Certain posts in this thread have either been removed or, edited for content.
The posts that were removed were either in direct conflict with board rules, or were so associated with them as to make them out of context with the original thread and were so removed as to provide a continuation of the original topic.
The posts that were edited by the Administrator can in turn be edited by the original poster; left as is, or deleted at their discretion. If edited, they must in turn conform to the rules of the board or the posts will be deleted.
I'm not sure it's a good idea to start excising and editing, but I'm grateful you've announced it has been done so that we're aware of it. We can see which posts were edited by looking at the bottom of each. We cannot tell which posts were deleted.
As in the past, I will provide an explanation. But this will probably be the last time I do so. As an Admin, I must try and follow the rules we placed here to begin with.
While I am not in favor of an Admin editing posts as the norm, I felt that the original topic was something that warranted discussion.
The thread was removed last night to the Moderators section of the board. I received a PM as to it's whereabouts and agreed with the questioning member that thread was viable. To continue it in the original vein it was intended, I edited the posts as seen which were conducive to discussion (which were in violation). Those that were so off topic and/or in violation were deleted.
The thread was returned here afterwards. Anyone whose post was edited is welcome to address it themselves, but must do so as stated in my advisement above.
I will cite our Rule #5 in the Board Rules as my reason for the actions taken.
By providing an explanation here I am already skirting the Enforcement Measures rule itself. But we are a young board and still in our infancy, in reality the posts and/or the thread itself should have disappeared without any public explanation here and I feel that when shit like this happens I owe you all some type of explanation for my reasoning.
I have said before that I am willing to play along as anyone else, but when I have to assume the role of Administrator I will do so as fairly as I can.
I had a very long and busy week last week and was unable to spend the time here that I usually do. My apologies to all for letting the thread unravel as it did.
98% of this board is viewable to the general public, not just registered members. It is read by many every day.
For all practical purposes we should conduct ourselves in a manner adhering to our own rules.
This will end the discussion as to the Administrative actions taken. Let us continue the discussion as it was meant to be.
If excised is anything like circumcised, I am glad I was spared the pain and simply deleted!
Good moderation prevailed. Thank you Ralph. Sorry to be a part of the problem instead of part of the solution. Regardless of intention, I am sorry for where it went, on the part of all that participated in the problem.
PM is a REALLY good word. I might use it more in the future, and it might make it easier in that you only piss off ONE person with a PM. That same advice might work for others as well.
To those reading the forum. I was admonished as was were the other players in the fray, for our participation, and I am only one of 65+ members and held to the same rules as everyone else. I appreciate the fairness of Ralph's experienced moderation and judgement. I appreciate and take seriously his assessment and advice. I hope others do also.
I am actually surprised the OD even went back to try and have some clarification.
I has appeared to me that they are much more inclined to inflame than repair bridges and opinions in the community. There was a reporter there a few years ago that never had a good thing to say about Cornhill and went far out of his way to drag it through the dirt at any opportunity.
When I was working for as Coordinator, I had a briefcase full of documentation as to the downfalls of the program at hand and the mis-use of funds occurring where I was "employed".
They were well received by the US Attorney when I was summoned there as well the Department of Justice.
When I was dismissed from my position I carried that same documentation along to the two interviews I had with two OD reporters. One who was very familiar with what I was working on.
They were not interested in digging into it, only into who they could throw dirt at. When they realized that it wasn't the fault of the Mayor at the time, and would not make big profits by printing it......they instantly became disinterested.
They are a lot like the very "irritainers" that they try and get rid of on their Forum. They love to stir the pot and then sit back and see what happens afterwards.