I won't beat up on you then....

 

Jim,

I know the job is thankless and I appreciate everything you have done, especially how you have hung in over the years. Sorry to be a PITA on this subject, but it is so easy to call a subject "political" simply becuase the two parties in this country seem to disagree or have positions about almost every aspect of daily life. From economics, to employment to retirement, to medical insurance, to marriage, to reproduction, to the environment... A great many topics can be called political or religious. I think the rule you quote really does a good job of drawing the line. If you want to post about specific political or religious theologies or ideologies then you go to the politics subforum. Everything was clicking along fine in the maps thread before a post about the specific ideology of one party regarding reproductive rights here in the USA, a post that was accompanied with an admonition to vote for that party in the upcoming election. That post was, in my opinion, the crossing of the above line. I didn't think my post stating that most religions and some governments encourage reproduction was anything more than a general statement of fact in support of my thesis regardinng the world's population. I certainly understand that my post used the words religion and government, but it was not an expression of any specific theology or politics.

And yes Jim, I and many others choose not to make the small payment to be paying members that could access the politics subforum. For me, the politics subforum was a source of nasty disagreements that only deepened some the conflicts that I had with one or two people on this forum. By not participating in those discussions I have far fewer disagreements with my friends. I know that the rules can't change just because it helps me stay out of fights with people, but I wanted you to understand that the less civil nature of the politics subforum is the reason I am not interested in seeing good threads that deal with current events moved to the politics sub forum.

Ok, I've said my piece. Thanks again for your work and patience, Jim. Please don't go anywhere. You have done the job very well for much longer than those of us who went before you. It is much appreciated.

Bill

 

Agreeing with Legal Bill. Jim, please hang around. You have done a great job herding around here. Your posts are always thoughtful, well written, and never condescending even when we screw up.

 

Aw shucks, Lainey.
I didn't say anything. Everything is going to be alright!

 

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mACqcZZwG0k[/media]

 

We need you, Jim!

 

Bill said it well and those posters following, including me, seem to agree. When a thread has interest and good participation it is a shame to banish it rather than delete the possibly offensive post. Jim helped me out like that when I stepped in it in Jokes. Unless there is personal name calling, I think most of those offended by legitimate issues, including politics and religion, are uninformed, closed minded people who feel threatened by any ideology other than their own. How do you grow if you don't eat. Maybe they are done growing or figure they have nothing new to learn.

Sent by carrier pigeon

 

I agree too. None of what I said though out this thread was aimed at Jim. I happen to think he is an excellent moderator and I hope he remains as the moderator for a very long time.

 

Just to be clear on a few things...

1) I am going to assume this thread was started as an attempt to discuss the existence of the Politics subforum, the rules about which posts should be there, and NOT about the moderating decisions that are being made nor an attempt to aim blame on any one person in particular--be they moderator, paid member, or guest member. I make this assumption because if it were an attempt to aim blame on any one person in particular then it would make this a bit of a witch hunt and a personal attack on someone, and that's not cool.

2) For anyone who is unaware or didn't read what I said in the "maps" thread, I am the moderator who moved the "maps" thread and I moved it because of multiple posts which discussed politics and religion, not one specific post. I felt strongly that the other posts should not be censored as they were obviously written with what appeared to be significant effort and thought. There was an ongoing discussion and I made the judgement call not to destroy it but to move it where it could continue. It is unfortunate if others don't see it that way, but that is why it got moved. Not because I was manipulated by anyone and not because of one post. I just want that *very* clear.

3) Jim's moderating has been exemplary. There is no one who does it better. It can not be reproduced (go ahead... give it a try).

4) As far as I can see (and I looked), I have moved one thread in my just-over-one year history of moderating in Vintage; edited less than 5 posts (actually, I can only find 1 and *think* I can remember 1 other, but I'm saying 4 to allow for ones I could have forgotten), and closed one thread. That may be bad moderating, but I don't think so. I don't track what other moderators, site moderators, or admins do in here, but from what I've seen, it looks like less than a dozen non-purely-administrative moves/deletes/edits have happened in the last year.

 

Thank you for explaining where you're coming from, Roseanne. I, for one, wasn't aware of item 2).

I am very happy with your moderating and love the intelligent, sometimes edgy posts you make, even if some of them are WAY over my head, like in the computer thread. I just stay out of it. I like photos.