Ask the Moderators

[TameFarrar]

You did read the posts by the person who started the thread then? Please if that is not Anti, well we really need to agree to disagree. So how many of these threads will be allowed to remain? I have no problem with a thread that starts with a good argument or point of view but these IMO are not that, they are meant to bait...you are OK with that?

well first you need to recognize that we are NOT here to censor first and foremost.

Second it is not my place to tell any person *how* to express their thoughts except to say follow the Forum guidelines...they have not broken any rules.

Third. The person expressed their thoughts...Then Posed the Question *Don't you Agree?* THAT is the basis and topic then of the thread. If you disagree with this posters assessment of McKay then they have invited you to discuss that.

Now just because you personally would not have worded things that way does not make it wrong nor does it make it an *Anti * thread overall. The posters who continue the discussion will in the end define the thread. If ONLY people who dislike McKay post and say oh yeah you are so right Dude...then eventually it will probably be viewed as an Anti thread BUT just as possible the majority of posters to respond could be very positive about McKay and say Dude...how can you think that...Don't you recall when McKay was so slammin' in this episode and he did ....etc.. etc... then the thread would be viewed as predominantly *Pro* regardless of the negative first post.

It asks for the responders Opinion so it is both. I am sorry if you personally don't see it that way. But that is how it is

[warmbeachbrat]

Do any of the Moderators like black beans. If so, we could sure use your assistance on the "best vegetable" thread...in the interest of fairness, of course!

(Sorry Tame! But not TOO sorry!)

[TameFarrar]

They Hate Black Beans...and you can Not ask that here ...in fact I ban that question

[Willow'sCat]

well first you need to recognize that we are NOT here to censor first and foremost.

Hmm, why change the title of the thread, the person wanted (it would seem) to have people agree with them...why not make it an Anti-thread? We have a discussion thread already.

[TameFarrar]

Hmm, why change the title of the thread, the person wanted (it would seem) to have people agree with them...why not make it an Anti-thread? We have a discussion thread already.

I did not see any thread that was a full open discussion of the character overall. I did see threads that had select episodes and the ones you linked were the same ones I had reviewed and found to be lacking in a *General* discussion.

Since you are wondering about the title change and not demading... I wll explain that we do make tweaks to Titles to help people who are scanning thread titles to give them an idea just what the thread is about.... We do like to helpful as well

[Madeleine]

Hello there Mods, sorry if this one has been asked before, but could we have a Janet smilie? Just one, even Jonas has more than one for cryin' out loud! Pretty please?

I use Weir's for Janet.

The chap who made them can be located in the "New Smilies" thread in this section of the forum.

http://forum.gateworld.net/showthrea...et#post4819698

[Arlessiar]

Now just because you personally would not have worded things that way does not make it wrong nor does it make it an *Anti * thread overall. The posters who continue the discussion will in the end define the thread. If ONLY people who dislike McKay post and say oh yeah you are so right Dude...then eventually it will probably be viewed as an Anti thread BUT just as possible the majority of posters to respond could be very positive about McKay and say Dude...how can you think that...Don't you recall when McKay was so slammin' in this episode and he did ....etc.. etc... then the thread would be viewed as predominantly *Pro* regardless of the negative first post.

But we (the 'pro people') have done that a thousand times already in all these small threads! Why do it over and over again? There is simply no need for all these new McKay threads, because:

I did not see any thread that was a full open discussion of the character overall. I did see threads that had select episodes and the ones you linked were the same ones I had reviewed and found to be lacking in a *General* discussion.

There is a good general discussion thread, it's in the C&R section and it exists since April 2004, has nearly 2000 posts now and is still actively used --> Dr McKay discussion and appreciation thread
I admit, it's also an appreciation thread, but that's really just the minor part of it and we also had enough good discussions in there with anti-McKay people already, and no-one died!
But ok, I could understand that someone might feel the need for an Anti McKay thread, I could even understand ONE 'Pro and Contra' thread thread. But I cannot understand why there should be so many new (and by now really pointless and boring) threads allowed. And yes, they all are basically about the same issues, Rose listed the three newest threads in here a few posts ago.
I understand that in the end the answers define the thread, but mostly these threads only have answers because the initial post is provocative in some way - not because it has many good arguments and is such a good start for an interesting and rich discussion! So consequently some 'pro-people' get annoyed and feel the need to defend a character they like. They point is that they shouldn't have to feel that need, because everything has already been said or because there are other places to say it. That still makes the thread start the crucial point and leads to the fact that the whole thread is unnecessary. No-one's opinion should be censored, I agree, that surely wouldn't be the right way and that's not what I want to say. But if a thread is simply pointless because it's an really old hat, shouldn't there be something done about that? I mean, a lot of threads have been closed because there are similar threads already!
So, what about one 'mixed' discussion thread, where the other small threads Rose listed get merged into?

Sorry for that long post in here, normally I don't just jump into a discussion like that, but I agree 100% with Drwho'srose and thought I should say that.

Bye, A.

[KeiranFuller]

Can someone get this picture without the Gateworld Forum title?

[gatelover12]

spoiler in the title of http://forum.gateworld.net/showthrea...11#post4986511

[Darren]

Improved.

[ShadowMaat]

So let me see if I've got this right: It's OK to have a McKay THUNK thread, a McKay APPRECIATION thread, a McKay QUOTES thread, a McKay WHUMPING thread, a McKay CONSEQUENCES thread, one about McKay and the wraith, one about McKay in S2, several just about McKay, one about how McKay needs a vacation, half a dozen McKay vs. Someone threads, lots of ship threads (including several "repetitive" ones), Who Created McKay, What do Canadians think of McKay, I love McKay, two hours of McKay, Why McKay instead of Ingram, McKay audio clip, but it's forbidden to have the equivalent of a McKay's a JERK thread because... why? Because it's repetitive and boring? Um, yeah...

I could list off a dozen threads right now (in fact, I think I just about did) that I consider repetitive and boring and yet they continue to exist and continue to accrue posts even though I think they're pointless. Shocking.

Here's a question: What is an appreciation thread? What are the rules for posting in one? Because I look at a thread labeled "Appreciation" and I automatically assume- crazy as it sounds- that it's for APPRECIATING a character, NOT for complaining about how so-and-so is really annoying and how I wish that Wossname would spontaneously combust. Are negative viewpoints allowed in an appreciation thread? If so, how is that classified as appreciating a character?

[Willow'sCat]

Here's a question: What is an appreciation thread? What are the rules for posting in one? Because I look at a thread labeled "Appreciation" and I automatically assume- crazy as it sounds- that it's for APPRECIATING a character, NOT for complaining about how so-and-so is really annoying and how I wish that Wossname would spontaneously combust. Are negative viewpoints allowed in an appreciation thread? If so, how is that classified as appreciating a character?

Well that is why I asked for the one in the r/c section to be renamed the Anti-McKay thread...it wasn't fine, but you see what happened. Appreciation or not you can still say politely you don't agree with the characters, behaviour/motives/personality in the Appreciation without saying he is a loser...sorry maybe I missed something but loser is not really an argument.

I know off-topic and shouldn't be here but well how could I let this go by...

Just to make it on topic I apologise if I upset the original poster of the thread with my opinion of their motives.

[ShadowMaat]

Is there a ban on any threads saying nasty things about the characters? If so, there's at least one thread that calls Ronon a jerk and there's one wishing for Vala to die, probably quite a few individual posts calling her a whore, a whole slew of posts calling Shep a whore (and variations on that theme), a couple threads bashing Jonas (with associated nasty name-calling), lots of nastiness and name-calling directed at Pete. There are even a few rude things said about Ford, and given that Rainbow reads the board, those should be deleted right away.

Boy, the list goes on and on. The mods have their work cut out for them if we aren't allowed to say rude things about the fictional characters.

[AdrianneP]

This is all hitting a little too close to home for me ... Can you guys take your argument to PM?

Adrianne

[ShadowMaat]

Actually, I'm asking the mods valid questions: what are the rules about "Appreciation" threads and what are people allowed to post regarding the characters? Are we truly not allowed to say if we think someone's a jerk?