Posts and ownership

[Kirk Gittings]

There is only one owner, QT, and he pretty much leaves the day to day running of the forum up to the moderators. He is not shy about voicing his opinion when he so desires.

[dperez]

Irrevocable posts seems reasonable to me.

-DP

[Ralph Barker]

Who is "we"? Do the moderators now make all of the decisions for the "owners" based on how they want to moderate?

There is only one owner, Q. T. Luong, who is also a moderator and, thus, included in "we".

[Kirk Gittings]

There is only one owner, Q. T. Luong, who is also a moderator and, thus, included in "we".

like

(I just hit the virtual like button.)

[Corran]

I would like to buck most people here and suggest simply enabling every user the ability to delete or edit their posts at will, forever, or their thread (including locking there own thread - helpful for the classifieds). I believe this is as simple as enabling the option in the forum software, as most of the other forums I post at have this ability.

I'm sure many might disagree, but we aren't writing scripture here folks. If some conversation gets mixed up because of a deleted post, and someone 4 years later can't parse through what was likely a flame war, who cares? Also, everyone has a bad day. Let bygones be bygones. The issues with transactions will be peer-moderated through the new sub-forum created, so even if someone deletes a whole thread to remove someone's complaints, they have recourse to call them out. (And let's be honest, if someone wants to be dishonest, they will do it regardless, so having that forum to look up problem folks is the way to go.)

And a -1 on real names. Give me a break. Can't enforce it, it doesn't change anything, and is just plain pointless.

[Kevin J. Kolosky]

It seems to me that a lot of the rules around here are made just for the comfort of the moderators. I suppose that is ok since it is a "private" site, but if there were six different moderators there might be six different rules than what there are now. I think if a moderator complains about what she has to do then she ought not be a moderator.

[welly]

Regarding usernames, I see no point in enforcing (not that there appears to be any plans to) real names. How many Alastair Moores (my real name) are there in the world? Quite a few and I'm not that famous a photographer or person that it would make any real difference. My real name on this forum of hundreds and hundreds of users is as good as a pseudonym in all reality. And besides, who would know that my real name is Alastair Moore and not Frank Gittings or Kirk Denney?

[RickV]

I wholeheartedly support the philosophy of "once you post it, it's out there forever, and the forum moderators are not obliged to remove it." Make it happen.

[Rick (hisrealname) Denney]

I'd like to start using a psuedonymn. Please change my user name to: "Rick "his real name" Denney. If that has been previously assigned, I'd like to be known as "Ralph Barker".

You gotta be quicker than that.

[rdenney]

You gotta be quicker than that.

And then there's the guideline about not creating two accounts. Which one should I ban?

Rick "eenie-meany-minie-moe..." Denney