Indulto
04-24-2008, 05:56 PM
I believe CJ asked (in reply #27) that if one wanted to discuss the matter further, to do so in off-topic, where it rightly belongs. A very reasonable request, in my opinion. Usually, when people don't honor reasonable requests such as that one, the only recourse is to delete any off-topic replies that continue to be submitted into the affected thread. If it was me who made that request, I would have simply deleted Indulto's follow-up....but everyone knows that CJ is a nicer guy than I would ever hope to be....
In closing, I would suggest that CJ's actions were quite appropriate, even given his statement that the deleted text did not personally offend him. CJ is a moderator, and acted upon the knowledge that the deleted text DID OFFEND a fellow board member. Now, given that this deleted text in question had nothing to do with horse racing, and was ultimately little more than a silly side note, I find it rather amusing that this much time and energy has been wasted arguing against its ultimate demise.I find it amusing also, and don't really care one way or another, and I'm sure this post will be long gone. However Mr. PA you walk a slippery slope. Removing a post because one person is offended? Holy-politically correct. In that case I'm thinking that since you called my side note silly. And silly can mean feeble minded, I'm offended that you make light of the mentally handicapped. I hope a more sensitive moderator removes your post.It wasn't simply because one person was offended. It was also because the comment itself wasn't worth keeping, so it was an easy call, one person or not.
Context is everything.
Now, any further talk about this in this thread will be removed. If you wish to discuss further, I'm available via private message, email and/or Off-Topic.PA,
Per your instructions -- and at your pleasure -- I'd like to re-establish the dialogue in off-topic.
I accept that the role of moderators is a thankless, but necessary one. It does seem, however, that the above standard you so eloquently expressed -- and intelligently implemented -- no longer applies.
But even if a moderator chose to act because he felt even that generous guideline was being exceeded, wouldn't merely deleting the word "infant" from the "offending" 3-word phrase have accomplished the same result? IMO the least intrusive surgery is preferable to censorship.
I would prefer that trying2weep and others whose sensitivity threshhold is so low as to border on intolerance just use the ignore facility to protect their delicate antennae instead of trying2shutpeopleup.
At the very least, IMO, requests for "immoderator" action should be severely limited as to occurrence and frequency, and posters making such requests privately should be identified publicly when editorial action is taken on their request.
You know, in addition to the ignore facility, perhaps it would be nice if we could have a pseudonym-substitution facility whereby any designated poster's pseudonym could appear to a specific poster as a string (and avatar?) chosen by the viewer. :D
In closing, I would suggest that CJ's actions were quite appropriate, even given his statement that the deleted text did not personally offend him. CJ is a moderator, and acted upon the knowledge that the deleted text DID OFFEND a fellow board member. Now, given that this deleted text in question had nothing to do with horse racing, and was ultimately little more than a silly side note, I find it rather amusing that this much time and energy has been wasted arguing against its ultimate demise.I find it amusing also, and don't really care one way or another, and I'm sure this post will be long gone. However Mr. PA you walk a slippery slope. Removing a post because one person is offended? Holy-politically correct. In that case I'm thinking that since you called my side note silly. And silly can mean feeble minded, I'm offended that you make light of the mentally handicapped. I hope a more sensitive moderator removes your post.It wasn't simply because one person was offended. It was also because the comment itself wasn't worth keeping, so it was an easy call, one person or not.
Context is everything.
Now, any further talk about this in this thread will be removed. If you wish to discuss further, I'm available via private message, email and/or Off-Topic.PA,
Per your instructions -- and at your pleasure -- I'd like to re-establish the dialogue in off-topic.
I accept that the role of moderators is a thankless, but necessary one. It does seem, however, that the above standard you so eloquently expressed -- and intelligently implemented -- no longer applies.
But even if a moderator chose to act because he felt even that generous guideline was being exceeded, wouldn't merely deleting the word "infant" from the "offending" 3-word phrase have accomplished the same result? IMO the least intrusive surgery is preferable to censorship.
I would prefer that trying2weep and others whose sensitivity threshhold is so low as to border on intolerance just use the ignore facility to protect their delicate antennae instead of trying2shutpeopleup.
At the very least, IMO, requests for "immoderator" action should be severely limited as to occurrence and frequency, and posters making such requests privately should be identified publicly when editorial action is taken on their request.
You know, in addition to the ignore facility, perhaps it would be nice if we could have a pseudonym-substitution facility whereby any designated poster's pseudonym could appear to a specific poster as a string (and avatar?) chosen by the viewer. :D