I didn't see the original argument, so just taking these last couple posts at surface value, I would think a moderator shouldn't be "moderating" a discussion between himself and another user. It seems prone for abuse.

^That's all I was suggesting.  It's not like I was seeking to have my original post reinstated or argue the merits of whether it truly was as KJP took it.  I've had multiple posts deleted in the past and took no issue with it

My emotions don't get in the way. Nothing here matters to me emotionally.

 

Oh Yeah?  Well choo choo trains suck. :evil:

Never said I wasn't.  I simply posted here (let me know if this is not the proper thread) to make the suggestion that YOU should not have been the one to make that decision.  You could have easily referred it to another moderator to make sure that your own emotions did not get in the way.  I personally didn't see anything wrong in the way I "worded" my post.  It was largely reflective of your own post and attitude.  JMO.  And I would let someone else respond, if necessary.

 

And, for the record, I didn't call you out by name.  Out of all the forumers who have accussed you of abusing your moderator powers, I have never been one of them.  I was simply suggesting a change in forum policy which, as a long-time contributor, I think would be a good idea.  Don't take it personally.

 

I agree. And we don't agree often it seems, although we have been more recently.  Seems like a fair policy.

My emotions don't get in the way. Nothing here matters to me emotionally.

 

Oh Yeah?  Well choo choo trains suck. :evil:

 

Nah, they blow -- smoke. 8-)

I didn't see the original argument, so just taking these last couple posts at surface value, I would think a moderator shouldn't be "moderating" a discussion between himself and another user. It seems prone for abuse.

 

+1

This suggestion has some merit - the Admins will discuss.

I didn't see the original argument, so just taking these last couple posts at surface value, I would think a moderator shouldn't be "moderating" a discussion between himself and another user. It seems prone for abuse.

 

+1

 

I have some experience with this. I run an entirely different kind of community and one of the moderators deleted a thread response that he did not feel was "on topic" enough. The member left soon afterward and in part (I asked the guy why he was leaving) it was in response to that. I confronted the mod afterward and he sort-of apologized but felt he was more right. So, something like this is a good way to lose forum members.

 

I second and third the notion of a moderator not policing a thread in which he is participating. The dynamics appear like bullying.

Could the moderators please stop deleting my posts?  It's really not the way a forumer should be treated.  I posted a link to the new Downtown Akron hotel the other night in the Akron Random Development thread and instead of moving it to the hotel thread, it was deleted and another forumer posted the article in the Akron Hotel thread.  Then, when I asked why my post was deleted and not just moved, THAT was also deleted!  Who is the moderator deleting my posts?  And answer the question:  Why was the original post deleted and not just moved? I would like an answer to this as neither of my posts was offensive or otherwise violated the rules of UO.  I've been posting here for a long time and this is not moderator behavior worthy of this site.  I have I feeling I know which moderator deleted the first post, and it's someone who I've called out before for his immaturity and un-moderator like behavior, so I think that might have played into it.

^ I wouldn't get to bent up about it. Its been happening off and on for years. Although I have not witnessed what happened to you personally, I have had several threads which I created somehow over time have my name removed as the creator. Its all good though. If it really makes the other person happier, than so be it.

^Thanks Musky.  It irritated me probably more than it should have.  Part of my irritation is the lack of response to my question by the person who did it. 

I'm looking into it, jeremyck01.

^Thank you X.

^Thanks Musky.  It irritated me probably more than it should have.  Part of my irritation is the lack of response to my question by the person who did it. 

 

I deleted it and I apologize for not notifying you about it or why it was deleted. There was nothing wrong with your post except that there already was a thread about the Akron hotel project and someone else had posted the same or similar article as you had.

^Thank you for the explanation. 

I've removed some posts regarding a dispute between KJP and Hts121 - folks, if you think a Moderator is abusing their position or simply being inappropriate, please send a PM to the Admins.

We really need a Cincinnati - Historic Preservation topic. I hope it's only temporarily locked so people can chill out.

thanks, sorry about any of my participation that might have been inflammatory

I blame Quimbob for all the problems there! 

 

Just kidding.  Out of curisoity, is there a "trolling" policy that the mods employ?  I know there can sometimes be a fine line between genuinely held differences of opinions and folks who only seem to show up to make snarky comments and antagonize.  I think UO does a pretty good job with it, but I've often wished that message boards had some sort of "troll" button you could click on a post.  Though I've seen boards that have "gongs" or "dislike" buttons for posts and I don't know that that helps.  I do have one board where I am a member with a reputation function, which helps ferret that stuff out pretty quickly, but it's a sports board devoted to a particular team, so there is a communal understanding of what constitutes trolling. 

^ You can hit the "Report to moderator" link at the bottom of a post and cite "Trolling" as the reason.

I didn't see the original argument, so just taking these last couple posts at surface value, I would think a moderator shouldn't be "moderating" a discussion between himself and another user. It seems prone for abuse.

 

This suggestion has some merit - the Admins will discuss.

 

MayDay[/member] Did anything ever come of this consideration? We have moderators still moderating their own arguments.

In addition to the above issue there's something that happens regularly in many parts of the forum that is really off-putting.

 

It's the use of terms like, "yuppies," "spoiled kids," "hipsters," etc. being used in aggressive, derogatory manners. It's really distracting to the entire point of this forum, urbanism in Ohio. A humongous part of urbanism is diversity and the fact that some very specific users repeatedly bring this type of speech into topics makes for a hostile environment. It's childish at best. Discussing a new development doesn't need to be described in terms of asinine assumptions about its users. That type of thinking is problematic and completely detracts from a true discussion of what's going on in our cities.

In addition to the above issue there's something that happens regularly in many parts of the forum that is really off-putting.

 

It's the use of terms like, "yuppies," "spoiled kids," "hipsters," etc. being used in aggressive, derogatory manners. It's really distracting to the entire point of this forum, urbanism in Ohio. A humongous part of urbanism is diversity and the fact that some very specific users repeatedly bring this type of speech into topics makes for a hostile environment. It's childish at best. Discussing a new development doesn't need to be described in terms of asinine assumptions about its users. That type of thinking is problematic and completely detracts from a true discussion of what's going on in our cities.

 

I know this is an urban site, but the same derogatory speech is also regularly used on here to describe suburbanites. Which, again, I know this is an urban site, but we also want suburbanites to use the site, educate themselves about urban life and be less afraid to visit (if not move there, if they are so inclined), right?

 

I don't think there's a way to talk about people that folks find distasteful without using some sort of negative language. If it's used to insult another specific member, that calls for moderation, but complaining that, for example, that the new DCA Cleveland video features young, white hipsters pretty heavily is not exactly inaccurate. There aren't a lot of middle-aged, fat, ugly, balding people, elderly people, people with kids, not a ton of people of color, etc., and that there are about a billion shots/angles of hipster perk capital Pour Cleveland seems to go right along with that. I guess there's a way to talk about it without using the term "hipster," but it's an apt description in some way.

In addition to the above issue there's something that happens regularly in many parts of the forum that is really off-putting.

 

It's the use of terms like, "yuppies," "spoiled kids," "hipsters," etc. being used in aggressive, derogatory manners. It's really distracting to the entire point of this forum, urbanism in Ohio. A humongous part of urbanism is diversity and the fact that some very specific users repeatedly bring this type of speech into topics makes for a hostile environment. It's childish at best. Discussing a new development doesn't need to be described in terms of asinine assumptions about its users. That type of thinking is problematic and completely detracts from a true discussion of what's going on in our cities.

 

I know this is an urban site, but the same derogatory speech is also regularly used on here to describe suburbanites. Which, again, I know this is an urban site, but we also want suburbanites to use the site, educate themselves about urban life and be less afraid to visit (if not move there, if they are so inclined), right?

 

I don't think there's a way to talk about people that folks find distasteful without using some sort of negative language. If it's used to insult another specific member, that calls for moderation, but complaining that, for example, that the new DCA Cleveland video features young, white hipsters pretty heavily is not exactly inaccurate. There aren't a lot of middle-aged, fat, ugly, balding people, elderly people, people with kids, not a ton of people of color, etc., and that there are about a billion shots/angles of hipster perk capital Pour Cleveland seems to go right along with that. I guess there's a way to talk about it without using the term "hipster," but it's an apt description in some way.

 

That's not quite what I was getting at. It was more the times when people bring that terminology into a discussion when it's completely unrelated. For example, referring to kids outside of U Square on their phones during a fire drill as, "spoiled" and "living on mommy and daddy's money" is ridiculous and detracts from any real conversation since it assumes many things, often incorrectly, and is unrelated to anything development related.

 

Referring to all the development around UC as "yuppie complexes" is very likely speaking about many users of these forums. It assumes so many things about the people living in those developments despite the writer of that post knowing nothing about them personally. Assuming that it's a bunch of spoiled kids living off their parents' money IS derogatory and an incorrect assumption. And is completely unrelated to the discussion that was being had about the architecture of the buildings themselves.

Fair enough, and a good point. We're all guilty of this to some degree but the site should strive to deliver information in a more unbiased way. It's ok to discuss things but nasty-slanted assumptions and name-calling don't really need to be a part of it.

Exactly. That more concisely gets across what I was trying to say.

 

I love discussing urbanism and development in Ohio but not if the discussion consistently strays into judgment of character of complete strangers.

Appreciate the suggestion.

Jesus H Christ

 

A must follow on Twitter - https://twitter.com/IamJesusHChrist

 

that the new DCA Cleveland video features young, white hipsters pretty heavily

 

I thought it was kinda heavy on the yuppies.... not so much the hipsters.  There is still a difference, right?

Yuppies have kids, generally, no? I saw almost zero parents. Hipsters are generally either young singles or DINKs, I thought.

What's a DINK?....I feel so out of the loop.

What's a DINK?....I feel so out of the loop.

 

Double Income No Kids

 

Wealthy couples

I have removed some posts from this thread and the offending comments are being addressed.

What's a DINK?....I feel so out of the loop.

 

Double Income No Kids

 

Wealthy couples

 

I've been striving for DINK-hood for years without even realizing it. Bring on that double income.

Yuppies have kids, generally, no?

 

Not at all - https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=Yuppie

 

Yuppie (short for "young urban professional" or "young upwardly-mobile professional") is a term that refers to a member of the upper middle class or upper class in their 20s or 30s. It first came into use in the early 1980s.

 

I suppose one could be a 'yuppie' and a 'hipster' at the same time...... but, typically, I think of hipsters as being found in non-suit-and-tie settings.  In the tech world, I guess they make just as money showing up for work in jeans and disturbingly skin tight corduroys as does the banker wearing a three-piece.

What's a DINK?....I feel so out of the loop.

 

^ Incredible

You no longer have to worry about me deleting crap that ticks me off. I told the admins I don't have the temperament to be a moderator anymore and, after recent dust-ups, they were all too oblige my request.

 

Once upon a time I used to be a nice, sweet boy. Now I'm becoming the grumpy old man that yells at kids to get out of his yard, in an Internet sort of way.

 

You no longer have to worry about me deleting crap that ticks me off. I told the admins I don't have the temperament to be a moderator anymore and, after recent dust-ups, they were all too oblige my request.

 

 

Once upon a time I used to be a nice, sweet boy. Now I'm becoming the grumpy old man that yells at kids to get out of his yard, in an Internet sort of way.

 

 

 

Once upon a time I used to be a nice, sweet boy. Now I'm becoming the grumpy old man that yells at kids to get out of his yard, in an Internet sort of way.

 

I'm getting like that already, but moreso in real life.

You no longer have to worry about me deleting crap that ticks me off. I told the admins I don't have the temperament to be a moderator anymore and, after recent dust-ups, they were all too oblige my request.

 

Once upon a time I used to be a nice, sweet boy. Now I'm becoming the grumpy old man that yells at kids to get out of his yard, in an Internet sort of way.

 

Sorry that you're no longer a mod.  I thought you represent the community very well and were fair and balanced.

Interesting choice of words MTS.

Interesting choice of words MTS.

Well that is how I feel.  There is no double meaning in what I wrote.

 

KJP moderated but continued to post and be active on the forum.

 

He is always personable, rational and keep the forum tidy.

I know, just saying

 

 

 

 

Jokes --------------------->

        MTS's head

Jokes --------------------->

        MTS's head

 

 

 

Thanks, but I got too cranky to be an effective mod. I'm actually enjoying being one of you again. This was the only place where I felt they I had any control over anything and I took it out on all of you. Frustration and power hath gone to thy head.

Welcome to the club :)

Thanks, but I got too cranky to be an effective mod. I'm actually enjoying being one of you again. This was the only place where I felt they I had any control over anything and I took it out on all of you. Frustration and power hath gone to thy head.

KJP[/member]  You say that as if it's a bad thing!!

 

Yeah, Chairman Mao is a role model. Good call....