I thought it was obvious after the last time this came up
Printable View
I thought it was obvious after the last time this came up
Total BS and an abuse of your role of moderator. You've shown no willingness to be flexible on this, or find a reasonable solution. It's pitiful that you're so intransigent - and for what? The silliest, pettiest of reasons. You don't like puns. Give me strength. What's next on the humorous banned list? Malapropisms? Spoonerisms? One-liners and quips?
Put it to a vote and see if the majority support your one day rule.
Christ almighty. This was a fun place once - cool dog's awesome adventures, the crossword thread, the one sentence story thread that seemed to have Roddy Collins as a punchline on every page, the Termonbarry references.... There was even a jokes thread. The last post on Cool Dog was over two years ago!! Bonnie stumped us all on the crossword thread six years ago!! (Any chance you might give us the answer, BS?) What does that tell us about where this place is going?
That's kind of the definition of "ignoring" to be honest.
I agree with EG on this - this is an abuse of moderator power. Almost everyone on the thread is against you on this. It's not your forum. "My way is the best" is not acceptable when no-one else wants your way.
Yet you repeatedly refuse to engage in conversation about this. It really shows a remarkable lack of respect for the rest of us.
I'd like to appeal that rule that allows mods make up silly rules. I don't see the need for it. There is a comprehensive list of foot.ie rules that cover personal abuse, staying on topic, etc. Clearly a certain amount of discretion is required and no two mods will be the exact same, but to actually have the power to create rules within forums or threads on a whim, based on their own personal preference in this case, is a step too far.
It'd be no harm to reiterate the point that this is nothing personal. I think I speak for everybody when I say Tets is well liked and respected, and the great work he does both here and beyond is really appreciated. He obviously feels backed into a corner now so isn't willing to give an inch, but in my opinion this should have never been allowed happen in the first place. I don't think anybody knew mods had the authority to make up new rules as they see fit.
I can't really understand why a compromise was even suggested either, as honourable as the intentions were. It's one person against basically everybody else (who cared enough to contribute anyway). Compromises and happy mediums should be saved for close-run conflicts.
I suggested this a week ago... I don't think any of us saw it dragging on like this when it could have been resolved so easily in so many ways, and a compromise would have given everybody a win. As for Tets' lustre? I'm afraid that for me some of the sheen has worn off. And I hate saying that.
[Edit] I second your call for an appeal, DeLorean.
For what it's worth, I've no major issue with a 24 hour limit for puns in certain threads, even though I don't think it's needed. The main issue was the 'one day' post wasn't particularly clear at all, I also interpreted it as "one day this will stop happening" rather than one day to post puns. For the sake of clarity, if the rule was implemented, there should be a clear post from the moderator in the thread stating "puns will be allowed for 24 hours on this thread from the time of this post, any posted later will be deleted".
Ye know I hate it when I have to make decisions! Where's the actual rule posted? What is it exactly?
Looks to be this slice of vagueness.
Let's try to be fair here. Looking after a busy forum is a very difficult pundertaking.
Ok, so the rule isn't very clear. Can we make and publish a rule everyone agrees with, and stick to it? Because I agree with tets that there needs to be a limit.
Suggest abolish the rule entirely for the moment and see what happens? I'd say outside the Sammon thread - his career is coming to a close anyway - any puns will quickly die out. But you'd get a view as to the extent of the issue - if it is an issue - that way
Pineapple's suggestion sounds practical to me.
By way of an alternative: Puns are always acceptable providing they are in an on-topic post. Where a sequence of posts containing only a pun and no on-topic contribution are interfering with a discussion, the mod can place a very limited temporary ban on puns, e.g. one day. This will be indicated by posting "One day" in the thread. (Or "Mod warning: posts containing a pun and no contribution to the conversation are banned for 24 hours and will be deleted." Whichever is clearer.)
My intention there is as follows: If someone works a pun into an on-topic post, the conversation continues and kudos to the wordsmith. If there is no other discussion, there's nothing to interfere with and a string of puns is better than dead air. Only if someone is trying to converse, and it's getting lost in lots of non-contributing pun posts, is there any real justification for an intervention. This is likely a pretty rare eventuality, and therefore I still prefer pineapple's suggestion.
I agree with Pineapple, pun away, if it becomes an actual problem rather than a mod using being a mod to tailor the forum to their own personal likes / dislikes then revisit it and apply some criteria. I say this because whatever reasonable sensible rule might be applied, the puns thus far wouldn't have over stepped anyway it in all probability.
This is the crucial point. We would need to establish if the pun usage up until now has ever exceeded a reasonable limit. It's the view of almost everybody here that it hasn't. Therefore, we can make a rule for rule sake, but if it's a rule so harsh that it would have interfered with the pun making up until now, then it's not going to be accepted by the majority anyway. So, basically, what Crafty says - if it becomes an actual problem, revisit.
1. Stop personalising the subject. The mod is entitled to an opinion too.
2. Everyone here is not everyone on the forum. How many people have actually posted in this thread, a half dozen?
3. The moderator is clearly not happy with a free for all. Come up with a compromise or the rule will be formalised as-is.
Generally speaking, grow up ffs. Ye sound like spoiled teenagers the lot of ye.
14 different posters posted in this thread. An additional 5 posters didn't post but indicated their "thanks" of a post that was relating to the use of puns. So 19. Of the 19, only 2 have indicated a problem with the use of puns - yourself and the moderator. There is no evidence put forward that anybody - except the moderator - has ever complained about the use of puns before. The only problem is the one was actually created by having a (terrible) rule. Therefore, why is a compromise necessary?
PineappleStu has suggested a very reasonable experiment to see if the use of puns actually is a problem for the broader foot.ie population that may not have seen this thread. Wouldn't that experiment be a logical first step before trying to determine an appropriate countermeasure or rule?