Locked threads.

[redrick]

What sort of personage, at what rank or whatever, has the authority to lock a thread?

If it doesn't have to go all the way up to Jordan, than I suggest whoever locks a thread identifies him or herself by posting a final message just before locking a thread and possibly briefly giving the reason.

As it is there is a certain sinister-anonymous ring about it.

But my feelings in the matter are no doubt affected by the fact that yesterday I posted a message re having trouble with a monitor. It was soon replied to by such personages as monitors and above with defensive posturing and a number of untrue, unkind, and insulting things about me and then locked before I could reply. Some of the messages have been edited or deleted at some time.

I am curious about it because it certainly wasn't locked because of any messages I was posting. It only contained a few helpful suggestions from users and then the fusillade from various officials. And that is what locking it down stopped. If it was Jordan himself than I applaud him.

Ironically (or perhaps no so) the last line of the last message by an Administrator says:

"You are free to invite another member of staff into the conversation at any time."

which, when you look at the screen, is immediately followed by:

"(You have insufficient privileges to reply here.)"

Cheers,

Rick

 

[Pupik]

It's rather rare that we close a thread without some sort of final notice, but if it's patently obvious why it has been locked (closed), then that should be enough. Usually, it's because a thread has degenerated rather quickly.

Everything edited is recorded; any changes from or by mods, admins, former mods, and all members are noted in history. We're not on some Stalin-esque rule to change history, but if a member crosses the line intentionally, we're going to edit the post or delete it completely. There's also unintentional stuff which happens in the heat of the moment, like email addresses or other very sensitive things that might get someone in trouble or are posted without their permission.

Other that that, the site is too large for Jordan to manage every little bread crumb, and that's why the mod staff is here. Jordan's appointed all of us. If he had a problem with our actions, he'd say so.

 

[redrick]

It's rather rare that we close a thread without some sort of final notice, but if it's patently obvious why it has been locked (closed), then that should be enough. Usually, it's because a thread has degenerated rather quickly.

Everything edited is recorded; any changes from or by mods, admins, former mods, and all members are noted in history. We're not on some Stalin-esque rule to change history, but if a member crosses the line intentionally, we're going to edit the post or delete it completely. There's also unintentional stuff which happens in the heat of the moment, like email addresses or other very sensitive things that might get someone in trouble or are posted without their permission.

Other that that, the site is too large for Jordan to manage every little bread crumb, and that's why the mod staff is here. Jordan's appointed all of us. If he had a problem with our actions, he'd say so.

I understand. But why is a moderator allowed to continue to post insulting things about me in the thread after it has been locked?

 

[Pupik]

I don't see anything insulting. Perhaps you should take this up privately with whomever you have trifles with, instead of bringing out a singularly personal matter in public.

Good day.

 

[redrick]

I don't see anything insulting. Perhaps you should take this up privately with whomever you have trifles with, instead of bringing out a singularly personal matter in public.

Good day.

We have a private conversation going. It is obviously unfair and unnecessary (and confusing) for this moderator to selectively post parts of his side of it in an already locked public forum to which I can make no public reply. Can you make no reply as to why he is allowed to do this?

 

[SlipZtrEm]

As has already been stated across previous threads, if you take issue with a particular moderator's actions, you can take it up with an administrator (@Famine), or @Jordan himself. As an administrator has already been included in your conversation - one which you've had no problems only selectively making references to, an action you seemingly disapprove of, no less - I see little reason for this thread, or the myriad others on what is essentially the same issue.

 

[redrick]

As has already been stated across previous threads, if you take issue with a particular moderator's actions, you can take it up with an administrator (@Famine), or @Jordan himself. As an administrator has already been included in your conversation - one which you've had no problems only selectively making references to, an action you seemingly disapprove of, no less - I see little reason for this thread, or the myriad others on what is essentially the same issue.

Why does no one answer the simple question, which I have taken up with Jordan so it now will now be settled, is it proper for a moderator to post insulting references to a member in a thread that has already been locked for hours when he can write to me in the conversation which HE initiated. And the point is not whether some moderator or administrator finds it convenient to find nothing insulting in a post where someone who could probably be my grandson calls me "son" and tells me to get my facts straight when he is the one who has been either greatly mistaken or lying. It is whether I find it insulting. And I do. Thanks to his disreputably posting in a public forum anyone can look at his post and judge for themselves. He continues to foolishly claim that I PMed him when I invite any of you officials to look at the PM conversation- just tell me how to go about inviting you and see that without question he is the who began to and continues to harass me.

Rick

 

[Famine]

I've now been invited to the conversation.

What sort of personage, at what rank or whatever, has the authority to lock a thread?

Moderators, Administrators.

If it doesn't have to go all the way up to Jordan, than I suggest whoever locks a thread identifies him or herself by posting a final message just before locking a thread and possibly briefly giving the reason.

I locked the thread.

The FAQ gives explicit information on what to do when you wish to contest a moderator's decision. The information is "contact Jordan", not "start a thread in Site Support" and thus it clearly does not belong there. I gave you that information before I locked it.

As it is there is a certain sinister-anonymous ring about it.

There is no conspiracy. You wish to escalate an issue you have with a member of staff and you are doing it the exact wrong way.

But my feelings in the matter are no doubt affected by the fact that yesterday I posted a message re having trouble with a monitor. It was soon replied to by such personages as monitors and above with defensive posturing and a number of untrue, unkind, and insulting things about me and then locked before I could reply.

This never occurred. Had it done so, I would have deleted or edited those posts.

Some of the messages have been edited or deleted at some time.

No messages have been deleted. One has been edited. One of yours. By you, fifteen minutes after you made it.

I am curious about it because it certainly wasn't locked because of any messages I was posting.

Yes it was. Here, again, is the instruction for what to do if you wish to contest a moderator's actions:

How can I contest a moderator’s actions?

You are welcome to contact me privately if you believe a moderator has made a decision that I would not agree with. Depending on the situation, I may or may not consider it appropriate to reply. However, I will review all complaints and will take action, privately, if deemed necessary.

What you've done is start a thread - two now - complaining about the staff. As such your messages are misplaced and the thread merits locking.

Ironically (or perhaps no so) the last line of the last message by an Administrator says:

"You are free to invite another member of staff into the conversation at any time."

which, when you look at the screen, is immediately followed by:

"(You have insufficient privileges to reply here.)"

There is no irony. The thread was locked. The conversation you're having with the member of staff - to which you present your side only and make several unverifiable claims about them - you may expand to include another member of staff at any time.

As I said earlier, I've now been invited to the conversation. I do not believe it shows what you believe it shows - but I'm not Jordan, so I've invited him.


As this thread is also a public complain about a single member of staff and not a private conversation with Jordan regarding the conduct of a member of staff as it should be, this thread is also now locked.