Quote:
Originally Posted by rjwood  It is not the definition that matters in my view, it is what it connotes and/or implies. |
Strict, objective definition is very important for forum rules, as well as in legal matters. It leaves no room for people to exculpate themselves via semantic methods.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rjwood The problem with the 'let them argue it out' argument is that unless there is a final resolution in the end, the process will continue in other threads anyway. |
Not really. The "let them fight it out" method allows the two posters to get everything that they want to say to each other out in the open. It stops feelings being bottled up, often to a point where they will explode and the result we see is a meltdown of epic proportions. If everything is said, it reduces the chances of something being carried over to a new thread. The posters run out of steam after having said everything to each other, and sometimes I've even seen a compromise being made; they learn to ignore each other and just get on with life.
Suppressing this does no good. It's like sweeping the dirt under the rug - you're not taking care of the problem, just covering it up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rjwood Sometimes a moderator has to step in and make sure a resolution or agreement between the two parties occurs, otherwise it's fruitless to let people argue constantly. |
"Step in" being the operative part of that sentence.
Step in != locking the thread
However, a moderator trying to act as an officiator between the two so as to allow them to reach an agreement is fine. It takes a good moderator to reach a decision where
every party involved is happy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rjwood azz over at ubuntu was an excellent moderator, but mike (kiwi) put an end to that as he has made an enormous amount of bad calls there. |
Azz is a pedantic fool. Mike has certainly been involved in controversy, but I've found him to always be very understanding in all of my dealings with him, especially more recent ones. Mike's heart is in the right place, but he hasn't always been able to please everybody.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rjwood When I ran my forum, I had the attitude that I would deal with issues if and when they would arise. I never even really read the default set of rules that came with the software. |
CYA - Cover Your Ass.
You have to have rules set that everybody agrees to hold themselves to when they join. If you go around making rules up as situations arise, you will invariably be accused of "favouritism" or "inconsistency."
No rules at all is simply not an option.