of a Lizard? (Joke Pala joke)

Re: Scott

pala on 3/25/03 at 12:52 (114495)

i appreciate jokes here. we need lots of them.

Re: Scott

john h on 3/25/03 at 13:48 (114503)

ok Wendy if you are going to become a Mountie and the thought control Police do not mess with my mind. I still have that picture you do not like and will get it posted if you mess with me. If we vote on this what are you going to give me for my vote? Can you be bought off? Do not try and ship me the Canadian Health Care System. I know where you live and have your email address. Do you like Margaret Thatcher? Do you have a Flexible Flyer snow sled? Do you have snow shoes? Do you eat seals or polar bear? Do you get your vitamin E from salmon? Do you like tuna salad and Molson? I need to know all these things in order to make a judgement on your qualification to be a though control Mountie?

Re: Scott

Ed Davis, DPM on 3/25/03 at 13:55 (114506)

John, Scott, Pala:

The overseer would not be very active in the sense that a moderator would.
That person would not be a host, moderator and definitely not a censor.
That individual would only step in if things got out of hand.

We do need more that one person as no one can monitor the board with sufficient regularity. Sometimes it only takes one post, strongly worded or mis-interpreted to initiate a conflagration so things can happen fast.
The overseer needs the ability to step in and contact Scott when a IP block is needed.
Ed

Re: Scott

wendyn on 3/25/03 at 14:04 (114508)

John - I am not into thought control or censorship - but you already know that.

I am already in your mind - because I know you like Tuna sandwiches - and you still can't figure out how I know that.

I prefer Corona or Sol over Molson (but at lease you can spell it now).

Margaret Thatcher scares me (she's much bigger than I am)

I get my vitamin e from a pill - but I like salmon on the barbeque.

Re: Scott

Sharon W on 3/25/03 at 14:26 (114510)

Kathy,

Sorry about that -- your post seems to have given birth to a huge, lizard like creature that is now sprawled across the board!

I do think you would be a good moderator, and I appreciate your willingness to serve as one.

As I said to Wendyn and Richard, since the issue we are dealing with is basically how to handle politics on the board, I would really like to see a balanced committee, politically. That way, neither liberals nor conservatives will be able to legitimately complain that they were ganged up on because the majority of monitors were from the opposite camp...

Sharon
.

Re: Scott

pala on 3/25/03 at 14:49 (114513)

i think the issue is more than how to handel politics. i think the issues include that but the bigger issues: nastiness, insults, mean posts, baiting, vcousness and attacks. i have no problem with the overseers being an equal mix of liberals, conservatives, moderates, and political agnostics as long as we all agree they are not folks who do the above. i strongly feel that if a moderator is or has done the above then it would be a farce and a joke and a disaster. like putting the fox in charge of the hen house.

Re: Scott

john h on 3/25/03 at 15:43 (114523)

With my erratic spelling I will surely be the first one to be reprenended.

Re: Scott

john h on 3/25/03 at 16:28 (114533)

Sharon: i am not sure it is so much about politics. we have had erruptions over other issues over the years. it is mostly about being civil. We have had some of the Doctors severly put down at one time or another. We have got into it over WWII. the effectivness of treatments. many of these got nasty so almost any topic can go south if some person gets fired up about it. If I said Kentucky Fried Chicken sucks then Suzanne may drop a bomb on me.If I said the Seattle Seahawks are a bunch of sissys I bet Dr. Ed would hop on me. I could say a lot of people from Jersey are gangsters but then my daughter was born there. Anyway Dr. Z would not appreciate that. Almost any subject can turn bad on a dime..

Re: Scott

john h on 3/25/03 at 16:30 (114534)

Wendy I cannot believe you prefer Corona over Molson. It is just plain un patriotic. Maybe you are taling about corona cigars? I never dated girls who smoked cigars.

Re: Scott

Suzanne D on 3/25/03 at 16:49 (114536)

Actually, John, I'm no fancy cook, but I prefer my own Kentucky fried chicken over Colonel Sanders'! But then, I'll never turn down a chance to take a break and go out to eat - there or most anywhere else! :-)

Suzanne :-)

Re: Scott

marie on 3/25/03 at 17:49 (114549)

I'm with Wendy...Corona

Re: Shocked. Shocked and dismayed

JudyS on 3/25/03 at 17:58 (114556)

John, I think you've hit the nail on the head. Having a so-called monitor here could be doing nothing more than opening a can of worms.

At the risk of taking a few hits from some terrific folks here, I 've just got to say that I am shocked that we are talking about appointing monitors to this message board. Shocked.

Have we truly gotten to the point where we need to be monitored as though we're kindergartners? That seems sad to me because this group has always, and I mean always, prided itself on it's intelligent and caring communication(s).

Now, it's true that some folks have chosen to leave - but goodness, that is a choice one gets to make. Someone said it earlier - an individual can choose to opt out of reading certain posts and save themselves from possible hurt. I was quite insulted by some of the earliest posts in the political discussion but chose to ignore the whole thing and those who posted them. There simply is NO CURE for internet arguments and anyone who becomes involved in one is doing so at one's own risk.

I completely disagree that the names of those who did the offensive posts here are obvious. They are not because they exist on both (or more!) sides of the issue. THAT is the most obvious thing of all.

Last, I disagree that this board has met its ruin. Yes, I miss some of the self-absented posters, but I'm still enjoying the board. We've lost posters before and chose to continue to maintain an immeasurable bond.

Shocked. Shocked to think that we might choose censorship. We're adults. Shocked and dismayed. How can we let this go that far?

Re: Scott

JudyS on 3/25/03 at 18:03 (114558)

Wendy - Ditto that. All of it. As our dear John h would say 'you da woman'!

Re: Scott

JudyS on 3/25/03 at 18:07 (114560)

'reprenended'?

That's John h language for.......?

Re: Scott

JudyS on 3/25/03 at 18:08 (114561)

Yep, ditto that too. Corona :)

Re: Scott

wendyn on 3/25/03 at 21:10 (114597)

I like these little faces - I'm told that I bat my eyelashes, wink, and roll my eyes a lot. So you will be seeing that plenty from me.

John - if you were younger - you would remember that we have already had a discussion in how ironic it is that you drink Molson and I drink Corona.

;;)

Re: Scott

wendyn on 3/25/03 at 21:12 (114599)

I have seen conversations about the weather turn ugly.

For real.

8-(PIPE)
/:)

No wonder we have trouble with the big stuff.