Purpose of the signature

tessler said:

Sue, a few months ago, I took the effort ensure that my sig line was free of all unwarranted shrubs and bathtubs.

Click to expand...

Toilets, don't forget toilets. Apparently we're more garish in NH!

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/srab/2309376807/" title="No Comment by sheridesabeemer, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2307/2309376807_eb87348485.jpg" width="459" height="500" alt="No Comment" /></a>

username said:

i take accusations like this about the way the forums are moderated seriously.
i've got no record of people having "wronged you," i looked at the moderator actions log and you've had two posts deleted by moderators in the last two months.
1. in the election forum where you violated the election forum guidelines by posting chit chat, not a question to a candidate...
it is necessary that the next time you hint at, or accuse, the moderation team of impropriety you have data and facts to back it up.

Click to expand...

Forget next time. Take it seriously NOW. Let's do it THIS TIME. Apparently you DID see it. I'm talking about #1 above, TWICE. Nobody sent me any notification per the rules. (Visian saw one of the posts before it was 'disappeared" and sent me a comment on it before it was gone.) I replaced the nuked post. It disappeared again. TELL US ALL FROM THE MODERATOR LOGS WHO NUKED THAT POST, and the second one almost exactly like the first. If the phantom-deleter had followed the rules and notified me that the first was deleted and why, I would not have posted the second.

You either personally saw my post or else read a log entry. Until today, no mod informed me per the rules, why it was deleted. Still no info on who. Saying my post asking a candidate a question was "chit chat" that violated the guidelines is a crock. Waiting a month after the fact before making that pronouncement stinks. You or some other mod still need to explain why a question on a candidate's platform position was TWICE deleted from an election forum without "leaving a note who deleted it and why." (The issue of the "quality" of my post is a separate discussion.) I brought this incident up over a month ago, immediately after it transpired. On 4/13 I posted the following in Ian's Posting Guidelines thread. This post was also deleted without notification who or why...

Who keeps deleting my posts from this thread and why?
Note the boldface text in the excerpt from the written policy below. Who is violating the written guidelines and why is their behavior considered acceptable? What is the point in offering a written policy enforced by the mods if the mods do not follow the written policy?
From http://www.bmwmoa.org//forum/faq.php...tingguidelines
Cause for deleting a post : Posts that violate these guidelines will be deleted, weÔÇÖll leave a note who deleted it and why. The moderators have a lot of leeway ÔÇô if in their judgment it is incidental or by mistake they may or may not notify the poster to edit his own post. That said, there are no guarantees and if, in the best judgment of a Moderator, the post violates posting guidelines they can delete it at will.

Click to expand...

Your own moderator logs are the DATA and at least one witness (Visian) will support my assertion of the FACTS that at least one moderator is NOT following the rules. (Two more members commented personally to me on the now-missing quoted material above.) If this is the first you heard of it, consult your mod logs on who deleted what I quoted above from Ian's Posting Guidelines thread. I also sent him the content personally when I posted it. You asked for data and facts, there you go. It can pretty darned irritating when you ask for facts and data to back up an assertion of wrong-doing and you get them. Like sand in an oyster, I'm encouraging you to produce a pearl. Your response to this "serious accusation" backed up by facts and data will be quite educational for the membership. Thank you for your upcoming action and response to this "serious accusation."

I'll save a screen grab of this post, too, just in case it disappears, too.

SheRidesABeemer said:

My sig line says this is what you need to know about me while reading my post. My name, my rides and my blog in case you want to know more. It's in blue cause my bikes are blue.

Click to expand...

Yes but under the rules you approved it is illegal.

As is mine.

flash412 said:

Forget next time. Take it seriously NOW. Let's do it THIS TIME. Apparently you DID see it. I'm talking about #1 above, TWICE. Nobody sent me any notification per the rules.

<snipparamma>

Like sand in an oyster, I'm encouraging you to produce a pearl. Your response to this "serious accusation" backed up by facts and data will be quite educational for the membership. Thank you for your upcoming action and response to this "serious accusation."

I'll save a screen grab of this post, too, just in case it disappears, too.

Click to expand...

Ya know the more sanctimonious someone is on line the less likely I am to follow their sig file links.

Just something to keep in mind when you include advertising in your sigs.

Regarding commercial advertising in sig files I always ignore 'em. I go to forums for social interaction, entertainment, trip planning and once in a while tech stuff. It seems to me that people who have multiple links in their sig are either here to sell stuff or self promote.

As that is not why I participate I ignore the links. Especially if they are for stuff only available from the poster. I mean if the product was any good traditional distribution channels would carry it.

robnye said:

Yes but under the rules you approved it is illegal.

As is mine.

Click to expand...

I did not approve the rules...

SheRidesABeemer said:

I did not approve the rules...

Click to expand...

Unfortunately the minutes would not reflect this.

Did you know that under Roberts Rules of Order there is a provision to record how each member of the board votes?

I would think it would be in each board member's interest to record votes and include this in the minutes, plus it would go a long way toward the "transparency" folks crave. Under the current arrangement all we see from the minutes is something was approved and by implication unanimously. I have observed in the past that when something proves to be unpopular you could tally up the "I didn't vote for that" statements and wonder how the motion passed in the first place.

robnye said:

Did you know that under Roberts Rules of Order there is a provision to record how each member of the board votes?

Click to expand...

wouldn't it just be easier to just tell everyone here, in public?

hey....

cut out all that whistling. i'm trying to work over here.

SheRidesABeemer said:

I did not approve the rules...

Click to expand...

Very few of us had the opportunity to vote for or against them, yet we 31,000+ of us agreed to abide by them when we clicked the agree button when registering. I am not arguing for blind obedience; however, I have never found anarchy to be an effective process for change.

So for you and all the others ignoring the rules are committing an act of civil disobedience or are you just reprobates?

Just wondering.

Visian said:

wouldn't it just be easier to just tell everyone here, in public?

Click to expand...

Didn't I just do that?

I used to be quite versed on Robert's Rules but the need no longer exists as I am a former Secretary of the MOA.

M1ka said:

Very few of us had the opportunity to vote for or against them, yet we 31,000+ of us agreed to abide by them when we clicked the agree button when registering. I am not arguing for blind obedience; however, I have never found anarchy to be an effective process for change.

So for you and all the others ignoring the rules are committing an act of civil disobedience or are you just reprobates?

Just wondering.

Click to expand...

Oh I'm in the wrong for sure.
But I hardly think blue font is morally reprehensible & I sleep pretty well at night despite my 4th line.

M1ka said:

Very few of us had the opportunity to vote for or against them, yet we 31,000+ of us agreed to abide by them when we clicked the agree button when registering. I am not arguing for blind obedience; however, I have never found anarchy to be an effective process for change.

So for you and all the others ignoring the rules are committing an act of civil disobedience or are you just reprobates?

Just wondering.

Click to expand...

I normally stay out of discussions once they have degenerated to this point, but since you have weighed in to help put it on track again…

Yes, I agreed to follow the rules and I am normally happy to do so. I am not under the impression that by not changing my signature I am violating club rules. I is my belief that the forum software has been re-programmed to inhibit stylized signatures when entered or when edited. Since it was only through rumor that I was even made aware of the change, I didn’t run to correct my signature which I actually like quite a bit. Perhaps you can set the record straight.

I enjoy this forum and the way it brings me closer to others who share similar interests. I know how hard it is to keep a large and diverse group of contributors from getting out of hand. A very delicate balance must be achieved…

“There are three ways of dealing with difference: domination, compromise, and integration. By domination only one side gets what it wants; by compromise neither side gets what it wants; by integration we find a way by which both sides may get what they wish.”
- MARY PARKER FOLLETT

Wouldn’t it be better for the strong personalities represented here to benefit from that strength?

-Alex

Do not over analyze my post. I was looking for clarification and context from Gail specifically and opening the question to others, not assigning value.

Would you expand on the last sentence? I am certain it is just me but am having trouble tracking your point.

I didnÔÇÖt mean any offence. My last sentence was aimed more at the group as a whole, but could be applied to you or I.

Frankly, were smart people, but instead of collaborating to take over the world, were quibbling about bold print and hyperlinks

No offense taken. I follow your post to the last sentance and then I am having troubles getting my arms around an important point to listen to. I am asking for a bit of clarification, that is all.

M1ka said:

No offense taken. I follow your post to the last sentance and then I am having troubles getting my arms around an important point to listen to. I am asking for a bit of clarification, that is all.

Click to expand...

Perhaps I’ve got too much going and included a secondary thought. It just seems like we (the group) are wasting otherwise productive energy on such a trivial issue.

Big sig, little sig, no sig…

I will speak only for myself when I say I don’t take kindly to being told what to do; especially when it is to dictate my expression of identity.

Perhaps the club would have responded better if the act hadn’t seemed so punitive?

grossjohann said:

It just seems like we (the group) are wasting otherwise productive energy on such a trivial issue.

Big sig, little sig, no sig

I will speak only for myself when I say I donÔÇÖt take kindly to being told what to do; especially when it is to dictate my expression of identity.

Perhaps the club would have responded better if the act hadnÔÇÖt seemed so punitive?

Click to expand...

Well said.

His eloquence has gotten to the crux of my disgruntlement.
Consider his point my own.

I'm simply proposing that http text should not be included in the character count of the sig line when linking to non-commercial sites. If that was fixed I'd be happier.

Best,
Randall Stuebner

grossjohann said:

Perhaps IÔÇÖve got too much going and included a secondary thought.

Click to expand...

I do that often. I have come back to a thread, reread my own post and wondered what I was talking about.

Perhaps these discussions are a bit like riders meetings before track days and club races. Get everyone going around the track the same direction, using the same signals to communicate intentions, hazards and the like. Some that I have attended were to short and the track day was dangerous. Too many were protracted doctoral oral exams.

grossjohann said:

(snip)

ÔÇ£There are three ways of dealing with difference: domination, compromise, and integration. By domination only one side gets what it wants; by compromise neither side gets what it wants; by integration we find a way by which both sides may get what they wish.ÔÇØ
- MARY PARKER FOLLETT

WouldnÔÇÖt it be better for the strong personalities represented here to benefit from that strength?

(snip)

-Alex

Click to expand...

Have to respectfully disagree. Compromise means neither side gets ALL of what it wants but both sides get something. Otherwise there is no compromise.

RandallIsland said:

Well said.

His eloquence has gotten to the crux of my disgruntlement.
Consider his point my own.

I'm simply proposing that http text should not be included in the character count of the sig line when linking to non-commercial sites. If that was fixed I'd be happier.

Best,
Randall Stuebner

Click to expand...

Hey there Congratulations on having turned in your final paper!