Weekly Contest Thanks and Review

Maybe those members who reappeared after the boards got calmer would like to draw attention to themselves. I can think of a few.

I think the problem is, when we delete/edit posts and members don't see what the posts contained before they're deleted/edited, it's assumed that the posts were just "no big deal," and that the mods are being heavy-handed. Really, posts go untouched unless they do contain "insults or threats" as you mentioned, Nor. Usually it's insults.
When we say digging up the past, we're not referring to a manner that allows members to learn, relate, or reflect. We're referring to the past being dug up in a way that is insulting to members who were involved.
To have to explain ourselves for exactly why posts were deleted would defeat the purpose of deleting them.

If someone makes a post about how I leaked information from the mod room and I deserved to be punished, and what I did is unforgivable and I should still be punished, then we can't erase that post and explain to the members, "We deleted the post because the member said that Jane should be punished for what she did 1 year ago." That would be pointless. It would allow for the potential argument to arise regardless of our editing.
Hence, our fallback remark, "Post brought up the irrelevant past, which has been dealt with." < Or something similar.
If we have to explain the exact content of a deleted post, then there's no point in our even deleting it.

It's amusing when you guys suggest that we only delete/edit posts if they are breaking rules.
Then, when posts break rules and we delete/edit them, but you didn't have a chance to see their content first, you guys suggest that we not delete/edit them.

Puts us in a tricky spot.

What I would really like to see on PnQ is a return to debates about worldly matters. It doesn't matter if the debates are friendly or heated, as long as members are respecting each other. It's kind of annoying to spend our time on PnQ editing petty rivalries when we could be engaging in a much more intellectual, stimulating community of poets. We have minds from all over the world here, come together. There's so much we can learn from each other. Why sign onto a poetry site every day so you can argue about crap that's happened on the poetry site? I get it. People get bored. But un-bored yourself in a more positive way.

I actually read Hellon's first post (the edited one before it was), Jane, I didn't find a problem with it, it's nothing that wasn't said before and surely it's things from her opinion, I think it should have stayed and had other people contribute to it. I didn't however get a chance to read the deleted post(s) sadly. But to me the edited one at least fell under the ''reflecting'' part.

I'm sure you guys have loads of pressure on so when dealing with these stuff it might show, but why not find a middle ground and not remove or edit a post that does not contain explicit insults or is spam unless the one it is directed at asks in the same thread for a mod to edit the post, for example.

''Why sign onto a poetry site every day so you can argue about crap that's happened on the poetry site?''

It's part of the process of learning about each other, actually, since that crap is mainly caused by us people on the poetry site. It'll take it's time and pass if you guys allow it to. We'll disagree and spit fire then we'll either respect each other for it, see the other side or just ignore each other.

Nor, unfortunately I was unable to see Hellon's post that was edited, but I'm assuming Mel was being fair. If she was editing a post responding to Hellon, and it was breaking a rule, it seems fair that Hellon's post get edited so the member whose post got deleted wouldn't feel like the "trigger" gets to stick around, while the response doesn't.
Maybe not. I can only give my opinion based on hear-say.

Yes, it is loads of pressure that we deal with, but it's what we sign up for :)
I'm flexible and different opinions are able to sway me if I see their merit.

"It's part of the process of learning about each other, actually, since that crap is mainly caused by us people on the poetry site. It'll take it's time and pass if you guys allow it to. We'll disagree and spit fire then we'll either respect each other for it, see the other side or just ignore each other."

Maybe so. But as I recall, we mended our own rivalry behind closed doors (PM's). Arguing on the discussion boards allowed members to choose sides and added fuel to the fire. Resolving bad blood is a very personal effort, not a site-wide effort.
My close friendships on PnQ began with flirtations and pirate tales... ahh, memories... And then of course we were joined together in our mutual battle against the moderators! WAHAHA!

I'm sure Mel was and is fair. She was obviously functioning within the rules of not bringing up past issues. which apparently wasn't put by her and is one of the reasons why I discussed the rule.

Let me just say this, me and you for example had a lot of arguments at one time, do you think that without talking it out and making that clear we would be talking the way we do now? Surely we're not the best of friends either but at least we've gotten over it and moved on. On the other hand there is me and Sher, I think that until now if we both got into a discussion we'll obviously clash, not because I like you more or her less or vice versa. we just didn't talk it out. I don't see her side and she doesn't see mine and we didn't even exhaust or let out our emotions. At least I don't feel like I did.

Edit-- Actually no, we did it on the forums. Me and you didn't share more than 2 or 3 pms max (to and fro) after I was restrained, till we had a better (if not perfect) understanding.

I think Jane has a very good point about members siding etc. If there is an issue between me and someone else, fighting it out on the main boards for everyone to see isn't going to solve it. People do pick sides, poke at others, and egg you on privately. However issues do get solved when talking it out privately. You and I had that happen, as did myself and a few other people. I don't think spectators help resolve issues between two parties. Not in my experience anyway. ;)

I thought we hashed it out in private messages? Agh, now you're tempting me to dig back in my messages to close to a year ago just to prove I'm right.
No, we're not the best of friends, but I'm very fond of you. Don't say it back!
Maybe if Sher and you had a heart-to-heart someday, the tension would subside. That would have to come out of your own willingnesses though, not at anyone's suggestion.

Back to the "digging up the past" rule. Maybe it should be revised. At the time, it seemed absolutely necessary, but still? Hmm.

EDIT: This is what I love right here. We're disagreeing, but not ripping each other's head's off.

Do dig, Jane, I'd like to be proven wrong. what I recall is I didn't trust you (then) to send you any messages at that time. I did pm Abby, though, after my accident with Nicko when I found I've been looking at the whole issue one way and you guys the other. Which you did above, since it wasn't the sharing mod info that caused the problem, but I won't get into that because it's neither here nor there. Plus we've both discussed it many. It's your opinion on things or your side of what happened, which I respect.

Also, there wasn't as far as I read a disagreement or even an attack above, there was only a stating of facts from one side (past facts). But talking about arguments, people taking sides is actually healthy and gives a different prospective on things (especially when a friend of yours or someone you respect actually is more with the other side, it makes you reconsider). The pm should always be open of course, but also I believe in an argument resulting from an issue on the main boards or discussed there, especially when one side is heard, should be discussed there. The pms are another mean of course if the members want to go private but they should not to be forced in to it. It doesn't help forcing them to go private. At least I don't see how it could, but it might if they did it out of their own accord. Thing is, if it's an issue concerning and affecting all of us, it should be open to discussion and ''broadcasting'' on these forums.

Edit-- Mods and judges of course and their discussions and functioning concern us all :D

It'll be lovely if this ''past rule'' was looked in to, yes. Thank you.

As I said to Nicko this morning, the reason I joined the mod squad is because I believe the site is evolving and I want to help this place be the best is can be for us members. That being said I'm glad this discussion has come about, afterall it's members and their opinions that make up the site and it's learning from members that's going to make it better for us all.

Everything that has been said here is great insight and as Abby mentioned I a new and learning the ropes but my intentions are only good. I too am felxible and different opinions can sway me, perhaps this "bringing up the past rule" is something we can discuss for future reference.

I love the variety of opinions in this thread and the fact things are being discussed in a productive way.

*Sibs dances in, casting daisies to the crowd*

Fruitful discussions make me feel hippy-dippy.

As I can recall, the rule goes basically says that the past can (obviously) be talked about, but if a member has broken a rule and is subsequently dealt with (chastised, penalized, whatever) then people should not keep disparaging them about it. For example, if I changed my profile picture so that it didn't conform to the site's "decency" standards, I would be warned and then penalized if I didn't change it. But then if Jane, in an argument a year later, said "yeah, well you had that sleazy picture and you should have been suspended," that could probably be deleted. Does that need to be a hard and fast rule? Maybe not. But it's probably helpful for discussion. I see the "personal insults or attacks" rule to be somewhat separate.

I'm open to discussing the "past" rule, but perhaps in another thread.

Uh-oh. We ruined your thread.

Just want to make one thing crystal clear here...I never insulted anyone on this thread...nor did I name anyone. My post concerned a conversation between two judges in the old forum regarding one of MY poems.

Jane your last few posts made have been talking about the past too and yet they remain.

Nuff said!

We're actually trying to remove the rule not implemented on more posts. If it is however like Sib said it is then it seems we've all been dealing with and addressing something that's not even there.

**I think it'll be better if a mod opened a new thread asking the people about their opinion about the rule. I think it'll make more members tune in than if it were from a member (especially if they didn't read this thread).

Hellon, in a later post I clarified that your post may have been deleted because it triggered posts that went against our rules. As I said, I didn't see the posts, I'm just basing what I've said on my understanding of the topic and why Mel was inclined to edit/delete. I apologize if I made it sound like you said something that you didn't say.
I brought up my own history as a 'safe' (not targeting other members) example to clarify the difference between bringing up the past in a constructive/reference manner and bringing up the past in a manner as to cause upset and reopen old wounds.
You probably didn't mean to "bring up the past" in the latter manner, but that's where it was going, and that's why your posts were deleted.
The topic was controversial and difficult for members involved, and most of these members are no longer active on PnQ, or are rarely around, so they cannot contribute their own perspectives to what happened. There's no good that would come from it that I can see, except for giving folks a bit of juicy gossip to latch onto.

Deleting posts isn't as bad as deleting and penalizing, but I understand completely that having your post deleted at all is upsetting, especially when the reasons seem ambiguous.
It's something we, the mods, have to be conscious of.

Nor, I will start up this other thread.

Suggestion: In future I think it would be better if nominated judges were asked to pm their decision to accept or decline to the mod account rather than state it in the thread. People can nominated as usual, but if there are only 5 or 6 acceptees then at least everybody wont know who they are.

I like that idea, Colm!

Great idea, Colm. That would better enhance anonymity.