Leaving the forums Options

[gwyntdi-enw]

This is all very sad. I missed the particular posts referred to here, but it is a great shame that a few people apparently can't tell the difference between true -isms, whether it be racism, sexism or anything else, and an individuals (or groups of individuals) actual experiences out in the real world beyond the words we read on the forums.

How much more pleasant would life be if we could all keep to the idea of "if you haven't got anything constructive to say, say nothing at all".

[inigo]

Oh bother! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/sad.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/sad.gif) Don't go unless you really really want to!

I always like to read your interesting and helpful posts, and will miss them. Don't know what the conflict was about I'm afraid, but perhaps you could consider taking a break until the impact of whateveritwas has faded? If you do decide to go, well, I wish you all the very best with your musical career. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[linda.ff]

A less superficial approach to moderation (Universal policy: delete the thread and, if it seems warranted, hand out warnings) would prevent this sort of trouble.

You're asking for more heavy-handed moderation? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/ohmy.gif)

No, not more heavy-handed but more correct, taking the trouble to identify the original cause of any disagreements, and not deleting entire threads (so as to pretend they never happened and keeping the site sanitised). What I stated as "Universal Policy" is what I see as the present policy and not what I thonk the policy should be.

Ah - sorry, I read it quite the other way around. Thanks for clarifying

[Minstrel]

Hang in there, Ffliwt. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/grouphug.gif)

[Clari Nicki1]

So it's ok for short standing members to leave?

I don't think there's any need to bring height (or lack of it) into the discussion.

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/rofl.gif)

[Gertrude]

No, not more heavy-handed but more correct, taking the trouble to identify the original cause of any disagreements, and not deleting entire threads (so as to pretend they never happened and keeping the site sanitised). What I stated as "Universal Policy" is what I see as the present policy and not what I thonk the policy should be.

I thought -= "thonk" =- was the funny noise I made when I do not pedal correctly! You are at 166 posts but are already upset with the forums? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/blink.gif) I think I miss all the fuss or maybe it is deleted before I see it!

[Aquarelle]

A less superficial approach to moderation (Universal policy: delete the thread and, if it seems warranted, hand out warnings) would prevent this sort of trouble.

You're asking for more heavy-handed moderation? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/ohmy.gif)

No, not more heavy-handed but more correct, taking the trouble to identify the original cause of any disagreements, and not deleting entire threads (so as to pretend they never happened and keeping the site sanitised). What I stated as "Universal Policy" is what I see as the present policy and not what I thonk the policy should be.

Ah - sorry, I read it quite the other way around. Thanks for clarifying

What linda.ff has just said is so true - it is so easy to read something the wrong way round. I've, done it, we've probably all done it and it is one reason for keeping discussion open - so that we can come back and correct something not clearly stated or not clearly understood.

I'm very sorry about Ffliwt - I do't recollect having read many of her posts and I didn't see the thread in question- I probably read a lot less than many people and am a bit limited in the areas I do read - but it is obvious she is much appreciated and will be missed. I hope she will be back soon.