Charles Anthony

In what manner? Who else? What do you want us to do? How do you want prominence/importance to appear? or to translate into human action? I like the idea too. However, I can not think of a diplomatic way to structure that. Sometimes it is difficult to discern Canadian politeness from Canadian wishy-washiness from Canadian rudeness from good old-fashioned Canadian laziness. With respect to #2 in the OP, this thread will be merged into where it should have been from the start. I will leave it here for a few extra rounds of prominence/importance it deserves. Beyond that, I do not see how #2 is a problem now. It was a few years ago but that is not the challenge now. Nevertheless, I like the idea of increasing the price of new content. We could go back to making it necessary for members to have posted or participated for a set amount of time or space before they are permitted to create a new thread discussion. New members could still post replies right away. Is that what you mean? I share that sentiment too. Whatever makes that easier, the better. I think my idea of a nested thread display may facilitate keeping discussions focused, easier to navigate and follow such that finding your last post will not be any more difficult than finding the thread.

I think it would be fun to have our own opinion polls running in the right hand column. Perhaps it could occupy the space that is currently being held by the Upcoming Calendar Events box. Whenever somebody starts a thread with the polling/voting function, the same vote and results will appear similar to the MLW home page without any replies or comments. Take it a step further and we could have images/videos associated with the poll too. If somebody wanted to reply or comment on the poll topic, clicking on it will send them to the thread. Anybody interested?

Thank you, CyberC. That is what I mean. Today, the backlinks are part of the editable text. They can be deleted. They can be copied and pasted. They do not appear unless the poster quotes a previous post. They also do not necessarily link back to the replied post --- you can have them backlink to whatever post you want in the entire forum even if it is not in the thread. All of that is fine and should remain. I want more. I want a forced backlink that can not be edited nor deleted by the poster.

I would like the option of a threaded view of the forum and to include forced back-links into each post except for Opening Posts obviously. THREAD VIEW Toggling the button ON will display the graphical lineage of an entire discussion in situ. Toggling the button OFF will return to the current display. BACKLINKS When reading a post, this back-link will take you directly to the post to which it is replying. This is a non-editable feature such that in instances where the post does not contain a quotation of a previous post, the reader will still be able to navigate unambiguously to the appropriate post.

Paid members get to organize and hold debating challenges for fun. A separate Debates subforum is created. This could involve the voting/poll feature. The rules are simple: whoever gets the most votes in favor is the hero or not --- with a link to reference his wonderful debating heroicism! Here are some possible ideas that can all be determined by the willful debaters: Only paid members get to debate. or Only a select few member (forming a tag-team) get to debate. Everybody gets to vote. or Only paid members get to vote. or Only members with a specific seniority --- either defined by registration date or post count or arbitrary selection. ------ Selective visibility of posts/likes for paid members or Reverse Ignoring For non-paying members, the forum looks and operates the same. For paying members, there will be the possibility of EXCLUDING members from being able to view and respond to your post. This is the general format of the FaceBook game. Before submitting each post to the public, the member will have a drop down list with different permissions for who can view and respond to his post. To paid members, the forum will appear very different. These selective permissions posts have a highlight color or an extra button. Upon toggling the post/button, the thread will branch off to display the side comment or thread drift. If a non-paying member is tangled with a paying member, the non-paying member automatically gets permission to participate in the branch and to toggle visibility. This will purposefully create multiple tiers of discussion that will seem unfair. I propose that its use be linked to the following rules: If a paying member excludes somebody (either a paying member or a non-paying member) then: - ALL non-paying members are excluded from both viewing the post and responding to it and - All members can see who is excluded A paying member will never be forced into a flame-war with this feature. A member will always have the permission to post his response to be viewed by the open public for all to see. That way, paid members will not be able to control debate or secretly bully other members under cover of their membership. Permit me to drop a seed. Folks, please consider my last idea on its own and in terms of how it may function to enhance community moderation. Moderators would have the over-riding ability to take a borderline off-topic thread-drifting nag-a-thon that is teetering onto the brink of inter-personal flame-war out of public view --- either temporarily so that it does not escalate or permanently if it does and needs to be resolved in a separate sanbox --- without having to lock it. This idea can be used to incorporate paid members into consulting with moderators concerning moderation of posts and habits. Please think this over, folks. I am sure you all can possibly think of ways this rough idea could be enhanced. Hold your thoughts until later and tell us what you think when Greg starts a new thread on moderation.

A personal blog space for each member would be cool.

Remember several years ago when you would click on the Report button, tell us what was wrong with the post, what rules were being broken and send it our way? We used to fire back a formalized PM of your report with a reply. One of the major software updates removed the moderator's ability to reply to a report directly. I want that feature back even if it requires buying an extra plugin. I will pay for that myself. A long time ago, every Report would auto-generate a formal Personal Message to every moderator that included the Reporter's complaint and a link to the offending post. This allowed the moderator to deal with the issue and immediately send a reply to the member who reported it. That way, the person who sent the report can get a good sense that we are onto it. We can not do that anymore and we have not be able to do so for a long time. I believe this is the reason why people think I am not paying attention. I want to be able to reply directly to each person who reports a post with ease and the same automation as before.

Guys, Stop the thread drift. Stay on topic. Anybody who continues to hijack this thread will take an extended vacation from the forums. Ch. A.

"I am going to kick tomorrow!"

Please be patient with Greg. He is very busy. The thread is not going to be locked. As for the rest of you, stop the off topic trolling. Anybody who continues to bicker about your personal drama will have an early vacation. Ch. A.

No. That is bad advice. People here still want to be able to communicate amongst eachother, I presume. Turning of the PM option makes it impossible for them to communicate with anybody. Also, it makes it incredibly difficult for moderators to communicate with the member too. No --- do not start a thread. Starting a thread would be responding to trolling. Myself, I do not need to have covert access to any of your PMs to moderate that sort of nonsense if you follow these instructions: If someone sends you abusive or harassing Private Messages, DO NOT RESPOND TO THAT PERSON. Instead, report it to us. Cut and paste it as BCSNapper said, include the names with your report. Include as much information about the situation as you want to tell us. Keep in mind, most abusive behavior in the forums --- whether it is openly public in the discussions or whether it is secret through the PM feature --- can be solved by a concerted effort to ignore it. That is a fair question. I have never sought to read any of your PMs. Like I said earlier, I would not want access to any of your PMs. I genuinely enjoy reading your discussions. Everybody is free to express whatever they want to say as long as they do so civilly. That liberty of expression would be tarnished if it was cloaked with such doubt. As members of the forum, you all deserve that privacy. I would rather quit moderating than leave you all with the suspicion that I can or will read your messages.

I am not sure. I have not looked into that. I would not want to. So far, I can not think of any situation where I would have had to. Greg, Please look into this. If such a permission exists to myself as moderator, turn it off. It would be inappropriate and unfair to the members.

Amen.

Guys, Anybody who posts a hint of a personal attack will take a vacation. Ch. A.

I disagree I believe the thread degraded with everybody resorting to childish discussion and personal attacks. I was quick to shut it down temporarily to give people time to re-read what they last wrote. I will do it again next time. Folks, The thread is open again. Please continue the discussion but try to stay civil. You all bring up great angles and information to the topic but it gets cluttered in the abrasive rhetoric. Ch. A.

Guys, Take a break. The thread is locked temporarily. In the mean time, go hug a stranger. Ch. A.

Folks, This thread has been moved to the Media and Broadcasting section of the forum because it seems to belong there more than anywhere else but it is also locked for reasons you all should already know. This is an unacceptable way to start a thread. For starters, there is no indication of what the Opening Poster thinks. There is no clear indication of what the Opening Poster wants to discuss. It is not even clear the Opening Poster wants to discuss anything. Lo and behold! like clockwork, the discussion is already cluttered! The thread is locked and you are all invited to re-start a new thread on the same topics brought up in this thread but your new thread has to follow the forum rules and guidelines: You are all free to re-copy anything you wrote in this locked thread into a new thread. I will close this thread later if somebody restarts this topic (whatever that topic happens to be) in a new thread. Ch. A. No animals were harmed and nobody was sent to Gitmo in the moderation of this thread.

For what it is worth, I find this preface: to be insulting to the moderator. You probably do not see it that way because you probably refuse to accept your fault for your previous suspension. You preface your comment to denigrate the judgement of the moderator. You imply that your successive comment will provoke a suspension because..... the moderation is unfair? You are coloring your language to create prejudice and bias against the moderator. Then, you are the first person to question the intelligence of all of the forum members: I never raised the issue of "smart" until you did. So, you lead the reader to conclude that all "smart" members must conclude the same as you. Where does that leave all of the other people who do not conclude as you? Are they smart? Well, the fact of the matter is that the very 1st rule of the forum is to be polite and treat eachother with respect. It does not take anybody very long to find that rule, now, does it? Nobody has excuses. If you want to start a discussion, go ahead! Start any discussion you want on any topic you want that fits the category of the forum! However, there are condition and one of the is this: You have to make a serious honest effort to discuss the topic. As Shady said: Posting a link followed by name-calling is insufficient. Every single time this happens, a message is sent to the member INVITING THE MEMBER TO TRY AGAIN WITH A BETTER EFFORT. Greg is right. You are whiners.

BUMP The title of this thread was changed. The old title was Why are my posts on the recent UN and U.S. Global Warming studies being deleted?

Ladies and gentlemen, This thread is locked because it was hijacked by people who refuse to stay on topic. I do not plan to re-open it. If somebody wants to discuss Female Israeli soldiers speak out about the Israeli sickness then you are welcome to re-start a new thread on that same topic. I apologize for letting the trolls ruin it for everyone. The rest of you who insist on discussing everything-except-Female Israeli soldiers speak out about the Israeli sickness will have to start your own threads. Ch. A.

Guys, This thread has degraded disgracefully. Anybody who violates any of the forum rules from this point onward will take a time away from posting. Let me remind you all of the following: Please do not make me work this hard again. If you encounter a fellow member who is violating the forum rules, report it and ignore him. Do not respond in kind. Ch. A.

Guys, Stop the personal attacks. Ch. A.

Folks, If you have to be warned once, that is OK. If you have to be warned more than once, that is not OK. When I make a global warning in a thread, all members who participate in the discussion thereafter are considered to have been warned. By definition? Yes, that is how it is like --- now. If your ticket was sufficient --- then, you would not need a second one. Many of the people complaining here have been warned SEVERAL times going back over years. You all know the rules. They have been the same for eons. None of you have excuses. Ch. A.

Sheesh, Greg! You finally figured it out?

Ladies and gentlemen, This thread is locked because this is one more example of a horrible attempt to start a discussion. Anybody with a genuine desire to stimulate honest discussion and debate over this same topic is free to start a new thread. I hope you do a better job than this one. Feel free to copy-paste anything that you wrote in this thread if you wish. I will likely delete this thread later. Ch. A.