oh and ben i hope you do not send me another message like that again accusing me of being a troll for telling another member in a pm to basically fuck off. that member who i do not even remember the name of wants to wipe shit on my wife and you think its bad boy-ish of me to tell them to get the fuck out. if all i have to do is send you a pm saying that so and so said a bad thing to me so go arrest them.. and you do it.. then you have no common sense on the issue. i did not do jack shit and i do not troll. you just do not like me or my comments. that is not breaking the rules. if anything you are breaking the rules so do not send me shit like that again thinking i am afraid of your internet text on my screen. i sent this message here because you did not respond to the reply i sent you. a member simply suggests to you that i said something so you come and warn me... lol you must be easy to manipulate. yet you did nothing in my defense . the member told you that because i was originally going to report them.. and they wanted to cover their ass by making it look like i was the bad guy. i hope you do not respond to this either because you might get upset.

No, sir. "The moderator who selected Rod as his online name" has, however, closed threads when they are duplicates, particularly started by the same person, even more particularly if those duplicate threads are all on the front page of a section. I can't recall ever closing a thread for having "too many replies." I'd say the closest I've come to that is a thread that Kent and I have discussed that - fully admitted as a judgment call - I felt was going beyond spirited debate into a circle of bickering.



In the case of duplicate subject matter, as indicated above, I tend to err in favor of weighing the most current vs the most currently active. Sometimes, frankly , we don't see all the duplicates. And, if someone uses an identical thread title for a duplicate, yes...it may indeed fly under the proverbial radar, depending on the relative traffic to both. Personally, celebrity status means virtually nothing to me, as I don't "get" most of the celebrities (or so-called celebrities, as the case may be) that most in a forum like this one go wild for. You mention a Britney Spears thread, for example...couldn't care less about her, myself. So, if it were the game of favorites you believe it to be, I'd shut each and every Britney thread that appears.

I can certainly understand frustration with message boards, even ones that I enjoy. One in particular (not sexual in nature) began to frustrate the ever-lovin' crap out of me, but by and large I had good conversations with people there so didn't want to leave it. So, I'm sorry if you're displeased with the moderation of JC. Feel free to bring issues to our attention, because that's what we're here for.

i'm going to let the evidence against you stand for itself. i know you all like to make changes here so as to make it difficult for us to search threads... but then google happened (a million years ago) i can look up all the threads you closed that were actually current and most active. the opposite of what you said. shall i look up all the threads of lohancum typing "bump" and the pms that were sent to and neglected by moderators here? hmm... someone has their hand in the cookie jar without permission. i can't sign in here again or even visit this site.. at all. i have never seen such idiocy on a forum.. ever. its also just too old and slow to bother with. i mean its 2014 not 1995. do as you wish with this account. i bet you are even a flat earth theorist.

Well Rod, as long as you invited comments about “issues,” and once again in the open forum bring up the particular issue that has soured me forever on the quality of your moderation of issue threads, let me just register a vigorous complaint about your new-found “circle of bickering” phraseology which you consider to be "beyond spirited debate." “Bickering”????? Are you freekin serious? You have the responsibility to enforce Terms of Service that are precisely written almost like a legal document, and yet you love those “judgement calls” that conveniently comport so well with your personal opinions about what is and is not "beyond spirited debate." Your way or the highway.

I'll note in passing BTW that the Jackinchat Terms of Service no longer mentions the word “flaming,".....a term that was once ubiquitous in website TOS’s, but was so nebulous as to be effectively unenforceable. THAT at least would have been a valid "judgement call" justification for a locked thread. What you personally like or dislike on a particular day is not. Of course the fact that I was at the time vigorously and appropriately defending the actions of the Jackinchat moderators made your action as bizarre as it was unjustified.

I’m sorry that you apparently ignored my plea to do some research into the archives of the Coffee Shop forum to look at the previous political threads. They serve to illustrate the approach that Ben has always taken on moderating such discussions. He not only never closed such a thread, which often went on for pages numbered in the double digits, and involved some world class bickering, he even personally participated in some of them. Ben was doing some fine moderating there in the spirit of the Coffee Shop. You've shown no such ability or inclination.

I was nevertheless struck by how much we do agree about one thing. Namely the type of issue that “frustrate[s] the ever-lovin’ crap” out of you, while you remain hesitant to leave the website because of people you enjoy talking to. That’s exactly the way I feel about this matter and my continued participation on Jackinchat.

We had thrashed this out before, and there was no reason whatever for you to bring it up again in the open forum. But if you'll refrain from bringing it up in the future, then so will I.

Some of the odd behavior of people in dealing with the internet in various capacities is surely a holdover from the early days when message boards and chat rooms were something of a novelty, and even had some “high tech” allure about them. Even though social networking is now a multi-billion dollar enterprise, people are still inclined to treat an entity like Facebook as a “free service,” which I agree in the pure economic terms you describe, it certainly is not.

Of course the stereotypical arrogance and dictatorial attitudes of chat room and message board moderators were part of the lore of the old internet, and was even the humorous theme of a “West Wing” episode. But why any sensate individual would want to undertake such a job in an unremunerated capacity remains a mystery for me to this day. This is especially true when it’s in the service of a billion dollar corporation. On the other hand, for an infinitely more modest website like Jackinchat, I suppose it could be viewed as some sort of hobby or “interest.” Nevertheless, the logic of work for no pay escapes me. I suspect that it involves a love for authority, a serious need to get a life, and very few available positions in high military command.

All this came to mind when I recently went online on a Google forum to discuss a YouTube problem I was having. The first thing you have to ask yourself is why anyone would agree to serve as a moderator or online technical consultant on behalf of one of the biggest and richest corporations of its kind on earth....WITHOUT PAY. The answer I soon discovered is that the Google moderators are the snottiest most arrogant assholes who ever walked the earth, and are willing to work free of charge so that they can be snotty and arrogant to as many people as possible. There was at least the consolation that all the while they were being snotty to me, I was telling them what despicable assholes I considered them to be. So in that respect I guess there’s at least a sort of rough justice in the modern internet even as it has morphed into a billion dollar media business. It remains interesting that people who spend their time doing online moderating have failed to notice the change, and still work for free. Google must love that!

Rod's profile says he's from Texas. I have family in Texas and know something of Texas "culture" and politics.

So "Flat earth theorist?" Yes, I'd estimate a 50-50 likelihood at least.

The Internet:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAB858elJOw

Absolutely, Kent. Only brought it up as the closest example I could think of off the top of our head to what our fellow poster was claiming to be a frequent and standard practice. No intention of rehashing or re opening old wounds. You indeed have my apologies. Please know that you have my utmost respect for the reasoned manner in which you voice any disagreements that you may have with any issue, let alone decisions made regarding moderation. While it would be easy to throw an online version of a tantrum in such cases (and many online, not just here, do), you present your case well. We may not always agree on the points, but I certainly thank you for your methodology.

No harm, no foul?

For the record, I may be IN Texas, but I'm not FROM Texas.

The native Texans (and this "damn Yankee" for that matter) will very quickly tell you that there IS a difference.

I appreciate your kind words and thoughtful attitude in both our public and private communications.



That works for me. The matter is settled.

Same with my relatives in Texas.

Of course I just couldn't resist the "flat earth" crack.

This user has been banned for making many incendiary posts on here towards many of our users, completely unprovoked. I'm not exactly sure what his problem is, but there is no room for this kind of behavior here, even after we have talked with him privately about it. If you do no believe me, feel free to look up his previous posts as evidence.