PnQ'ers

It might have sounded sarcastic There must have been something I did in the days that it seemed I got walked all over and then was threaten for breaking the rule about posting rhymes on in the main message forums .I don't hear the jaws theme so to my old buddies come on in I promise you won't be eaten alive. We are so bitter we would probably be spit out anyway lol
I will try to get around and read your poems in your space

Never knew that a OP could report inflammatory/derogatory wordings (or intent) to the mods ...never did it either, so now I guess we are all educated on this.

I have never asked a mod to close a thread, most times can handle such issues, but now I know why people become so anxious to close it when the thread backfires on them. So, may I ask, why do mods co-operate with the OP on this? You folks should treat it the same way, why double standards for 2 sets of people? The legit participant should not be "closed upon" if he/she is still making his point against the OP's thoughts in a debate.

A suggestion for regular threads, which I offered earlier as a mid-ground in a different scenario, reworded below, perhaps similar to your previous penalty box, but may solve some issues of leniency by offering a middle ground:

When the OP or members detect (personally)disrespectful/derogatory language, from a person/s who knowingly/willingly treads boundaries knowing the consequences, one alternate to "points" or "suspension" may be an exclusion of the violator from that thread with a warning (by PM) that if he/she continues to post on this thread again, he/she may be subject to a stiffer penalty, such as points or suspensions, whichever is applicable. This will likely keep people in line from polluting/spamming the thread with personally directed abusive/bullying behavior, so the rest of us can still continue to debate in that thread without it being shut down.

And to whoever wants to try some challenging topics to see if your idea of an unmoderated thread will really fly, I will post 1-2 controversial topics and let you all have a "free for all", minus "personally addressed abusive language"...for if you do, I will be the first to report you to the mods to be deleted off the thread, now that I know about the OP's rights. Let me see if you folks (teens and mods included) can really follow Aristotle's guidance on debating etiquette's....and stay away from "flamos" (= Burn and give off flames) haha.

Stumbled on this -

http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/2AeZoR/:117i4pE4T:HWhHG9Y3/critical-thinkers.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/A-Flowchart-to-Help-You-Determine-if-Yoursquore-Having-a-Rational-Discussion.jpg/

For ALS and everyone in general:

We don't have a standard "listen to OP" rule for moderation. If a member starts a thread looking for debate or discussion, we're not likely to lock the thread just because the OP starts disagreeing with the opinions people are posting. They kind of asked for it.

We ARE more likely to lock a thread at the OP's request if either the thread has departed from its original purpose, or if the thread is of a personal nature. For example, if someone posts a thread about how they got married, and it somehow turns into a debate on gay rights, we'd be more likely to cut it short, as that wasn't the purpose of the thread. If a conversation naturally morphs into a different discussion, though, and everyone seems fine with that, I think we're likely to keep the thread open. You have to allow for a little flexibility in those things.

Though I would not argue the fine points of "modding" with the mods, who usually know the best, it seemed to some of us that many of recent threads became victims of spamming or abusive (personally directed) language by a person/group of people who belong either to the same club (or are close PnQ friends) to protect some people who were clearly and freely abusing the leniency of the mods to use derogatory/abusive language towards others. Also, at least 2 of the threads were locked unfairly.

So, in the future to prevent this from happening, the mods should consider 1) either warning the person/s timely about using their PnQ privileges unfairly, 2) suspend his/her participation in that thread with a warning as indicated in my post above, 3) or give a choice of public apology for their misbehavior towards others vs, face penalties as set out in the PnQ rules to be fair (via PM to that person), 4) In addition, it is my suggestion that if the OP of the thread finds offensive language directed against any PnQ member posting in the thread, which the mods have overlooked, his advice should be heeded upon, to prevent the thread being continued to be abused.

Respectful debating is an art, not a science, so that wonderful flow sheet that you put out Jane, can only be taught or followed in an idealists classroom. More often than not, labile uncontrolled emotions (short tempered responses, posts or counter posts making fun of other people, threatening, etc, just like an actors body language) and respectful debating do not go together. Often, one finds that the subtleties of expressing emotional disagreements in a written form are not well developed in people under 20 (that is why the transition from teens to 20's is tricky and a biological fact of human psyche development). Some face a big learning curve while others do not. So, if one has yet to learn how to express/control raw emotions, one still has time to learn, until then one should try to be respectful to others and refrain from posting crude emotions that go deep like a knife, even in some of the thickest skinned.

Mods, you all do a wonderful job, but still somehow people figure out how to slip from under your vigilance and get away without an apology.

I don't need a response, or want to start another debate, if you all (mods) have understood what my concerns are. And I do read you folks too.
This is just my opinion and suggestions.

Though I am positive our modding is flawed, I feel inclined to defend our strategies by reminding [you] that of course some will agree with what we're doing while others will not. Does that make you right? Does that make us right?
It's so incredibly subjective that it's not really fair for anyone to say, "Well, because I thought this happened that way and it should've happened this way, you were wrong."

For example, and I quote, "it seemed to some of us..."
^ Who is some of us? What about everyone else?

I understand where you're coming from, but I also understand where those who beg to differ are coming from.
I don't ask that everyone agree with everything we do all the time, but do keep in mind that what you think we should do may not be what everyone thinks we should do...
It's rare that 'everyone' agrees.

We do the best we can.

I'm rambling. Sorry.

Butter cups, bumble bees
green and yellow lollypops
A bright blue sky
sugar orange peels
ice cream soda tops
trees swaying in the
warm summer breeze
green leaves
... lullaby baby Jane

jelly on bread
bushy tailed squirrels
rabbit's
with long floppy ears
Christmas morning
sledding down
mayberry hill
chocolate crunch bar
lullaby baby Jane

... a lullaby for sweet baby Jane

I guess I'm a baby now :-\

Nope Jane. I would very much argue the other way. You are wise beyond your years, most times :)

But, sometimes the wisest do make (judgement) errors as to how to read in to or deal with certain situations, when out of control. It is not a perfect world, and there is always room for suggestions even for the enlightened.

Members' message forum
For the most part I believe the threat of being publicly humiliated by penalties and conditions have been very effective in discouraging most serious debaters from attempting a serious debate in a
Members' message forum and the safest threads are the Happy Birthday and congratulation threads . So without starting a whole new topic I would like to congratulate those that left their very respectful comments on the latest topics that for the most part have not needed any modifications.
My favorite way of looking at it is Arguing in these threads are like the Special Olympics, win or lose we are still regarded