Freediver has refused to appoint a new moderator in this moderatorless forum.  Why?

It is obvious he finds it convenient for there to be no moderator.  Without a moderator to control the quality and direction of debate, the place has become a series of petty, squabbling , repetitive threads, in which he and others are allowed to post the most abusive and childish threads and personal attacks, to their heart's content.

I've suggested making me the moderator.   Appears some of the Islamophobes fear that this will stifle their ability to abuse others.  Some just fear that this prevent them being able to abuse each other.

If they are that frightened, then nominate someone else and we can discuss rules.  If the moderator doesn't adhere to the rules, it is just as easy to have them replaced.   The rules should be fair.

I would suggest at a minimum:

No trolling.
Don't make posts that are deliberately inflammatory just to get people riled up. Substance is the key to not being labelled a troll.  Keep on topic.

No Ad hominem attacks
"Play the ball, not the man," As we say downunder. Criticise ideas, not people. Gentle "stirring" is acceptable, "Sledging" not so much. Endless resorting to ad hominem is not.

Restrict the use of excessive foul language.
Although we don't really care if people swear (um, we have been known to swear ourselves now and again), excessive foul language is likely to get moderated, if only because excessive foul language usually indicates that someone is utterly clueless.

Buy a thesaurus instead, and amaze and confound your friends with your new-found 'intellect'! We also require that you leave rough or offensive language out of the post or topic titles. A lot of people read at work, and while foul language "happens", let's try and keep it away from high-visibility areas.

No use of crayon. 
We are adults, not in kindergarten.  If you cannot emphasis your point without using coloured letters or making the text bigger to excess and continually, then don't bother posting it.   Bold and italics are usually sufficient.

Those rules won't restrict real debate.  They will though, prevent the useless personal attacks we see continuously.  They will make the place more civilised.

I've put my hand up.  Give me the guernsey for a month and then we'll see if I'm doing a good enough job.   I'll even stop posting, if people would prefer a non-participatory moderator.

Now, Freediver, I've thrown down the gauntlet, will you accept the challenge?   What have you got to lose, except your ability to endlessly abuse people?

I'll moderate if for you FD if you like.
Just PM Me.



No "Ad hominem" attacks ???

There's that "Ad hominem" yet again. 

Tell him to Far Gough,

I like it as it is!!

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 20^th, 2013 at 12:41pm:


We can count you out then SB

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 20^th, 2013 at 12:41pm:



Ditto.

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 20^th, 2013 at 12:41pm:


Why? You don't even know the meaning of the word bigot, but you do use it with such amazing monotony.

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 20^th, 2013 at 12:41pm:


So stupid glyphs would be out. Would you, a renowned user of same be instantly be barred?

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 20^th, 2013 at 12:41pm:



Well said Brian.

Goodbye!

For you have stuffed other forums eh sorr brain.

At the moment Bwian there are 23 members and 41 guests on line!!

Apply your moderation and it will go the same way as most forums including your most recent attempt!!

Leave it alone, if you dont like it move on!!

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 20^th, 2013 at 3:15pm:


Drug addicts eh?  LOL. you cannot help yourself. 

Brian you get plenty insulting yourself, but you prefer to use oily and smarmy condescending patronizing with idiot eye rolls punctuating your every unctuous sneering post, contemptuous implied intellectual superiority leavened with frequent accusations of racism.

Most people couldn't be bothered playing the role of a pretend academic and prefer a hearty "bugger me you are stupid".

But none the less, results are the same, your posts are just as abusive and insulting as those that you wish to censor.

The difference is no one is asking for the power to censor you. 

mantra wrote on Oct 20^th, 2013 at 4:08pm:


I generally do.  However it is obvious that some form of moderation is required here, simply from the level of abuse that is posted.

Freediver likes to pride himself on how civilised he is.  I've seen precious little of it from him or others here.   

mantra wrote on Oct 20^th, 2013 at 4:58pm:


And what happens when one of the Administrators is the abuser?

As for the education system, I don't necessarily agree.  What I think has happened is those who never achieved very well, now have in the internet the opportunity to display their poor education achievements, ignorance and personal inadequacies.   However, that really lies outside the scope of the purpose of this thread.

I don't particularly care who becomes the Moderator, as long as a reasonable set of rules is created and applied and they are held accountable in making sure the rules are applied equally and fairly.  It should be no different to the civil discourse one expects in public debate out in the "real world" IMO.