Managing forum toxicity and negativity

[MangoKorat]

Thank you @george for providing an opportunity to comment on moderation without fear of censure or worse - well overdue here.

 

This and any other public forum would be absoultely pointless if members cannot give their views and make their points in a polite and decent manner.  Then again, members cannot be allowed to simply state whatever they want and/or attack other members.  I've moderated a forum before and whilst it can be very time consuming, to be honest - ensuring those things don't happen is not that difficult.

 

Whist there is a clear need for moderation/some form of control of the things that people say on a public forum, I think that in some cases such control is failing here.  When any topic descends into a slanging match between members it needs to be stopped - on too many occasions it isn't.  Its right and proper that members are allowed to debate and put their opinions/veiwpoints forward but some, and its often the same few, do that by also including personal remarks or even clear attacks on someone with an alternative viewpoint.

 

As well as the clear personal spats there is, in my opinon a degree of over-moderation in some cases. I would go further and state that there appears to be a 'clique' here where moderators/admin/certain members stick together.

 

Without naming names or topics - because I am using this purely by way of an example as it fits exactly with my points, I'm involved in a situation here at the moment where on several occasions, usually on the same sub forum, my posts have been removed.  Removed as being inaccurate when they contain information on subjects where I have experienced something personally and removed because it's claimed, they are 'off topic'.

 

When I can answer a members post by relaying something related to their question by stating something that actually happened to me (and to others I know) - how can that be stated as inaccurate?  That is no different to calling me a liar.  It would be quite easy for a moderator to simply state "that is what happened to you, its not following the rules" or similar.  Removing something as inaccurate in that way is depriving the OP of a potential answer.  It should be remembered that the vast majority of subjects on Asean Now relate to Thailand and in Thailand - things are rarely firm.  When it comes to laws/rules - some authorities make their own up along the way.  It is not inaccurate to point out to a member - something that he/she is likley to encounter.

 

When it comes to 'off topic'  what exactly does that mean?  Topics often evolve, answers that may not exactly fit the original question can often assist the poster to understand their own position.  When a new rule is announced or things appear to have changed in some way in Thai officialdom, members may well suspect that other related things may happen etc, etc.  For example, if a post was asking how many points can be removed from a driving licence for a particular offence - a member may reply comparing the points removed for a different offence or compare that punishment to a similar one in another country - is that OFF TOPIC?  If the discussion starts to veer off into a discussion about dangerous driving for example - yes its clearly veering OFF TOPIC. As I say topics evolve but provided the key subject is kept to - in my opinion the discussion remains 'ON TOPIC'. I believe there are occasions where posts are removed simply because a moderator doesn't like them or doesn't agree, not because they are 'OFF TOPIC'.

 

I'd rather not use my current complaint about moderation as an example but it is a clear illustration of what I'm getting at here and I've seen much the same happen on other occasions. I will try to explain without giving details:

 

A few weeks ago a member posted a question, I replied and told him what had happened to me and a friend in the same circumstances.  I qouted what a Thai official had told me.  An argument ensued between myself and another member who, whilst he has knowledge on the subject, does not and cannot know everything there is to know.  I was quoting real world events that had happened to myself and others in the same or similar positions - whether what happened to me and others actually followed a particular rule was not the question. I posted an account of what I experieced at the hands of a Thai official.  Eventually a moderator/admin stepped in and removed my posts as inaccurate!

 

In a later thead on the same sub forum, I answered a members question on a particular rule.  Other's, including a moderator, replied and stated what they claimed was the official position and that I was wrong. I replied giving links (some official) that supported my understanding of the rule.  Again I was told I was wrong by a moderator. I then asked the moderator to provide official links that supported his claim - as I had.  As yet he has refused to do so but on this occasion, did not remove my posts.  However, some of the comments I received raised my suspicions that a 'clique' existed on that particular sub forum.

 

 

In more recent days, I replied to a post that in itself was not, strictly speaking, following the OP.  It was however, related. My reply was deleted by an 'Admin' as Off Topic yet the post I replied was not - nor was a similar reply to the same question by a moderator!

 

Moderators/admin need to be impartial and should not support or pick on any particular members.  Moderators can be wrong and when they answer a question themselves, they should not be immune from requests to prove their claims.  Forums such as Asean Now are invaluable to both expats living in Thailand and to visitors.  To be successful, such forums must operate fairly.

 

 

[EVENKEEL]

3 minutes ago, MangoKorat said:

Thank you @george for providing an opportunity to comment on moderation without fear of censure or worse - well overdue here.

 

This and any other public forum would be absoultely pointless if members cannot give their views and make their points in a polite and decent manner.  Then again, members cannot be allowed to simply state whatever they want and/or attack other members.  I've moderated a forum before and whilst it can be very time consuming, to be honest - ensuring those things don't happen is not that difficult.

 

Whist there is a clear need for moderation/some form of control of the things that people say on a public forum, I think that in some cases such control is failing here.  When any topic descends into a slanging match between members it needs to be stopped - on too many occasions it isn't.  Its right and proper that members are allowed to debate and put their opinions/veiwpoints forward but some, and its often the same few, do that by also including personal remarks or even clear attacks on someone with an alternative viewpoint.

 

As well as the clear personal spats there is, in my opinon a degree of over-moderation in some cases. I would go further and state that there appears to be a 'clique' here where moderators/admin/certain members stick together.

 

Without naming names or topics - because I am using this purely by way of an example as it fits exactly with my points, I'm involved in a situation here at the moment where on several occasions, usually on the same sub forum, my posts have been removed.  Removed as being inaccurate when they contain information on subjects where I have experienced something personally and removed because it's claimed, they are 'off topic'.

 

When I can answer a members post by relaying something related to their question by stating something that actually happened to me (and to others I know) - how can that be stated as inaccurate?  That is no different to calling me a liar.  It would be quite easy for a moderator to simply state "that is what happened to you, its not following the rules" or similar.  Removing something as inaccurate in that way is depriving the OP of a potential answer.  It should be remembered that the vast majority of subjects on Asean Now relate to Thailand and in Thailand - things are rarely firm.  When it comes to laws/rules - some authorities make their own up along the way.  It is not inaccurate to point out to a member - something that he/she is likley to encounter.

 

When it comes to 'off topic'  what exactly does that mean?  Topics often evolve, answers that may not exactly fit the original question can often assist the poster to understand their own position.  When a new rule is announced or things appear to have changed in some way in Thai officialdom, members may well suspect that other related things may happen etc, etc.  For example, if a post was asking how many points can be removed from a driving licence for a particular offence - a member may reply comparing the points removed for a different offence or compare that punishment to a similar one in another country - is that OFF TOPIC?  If the discussion starts to veer off into a discussion about dangerous driving for example - yes its clearly veering OFF TOPIC. As I say topics evolve but provided the key subject is kept to - in my opinion the discussion remains 'ON TOPIC'. I believe there are occasions where posts are removed simply because a moderator doesn't like them or doesn't agree, not because they are 'OFF TOPIC'.

 

I'd rather not use my current complaint about moderation as an example but it is a clear illustration of what I'm getting at here and I've seen much the same happen on other occasions. I will try to explain without giving details:

 

A few weeks ago a member posted a question, I replied and told him what had happened to me and a friend in the same circumstances.  I qouted what a Thai official had told me.  An argument ensued between myself and another member who, whilst he has knowledge on the subject, does not and cannot know everything there is to know.  I was quoting real world events that had happened to myself and others in the same or similar positions - whether what happened to me and others actually followed a particular rule was not the question. I posted an account of what I experieced at the hands of a Thai official.  Eventually a moderator/admin stepped in and removed my posts as inaccurate!

 

In a later thead on the same sub forum, I answered a members question on a particular rule.  Other's, including a moderator, replied and stated what they claimed was the official position and that I was wrong. I replied giving links (some official) that supported my understanding of the rule.  Again I was told I was wrong by a moderator. I then asked the moderator to provide official links that supported his claim - as I had.  As yet he has refused to do so but on this occasion, did not remove my posts.  However, some of the comments I received raised my suspicions that a 'clique' existed on that particular sub forum.

 

 

In more recent days, I replied to a post that in itself was not, strictly speaking, following the OP.  It was however, related. My reply was deleted by an 'Admin' as Off Topic yet the post I replied was not - nor was a similar reply to the same question by a moderator!

 

Moderators/admin need to be impartial and should not support or pick on any particular members.  Moderators can be wrong and when they answer a question themselves, they should not be immune from requests to prove their claims.  Forums such as Asean Now are invaluable to both expats living in Thailand and to visitors.  To be successful, such forums must operate fairly.

 

 

blah blah blah blah blah.........blah. Such a drama queen.

[MangoKorat]

2 minutes ago, EVENKEEL said:

blah blah blah blah blah.........blah. Such a drama queen.

You may note that in his second post, George said that feedback is welcome.

 

How is pointing out what I feel is wrong with the forum 'drama'?  Not the worst by a long way but nontheless, a pointless form of personal attack, which is one of the points I'm making.

[save the frogs]

10 minutes ago, EVENKEEL said:

blah blah blah blah blah.........blah. Such a drama queen.

maybe AN should have a rule to keep posts under 10,000 words.

 

say what you want about bignok, but at least he's succinct. 

 

[scubascuba3]

34 minutes ago, MangoKorat said:

Thank you @george for providing an opportunity to comment on moderation without fear of censure or worse - well overdue here.

 

This and any other public forum would be absoultely pointless if members cannot give their views and make their points in a polite and decent manner.  Then again, members cannot be allowed to simply state whatever they want and/or attack other members.  I've moderated a forum before and whilst it can be very time consuming, to be honest - ensuring those things don't happen is not that difficult.

 

Whist there is a clear need for moderation/some form of control of the things that people say on a public forum, I think that in some cases such control is failing here.  When any topic descends into a slanging match between members it needs to be stopped - on too many occasions it isn't.  Its right and proper that members are allowed to debate and put their opinions/veiwpoints forward but some, and its often the same few, do that by also including personal remarks or even clear attacks on someone with an alternative viewpoint.

 

As well as the clear personal spats there is, in my opinon a degree of over-moderation in some cases. I would go further and state that there appears to be a 'clique' here where moderators/admin/certain members stick together.

 

Without naming names or topics - because I am using this purely by way of an example as it fits exactly with my points, I'm involved in a situation here at the moment where on several occasions, usually on the same sub forum, my posts have been removed.  Removed as being inaccurate when they contain information on subjects where I have experienced something personally and removed because it's claimed, they are 'off topic'.

 

When I can answer a members post by relaying something related to their question by stating something that actually happened to me (and to others I know) - how can that be stated as inaccurate?  That is no different to calling me a liar.  It would be quite easy for a moderator to simply state "that is what happened to you, its not following the rules" or similar.  Removing something as inaccurate in that way is depriving the OP of a potential answer.  It should be remembered that the vast majority of subjects on Asean Now relate to Thailand and in Thailand - things are rarely firm.  When it comes to laws/rules - some authorities make their own up along the way.  It is not inaccurate to point out to a member - something that he/she is likley to encounter.

 

When it comes to 'off topic'  what exactly does that mean?  Topics often evolve, answers that may not exactly fit the original question can often assist the poster to understand their own position.  When a new rule is announced or things appear to have changed in some way in Thai officialdom, members may well suspect that other related things may happen etc, etc.  For example, if a post was asking how many points can be removed from a driving licence for a particular offence - a member may reply comparing the points removed for a different offence or compare that punishment to a similar one in another country - is that OFF TOPIC?  If the discussion starts to veer off into a discussion about dangerous driving for example - yes its clearly veering OFF TOPIC. As I say topics evolve but provided the key subject is kept to - in my opinion the discussion remains 'ON TOPIC'. I believe there are occasions where posts are removed simply because a moderator doesn't like them or doesn't agree, not because they are 'OFF TOPIC'.

 

I'd rather not use my current complaint about moderation as an example but it is a clear illustration of what I'm getting at here and I've seen much the same happen on other occasions. I will try to explain without giving details:

 

A few weeks ago a member posted a question, I replied and told him what had happened to me and a friend in the same circumstances.  I qouted what a Thai official had told me.  An argument ensued between myself and another member who, whilst he has knowledge on the subject, does not and cannot know everything there is to know.  I was quoting real world events that had happened to myself and others in the same or similar positions - whether what happened to me and others actually followed a particular rule was not the question. I posted an account of what I experieced at the hands of a Thai official.  Eventually a moderator/admin stepped in and removed my posts as inaccurate!

 

In a later thead on the same sub forum, I answered a members question on a particular rule.  Other's, including a moderator, replied and stated what they claimed was the official position and that I was wrong. I replied giving links (some official) that supported my understanding of the rule.  Again I was told I was wrong by a moderator. I then asked the moderator to provide official links that supported his claim - as I had.  As yet he has refused to do so but on this occasion, did not remove my posts.  However, some of the comments I received raised my suspicions that a 'clique' existed on that particular sub forum.

 

 

In more recent days, I replied to a post that in itself was not, strictly speaking, following the OP.  It was however, related. My reply was deleted by an 'Admin' as Off Topic yet the post I replied was not - nor was a similar reply to the same question by a moderator!

 

Moderators/admin need to be impartial and should not support or pick on any particular members.  Moderators can be wrong and when they answer a question themselves, they should not be immune from requests to prove their claims.  Forums such as Asean Now are invaluable to both expats living in Thailand and to visitors.  To be successful, such forums must operate fairly.

 

 

TLTR

[Yellowtail]

I don't see any real need for moderation, except for legal issues, vulgar language and images. 

 

Sticks and stones and whatnot.

 

I think the moderation on this site has improved. 

[TroubleandGrumpy]

42 minutes ago, MangoKorat said:

Thank you @george for providing an opportunity to comment on moderation without fear of censure or worse - well overdue here.

 

This and any other public forum would be absoultely pointless if members cannot give their views and make their points in a polite and decent manner.  Then again, members cannot be allowed to simply state whatever they want and/or attack other members.  I've moderated a forum before and whilst it can be very time consuming, to be honest - ensuring those things don't happen is not that difficult.

 

Whist there is a clear need for moderation/some form of control of the things that people say on a public forum, I think that in some cases such control is failing here.  When any topic descends into a slanging match between members it needs to be stopped - on too many occasions it isn't.  Its right and proper that members are allowed to debate and put their opinions/veiwpoints forward but some, and its often the same few, do that by also including personal remarks or even clear attacks on someone with an alternative viewpoint.

 

As well as the clear personal spats there is, in my opinon a degree of over-moderation in some cases. I would go further and state that there appears to be a 'clique' here where moderators/admin/certain members stick together.

 

Without naming names or topics - because I am using this purely by way of an example as it fits exactly with my points, I'm involved in a situation here at the moment where on several occasions, usually on the same sub forum, my posts have been removed.  Removed as being inaccurate when they contain information on subjects where I have experienced something personally and removed because it's claimed, they are 'off topic'.

 

When I can answer a members post by relaying something related to their question by stating something that actually happened to me (and to others I know) - how can that be stated as inaccurate?  That is no different to calling me a liar.  It would be quite easy for a moderator to simply state "that is what happened to you, its not following the rules" or similar.  Removing something as inaccurate in that way is depriving the OP of a potential answer.  It should be remembered that the vast majority of subjects on Asean Now relate to Thailand and in Thailand - things are rarely firm.  When it comes to laws/rules - some authorities make their own up along the way.  It is not inaccurate to point out to a member - something that he/she is likley to encounter.

 

When it comes to 'off topic'  what exactly does that mean?  Topics often evolve, answers that may not exactly fit the original question can often assist the poster to understand their own position.  When a new rule is announced or things appear to have changed in some way in Thai officialdom, members may well suspect that other related things may happen etc, etc.  For example, if a post was asking how many points can be removed from a driving licence for a particular offence - a member may reply comparing the points removed for a different offence or compare that punishment to a similar one in another country - is that OFF TOPIC?  If the discussion starts to veer off into a discussion about dangerous driving for example - yes its clearly veering OFF TOPIC. As I say topics evolve but provided the key subject is kept to - in my opinion the discussion remains 'ON TOPIC'. I believe there are occasions where posts are removed simply because a moderator doesn't like them or doesn't agree, not because they are 'OFF TOPIC'.

 

I'd rather not use my current complaint about moderation as an example but it is a clear illustration of what I'm getting at here and I've seen much the same happen on other occasions. I will try to explain without giving details:

 

A few weeks ago a member posted a question, I replied and told him what had happened to me and a friend in the same circumstances.  I qouted what a Thai official had told me.  An argument ensued between myself and another member who, whilst he has knowledge on the subject, does not and cannot know everything there is to know.  I was quoting real world events that had happened to myself and others in the same or similar positions - whether what happened to me and others actually followed a particular rule was not the question. I posted an account of what I experieced at the hands of a Thai official.  Eventually a moderator/admin stepped in and removed my posts as inaccurate!

 

In a later thead on the same sub forum, I answered a members question on a particular rule.  Other's, including a moderator, replied and stated what they claimed was the official position and that I was wrong. I replied giving links (some official) that supported my understanding of the rule.  Again I was told I was wrong by a moderator. I then asked the moderator to provide official links that supported his claim - as I had.  As yet he has refused to do so but on this occasion, did not remove my posts.  However, some of the comments I received raised my suspicions that a 'clique' existed on that particular sub forum.

 

In more recent days, I replied to a post that in itself was not, strictly speaking, following the OP.  It was however, related. My reply was deleted by an 'Admin' as Off Topic yet the post I replied was not - nor was a similar reply to the same question by a moderator!

 

Moderators/admin need to be impartial and should not support or pick on any particular members.  Moderators can be wrong and when they answer a question themselves, they should not be immune from requests to prove their claims.  Forums such as Asean Now are invaluable to both expats living in Thailand and to visitors.  To be successful, such forums must operate fairly.

Well said mate - in the past that is what happpened to myself (several times).  It is one thing to control the members, and sometimes that is needed, but someone needs to also be controlling the Mods.  It appears the one Mod I had severe trouble has 'departed' - after my last banning by him/her/it  I went to that 'other' forum - which as many have said became even worse.     

[TroubleandGrumpy]

40 minutes ago, EVENKEEL said:

blah blah blah blah blah.........blah. Such a drama queen.

 

What you just did is exactly what George wants to stop mate.

No need for that at all - just ignore or block him - posting that comment is just 'nasty'.

[george]

4 hours ago, sipi said:

Lol. Who wants to give this old man grief....

Edit... The background was supposed to show the Asean Now  homepage. Didn't quite work out.

Good to see you!

[MangoKorat]

42 minutes ago, scubascuba3 said:

TLTR

Fine, you have the agency to read or not.  I don't see the point in making comments and then being asked to explain them over several shorter posts.

[MangoKorat]

1 hour ago, save the frogs said:

maybe AN should have a rule to keep posts under 10,000 word

Fine by me, my post contains 1008 words.

[Morch]

2 hours ago, ozimoron said:

 

Glad to. Hate speech is unacceptable anywhere, anytime.

 

[vangrop]

1 hour ago, MangoKorat said:

hank you @george for providing an opportunity to comment on moderation without fear of censure or worse - well overdue here.

 

This and any other public forum would be absoultely pointless if members cannot give their views and make their points in a polite and decent manner.  Then again, members cannot be allowed to simply state whatever they want and/or attack other members.  I've moderated a forum before and whilst it can be very time consuming, to be honest - ensuring those things don't happen is not that difficult.

 

Whist there is a clear need for moderation/some form of control of the things that people say on a public forum, I think that in some cases such control is failing here.  When any topic descends into a slanging match between members it needs to be stopped - on too many occasions it isn't.  Its right and proper that members are allowed to debate and put their opinions/veiwpoints forward but some, and its often the same few, do that by also including personal remarks or even clear attacks on someone with an alternative viewpoint.

 

As well as the clear personal spats there is, in my opinon a degree of over-moderation in some cases. I would go further and state that there appears to be a 'clique' here where moderators/admin/certain members stick together.

 

Without naming names or topics - because I am using this purely by way of an example as it fits exactly with my points, I'm involved in a situation here at the moment where on several occasions, usually on the same sub forum, my posts have been removed.  Removed as being inaccurate when they contain information on subjects where I have experienced something personally and removed because it's claimed, they are 'off topic'.

 

When I can answer a members post by relaying something related to their question by stating something that actually happened to me (and to others I know) - how can that be stated as inaccurate?  That is no different to calling me a liar.  It would be quite easy for a moderator to simply state "that is what happened to you, its not following the rules" or similar.  Removing something as inaccurate in that way is depriving the OP of a potential answer.  It should be remembered that the vast majority of subjects on Asean Now relate to Thailand and in Thailand - things are rarely firm.  When it comes to laws/rules - some authorities make their own up along the way.  It is not inaccurate to point out to a member - something that he/she is likley to encounter.

 

When it comes to 'off topic'  what exactly does that mean?  Topics often evolve, answers that may not exactly fit the original question can often assist the poster to understand their own position.  When a new rule is announced or things appear to have changed in some way in Thai officialdom, members may well suspect that other related things may happen etc, etc.  For example, if a post was asking how many points can be removed from a driving licence for a particular offence - a member may reply comparing the points removed for a different offence or compare that punishment to a similar one in another country - is that OFF TOPIC?  If the discussion starts to veer off into a discussion about dangerous driving for example - yes its clearly veering OFF TOPIC. As I say topics evolve but provided the key subject is kept to - in my opinion the discussion remains 'ON TOPIC'. I believe there are occasions where posts are removed simply because a moderator doesn't like them or doesn't agree, not because they are 'OFF TOPIC'.

 

I'd rather not use my current complaint about moderation as an example but it is a clear illustration of what I'm getting at here and I've seen much the same happen on other occasions. I will try to explain without giving details:

 

A few weeks ago a member posted a question, I replied and told him what had happened to me and a friend in the same circumstances.  I qouted what a Thai official had told me.  An argument ensued between myself and another member who, whilst he has knowledge on the subject, does not and cannot know everything there is to know.  I was quoting real world events that had happened to myself and others in the same or similar positions - whether what happened to me and others actually followed a particular rule was not the question. I posted an account of what I experieced at the hands of a Thai official.  Eventually a moderator/admin stepped in and removed my posts as inaccurate!

 

In a later thead on the same sub forum, I answered a members question on a particular rule.  Other's, including a moderator, replied and stated what they claimed was the official position and that I was wrong. I replied giving links (some official) that supported my understanding of the rule.  Again I was told I was wrong by a moderator. I then asked the moderator to provide official links that supported his claim - as I had.  As yet he has refused to do so but on this occasion, did not remove my posts.  However, some of the comments I received raised my suspicions that a 'clique' existed on that particular sub forum.

 

 

In more recent days, I replied to a post that in itself was not, strictly speaking, following the OP.  It was however, related. My reply was deleted by an 'Admin' as Off Topic yet the post I replied was not - nor was a similar reply to the same question by a moderator!

 

Moderators/admin need to be impartial and should not support or pick on any particular members.  Moderators can be wrong and when they answer a question themselves, they should not be immune from requests to prove their claims.  Forums such as Asean Now are invaluable to both expats living in Thailand and to visitors.  To be successful, such forums must operate fairly.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wake me up when finished son of a preacherman

[MangoKorat]

53 minutes ago, TroubleandGrumpy said:

Well said mate - in the past that is what happpened to myself (several times).  It is one thing to control the members, and sometimes that is needed, but someone needs to also be controlling the Mods.  It appears the one Mod I had severe trouble has 'departed' - after my last banning by him/her/it  I went to that 'other' forum - which as many have said became even worse.     

Not sure which other forum you mean but I also joined another - purely because of post removals etc. However, there was/is so little happening on the one I joined that there is very little information to be gained.

 

Forums sometimes die a death and over moderation can contribute to that.  For many years I was a member of a Thailand/UK forum. That was a very useful form of information and also became a 'social' entity with regular meets etc.  However, that forum suffered the same problems - nastiness and personal attacks being allowed but in other cases, over-moderation.  I made some good friends on there, some of whom I'm still in touch with.

 

Last time I was there, there hadn't been a post for over a month.  Not sure why but I suspect that the problems I mentioned were a large part of it.  People get sick of what goes on and often either leave or just become a 'lurker' - there for information only.  That is of course their right but its far better when more people contribute.

 

Forums are not so different to other forms of social media - unfortunately, as we see on other platforms, the world doesn't only contain well balanced people with good intentions. There are those that have their own agenda and that doesn't always sit well.

[vangrop]

12 minutes ago, MangoKorat said:

Fine by me, my post contains 1008 words.

Was this your most important activity today? What a wealth experience

[vangrop]

Just now, vangrop said:

Was this your most important activity today? What a wealth experience

Was this your most important activity today? What a wealthy

experience

[vangrop]

54 minutes ago, TroubleandGrumpy said:

What you just did is exactly what George wants to stop mate.

No need for that at all - just ignore or block him - posting that comment is just 'nasty'.

define nasty

[MangoKorat]

3 minutes ago, vangrop said:

Was this your most important activity today? What a wealth experience

Yet another example of pointless posting.

[Lemsta69]

1 hour ago, save the frogs said:

maybe AN should have a rule to keep posts under 10,000 words.

 

say what you want about bignok, but at least he's succinct. 

 

 

He's not succinct, he's abrupt, narrow-minded and dogmatic which is tantamount to trolling.

 

That's why he gets such "hate" from many BMs.

[vangrop]

5 hours ago, sipi said:

Lol. Who wants to give this old man grief....

Edit... The background was supposed to show the Asean Now  homepage. Didn't quite work out.

Edited 5 hours ago by sipi

At least you could have posted a photo with the GF. That would have been interesting

[MangoKorat]

Just now, Lemsta69 said:

 

He's not succinct, he's abrupt, narrow-minded and dogmatic which is tantamount to trolling.

 

That's why he gets such "hate" from many BMs.

Okay, you made a comment, perhaps you'd care to explain. I don't see any 'hate' button. I don't need to be succinct, fortunately one thing you will always be free to do is ignore.

[Lemsta69]

2 minutes ago, MangoKorat said:

Okay, you made a comment, perhaps you'd care to explain. I don't see any 'hate' button. I don't need to be succinct, fortunately one thing you will always be free to do is ignore.

 

Please re-read the post I was responding to. STF was describing another poster as "succinct", not you. 

[MangoKorat]

7 minutes ago, Lemsta69 said:

 

Please re-read the post I was responding to. STF was describing another poster as "succinct", not you. 

Done and understood. My apologies.

[Lemsta69]

Just now, MangoKorat said:

Done and understood. My apologies.

 

No worries.

[save the frogs]

17 minutes ago, Lemsta69 said:

 

He's not succinct, he's abrupt, narrow-minded and dogmatic which is tantamount to trolling.

 

That's why he gets such "hate" from many BMs.

and yet, he might win the poster of the year award. 

 

[MangoKorat]

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

I don't see any real need for moderation, except for legal issues, vulgar language and images. 

 

Sticks and stones and whatnot.

 

I think the moderation on this site has improved. 

Sometimes the arguing/point scoring totally obliterates the original discussion.

[Lemsta69]

Just now, save the frogs said:

and yet, he might win the poster of the year award. 

 

 

Care factor zero.

[save the frogs]

8 minutes ago, Lemsta69 said:

 

Care factor zero.

 

But here's the main point, in my opinion.

 

Many people are control-freaks. You can't control what other people are doing. You only have control over how you respond to it. You can ignore people or you can go on their threads and challenge what they say.

 

 

[EVENKEEL]

1 hour ago, TroubleandGrumpy said:

 

What you just did is exactly what George wants to stop mate.

No need for that at all - just ignore or block him - posting that comment is just 'nasty'.

I was going for humorous. Only cry babies put others on ignore. 

[Yellowtail]

52 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Irony of the year award?