Abuse? or not?

Some people, such as vorxio have posted enough information to submit a credible abuse report. (I've submitted abuse reports internally with less information.)

If the information posted is accurate, I would suggest that such people do so. The forum rules do not permit discussion of specific editors' actions here or on the internal forums.

Hi Arubin,

You will find that the ODP sometimes presents an editorial face, intentionally or not, that is unfair and unfriendly. Yet the expectation seems to be that outsiders should continue believing that there is a professional friendliness and fairness behind that facade. What does Vorxio get when he complains about editor behaviour, a complaint that may or may not be unfounded?

JimNoble silences him and says he is closing his thread. Yet, JimNoble allows his colleague, Hutcheson, one last posting addressed to Vorxio, to which Vorxio, I would presume, may not reply. People will remain people. You will have a difficult job convincing anyone that that kind of attitude doesn't carry over to your ODP work.

Yet, JimNoble allows his colleague, Hutcheson, one last posting addressed to Vorxio, to which Vorxio, I would presume, may not reply.

Click to expand...

There's no "allowing" involved. Both are moderators here and as such both may post to closed threads.

Abuse that is reported through the report abuse form will be investigated. If it is reported here, it doesn't only break the forum rules (surely you don't think breaking the rules that forum members agree to follow should be allowed?), but there is also no guarantee that it will be investigated.

Specific cases of editor abuse will not be discussed in public. I think any meta editor who did that would very quickly be an ex meta and possibly an ex editor.

As a side note, on this forum as (I imagine) on all similar forums, it is possible for a forum moderator to unlock and post to a locked thread, regardless of who locked it before, and then lock it again.

Jim Noble

Alex,

I totally understand what you are saying. Jim Noble has closed a couple of my threads, one was asking for an appology for an accusation which was totally wrong, (he has been supplied with evidence from the other party). Rather than admitting that he or his colleagues had acted improperly, he simply closed the thread.

http://resource-zone.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=41970&highlight=xx0033 I have just been told that I need not apply again!

My brother, (the other accused), has also been told not to re-apply for a job as an editor.

It seems to me as there is a club, and its obvious, if you are called Steggles you are not in it!

Simon

I have just been told that I need not apply again!

Click to expand...

Actually, you were told that a few weeks ago. Please note that when we close a thread about any given topic, we are not inviting people to open another thread on the subject or to insert posts about the subject into other open threads (hint hint).

The thread has strayed a little from the point I made. Here it is.

- JimNoble responds to Vorxio, advises him against opening a new thread and says he is going to close the current one.

- However, not before his colleague, Hutcheson, takes one last stab at Vorxio, actually asking him a question which he, Vorxio, presumably has been forbidden from answering by JimNoble.

Editors should realize that that is a kind of editing, of sorts, and that people might read things from that. As I said before, your intention is one thing, the perception another has of it is quite another. If you do not realize that, you cannot be the public face of a big organisation, informal forum or not.

As I said, all moderators have the ability to post to closed threads. We used to have to open, post, and then reclose it but now moderators can actually just post without reopening the thread. It's the way the software works and I see no reason to change it.

Alex, MY point (and Jim's, typed concurrently although posted earlier) was that vorxio should not have been trying to justify his website HERE to US. He should have adequately justified his website ON his website TO his surfers. If he could not do it there, he could not possibly have done it here. And if he HAD done it there, he would not HAVE to do it anywhere else.

And the surfers who visit his site certainly wouldn't have seen the justification here; even the editor who reviewed his site almost certainly wouldn't have seen the justification here.

So -- it would really be perverse to try to answer the question HERE.

hutcheson said:

Alex, MY point (and Jim's, typed concurrently although posted earlier) was that vorxio should not have been trying to justify his website HERE to US. He should have adequately justified his website ON his website TO his surfers. If he could not do it there, he could not possibly have done it here. And if he HAD done it there, he would not HAVE to do it anywhere else.

And the surfers who visit his site certainly wouldn't have seen the justification here; even the editor who reviewed his site almost certainly wouldn't have seen the justification here.

So -- it would really be perverse to try to answer the question HERE.

Click to expand...

Well, then, Vorxio, you heard what the man said.

On a related issue, I often get submissions with very long descriptions outlining the services the web site provides. There are often well written, however they are totally unusable since that information is missing from the web site. It makes me wonder why someone would bother to make such a description in a site suggestion to me, and not be bothered to place it on the web site.

Like the full service horse boarding stable owner - the submitted description says they also offer training and lessons. Then I visit their site and the only information on there is about boarding - so that's the only information that will be in the description when it's listed (after it's moved from the full service category to the boarding only category).