Moderator behavior

[Jim Yingst]

OK, the following comments were extracted from another thread because they were off-topic for that thread and were interfering with an otherwise productive discussion. My intent was not to delete the posts, just to separate them to a separate topic. Unfortunately , I wasn't able to do it quite the way I intended, so the format of the copies looks a bit different. I don't believe any posts were lost in this process, except for one gratuitous "get a life" and a few "oops - I didn't mean to post that", which didn't seem to have any significant content. Here's the rest...

---

Mapraputa Is
bartender posted November 03, 2001 10:25 AM
Not fair. Andrew promised to post here. We lost Shama. Omar Khan is trying to say something but Tony is after him and deletes all his posts...
[This message has been edited by Mapraputa Is (edited November 03, 2001).]

---

Paul Stevens
bartender posted November 03, 2001 10:38 AM
1 post does not constitute all posts. Any evidence that I haven't seen that Tony is deleting all of his posts? If you don't have evidence of that, please don't say it.

---

Mapraputa Is
bartender posted November 03, 2001 10:46 AM
I was kidding... Sorry, bad attempt to take the strain off.

---

JavaRancher
unregistered posted November 03, 2001 12:17 PM
Yes, Tony is very much policing this drivel and he does not allow posts that are opposing his opinion. Just how great is that? The funny, or should I say sad thing, is that most of you bartenders and sheriffs knows about that but are not doing anything. That says a lot about you guys. Map was actually first one to say anything about it. I personally very much detest his bully like aproach towards a lof of things. If he thinks he is so great, I wonder why is that guy still single in his fifties.

---

Michael Ernest
bartender posted November 03, 2001 12:55 PM
Isn't it interesting, that Tony deletes a post in the name of being personally attacked, and somehow you manage to complain about it by doing that very thing?

---

JavaRancher
unregistered posted November 03, 2001 01:05 PM
Of course I am going to attack an individual who doesn't allow certain voices to be heard here. What else am I going to do? Pretend that this place is utopia like rest of you? No, I wasn't aware that that particular post has attacked Tony personally. For quite some time now, Tony has been deleting posts that weren't personal attacks but simply were opposing *his* opinion.
No, I can not come up with the "evidence" because I don't have the bartender/sheriff privileges like you guys do. Those posts are gone now. Maybe one of you can stand up and speak? I doubt.

---

Mapraputa Is
bartender posted November 03, 2001 01:41 PM
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by JavaRancher:
If he thinks he is so great, I wonder why is that guy still single in his fifties.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Good illustration that attempts to appear as a "hard target" don't make one protected better, actually the opposite.

---

Michael Ernest
bartender posted November 03, 2001 02:58 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by JavaRancher:
Of course I am going to attack an individual who doesn't allow certain voices to be heard here.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Which suggests you believe that Tony himself, and not the tactics he used, are the problem. Are angry because posts are gone, or because Tony deleted them? There is a difference, but what you've said here suggests you missing what that difference is.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What else am I going to do? Pretend that this place is utopia like rest of you?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For starters, write your complaint in an email to the site. Demonstrate that you want fairness, not a means to strike back.
Following that, maybe don't pretend that you know what others think or are doing. That mistake is the better part of what's wrong with MD these days.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, I wasn't aware that that particular post has attacked Tony personally.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's as simple as the clearly intended insult of suggesting there's a reason he's single at his age. Can't you try a little harder to stick to issues?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For quite some time now, Tony has been deleting posts that weren't personal attacks but simply were opposing *his* opinion.
No, I can not come up with the "evidence" because I don't have the bartender/sheriff privileges like you guys do. Those posts are gone now. Maybe one of you can stand up and speak? I doubt.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We're moderators, not a judge and jury, and not your personal advocate. We share a responsibility among our colleagues to talk our concerns out, and state our points to each other. We don't bash each other in public or create scenes; it's too difficult for people to listen when they must continually defend themselves.
In the final analysis, Tony has the right to delete posts. Period. That doesn't mean he does that with the implicit consent of everyone else who helps keep this site going. If he makes a bad call, it's up to him to make good.
I doubt what you said helps. Questioning Tony's character doesn't help. "Doubting" other moderators will do what you think is right doesn't help either. Doing this as "JavaRancher" certainly does not help.

---

Faisal Dosani
ranch hand posted November 03, 2001 03:10 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tony lost a friend in all this. He is probably still greiving. This is ahard time for him. Let him be. He even mentioned how he was highly emotional in a previous post. I think I might be upset also if I lost someone dear to me.

[Jim Yingst]

For what it's worth, this whole copy-and-edit to separate the two threads was somewhat more work than I expected, and I don't plan to do this in the future every time topic drift occurs - but in this case I thought it important enough to be worth the effort. Carry on...

[Anonymous]

<quote>
For starters, write your complaint in an email to the site. Demonstrate that you want fairness, not a means to strike back.
</quote>
Shouldn't you be acting fair in the first place?

[Jason Menard]

Thanks Jim, you da man!

[Michael Ernest]

Originally posted by JavaRancher:

For starters, write your complaint in an email to the site. Demonstrate that you want fairness, not a means to strike back.

Shouldn't you be acting fair in the first place?

Since Jim has now moved this into a topic called 'Comments about Tony,' why don't you focus your discussion on that. If you feel a topic on 'Comments on Michael' is appropriate, go start one.

[Jim Yingst]

> For starters, write your complaint in an email to the site.
Well, maybe. If you write an e-mail to [e-mail], it currently gets forwarded to me. Unfortunately, so does a lot of junk mail directed at the site, as well as a bunch of Java questions which should really be asked in one of the forums, and a bunch of other stuff. I personally do not always have the time to give each e-mail the time and effort the author may think it derserves. On the other hand, you can post to an appropriate public forum like our JavaRanch forum (which come to think of it is where I should have moved this stuff, but I'm too lazy to move it again right now.) This allows many other folks to participate in the discussion, which is usually more effective than one person. The main reason not to do this is if you need to communicate something which is unsuitable for public discussion - e.g. if it involves private personal information about someone. In general though, unless you have a specific reason to do otherwise, mosting publicly in a calm and rational manner is the preferred route to take. Oh, and do try to either start a new thread, or post in an already-existing thread which is appropriate to the specific topic you wish to address. Yes, I myself have been known to neglect this principle, as have many others. But we try.
> Shouldn't you be acting fair in the first place?
Yes, we'd like to be. But mistakes do happen, and reasonable people can disagree on what is fair in a given situation.
> Since Jim has now moved this into a topic called 'Comments
> about Tony,' why don't you focus your discussion on that.
My bad, I think. I meant this more as "comments on Tony and the moderators' handling of the situation", but neglected to name it that way. I think JavaRancher's comment was directed at "you bartenders and sheriffs" rather than "you, Michael Ernest", and if so, I think it's reasonably on-topic. If it was directed just at Michael, then I agree, it seems misplaced.
Actually, I guess I really should put this thread in the JavaRanch forum instead, so those of you following links from elsewhere can just take follow one more I guess. Sorry about that...

[Anonymous]

Michael, your comments are basically run around BS. If you care to answer why are certain posts being deleted, then do it. If you don't, then please spare us of your BS. Again, the posts that I am talking about are not personal attacks on Tony or anyone else.
Thank you Jim for at least acknowledging that "mistakes do happen". However, those types of "mistakes" shouldn't happen if this site claims to be fair.

[Jim Yingst]

What posts are you talking about? I realize you can't provide a link or anything, but perhaps you could provide a clue? Mapraputa was joking about repeated ongoing deletions for Omar Khan, as far as I know. I don't believe he's attempted to post since the one that mentioned fascism - if that's incorrect, he should e-mail me.
Incidentally, I'm renaming this thread title to "Moderator behavior" as that's a bit more general, and fits what I perceive the original intent of this sub-thread to be.

[paul wheaton]

To expect that any moderator on any forum on the internet to be perfect is a pretty high demand.
I would not have deleted the message that Tony deleted. However, I cannot police all forums, so I have to trust the volunteers to use their best judgement in what needs to be deleted. If I'm going to do this, then I really can't rag on Tony when he does something I don't agree with.
I think the most important point here is that anybody that has to attack the individual instead of the issues must have a piss poor argument.
Good debate does not point fingers at the debator, but hashes out the issues and the opponents arguments. Fallacy is for clods, dullards and Microsoft.

[Paul Stevens]

Again 1 post became many posts. The fact is only 1 post was deleted and Tony said as much in the thread. Many didn't and don't agree with the deleted post both visitors and moderators. But it is over move on. Hopefully it won't happen again. But if personal attacks do happen. They will get deleted or edited.

[Mapraputa Is]

In case there is still confusion. My joke about Tony's deleting Omar's posts was a joke, nothing more. I do not know about other cases Tony deleted posts, neither do I believe he did. When Tony did delete one particular Omar's post, he said about it in "Moderators Only" forum. Also, when posts get deleted we normally hear a lot of feedback from "victims" of such actions. If there were other deletions, we would probably know about them And even if we admit that there were deletions, why do you think it was Tony's work? Deleted posts do not have a sign of who deleted them. Any other sheriff or forum's moderator could do it.
Anyway, I regret that I seem provoked this discussion. I had an impulse to delete my initial post after Paul Stevens' comment, but then I thought it might have some pedagogical value as an example of what not to do, so I decided to leave it "as is". After the subsequent attack on Tony I regret about this my decision as well.

[Jim Yingst]

I apologize to Mapraputa for the way my re-edit of this thread came out. Her original post was on-topic in the original thread, and I know she didn't intend to spawn the thread that arose. But when I was splitting the threads I had to put something at the beginning of this one, and her post seemed the most logical candidate. Sorry for highlighting it as I did, ripped from its original context.
I split off this thread because (1) I didn't want it to smother Jason's thread, which I think has more potential for interesting and worthwhile discussion, and (2) I didn't want to appear to be "covering up" anything, given the suspicions that were voiced. Instead I may have given it more attention than it was due.
Now, adding to Paul Stevens' comments before some irate reader screams about them - no, this isn't the only time there has been controversy over something Tony did. (Paul S. may not have been around for the earlier incidents.) But I think there's a misperception about the extent of these incidents - people tend to assume that the times someone is "caught" at something, are a small subset of the times it actually happened. This may well be true for many things in life, but in this case, I really don't believe it applies. In my opinion, it is not in Tony's character to hide his actions about this sort of thing - when he has deleted a post, or edited something he finds offensive, he posts publicly about it, usually in both the affected thread and in Moderators Only. So if people have objections to Tony's known actions, fine - I'd prefer to move on instead to more general things like "how can we make JavaRanch a friendlier place for everyone", but if people need to talk about Tony more, so be it. But know that you aren't just seeing the tip of some iceberg - everything Tony has done which people object to, has received ample coverage at the time. You can rehash it if you feel you must, but suggestions that "there's more that you're not telling us about" will most likely be cheerfully ignored.
I realize that from a non-moderator's perspective, you have no direct way of knowing this. Maybe all we moderators are lying to you. But - for anyone who seriously thinks this is the case, there's no need for you to hang out here. There are plenty of different forums on the internet, run in all kinds of different ways. If you really think we're all so darn oppressive, why stick around? Find someplace more to your liking.
Cheers...
[This message has been edited by Jim Yingst (edited November 04, 2001).]

[Marilyn de Queiroz]

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
Deleted posts do not have a sign of who deleted them. Any other sheriff or forum's moderator could do it.

Even the author himself could delete his own post (or even an entire thread if he started it).

[shailesh sonavadekar]

Paul Wheaton Says : -

To expect that any moderator on any forum on the internet to be perfect is a pretty high demand

I think this is excuse. The person running the site for 2 years should not say this. If naming policy is there for others , then I think you have moderator guidelines. Plus , you have sheriffs & Bartenders.
If Sheriff becomes emotional , then what is the value attached the post of Sheriff to whom Ranchers respect a lot.
I think as owner of site , the responsibility becomes yours. As you know in game , even though Captain performs well , but if others don't do well , Still Captain is held responsible.
I think you should develope framework so that the necessary behaviour is there. Otherwise , there will be hardly any difference ranch hand , bartender , sheriff etc. I think Every Well Wisher of Ranch must be thinking this way.

[omar khan]

I have been accused to personally attack a sheriff.
That is not true.
I just said that some of the sheriff remarks make me think of fascism and mccarthism.

People like you are left wing anti American liberals and as such your so called opinions don't carry any weight around civilized people.

That is still my opinion.
By the way censoring opposing opinions is precisely one of the characteristics of fascism and other autoritarian regimes.
So I think that facts show precisely my point.
[This message has been edited by OMAR KHAN (edited November 05, 2001).]

[Jason Menard]

I posted this originally in another thread before I realized there was a thread dealing with this issue here. It was in response to Omar Khan saying that he was upset about being censored and being labeled an anti-American.

---

To be fair, since this is a private site, they can censor whatever they like. It is important to keep this in mind. The
owners of the site are allowed carte blanche to determine what content is on it, that includes these forums. As such
the sheriffs and bartenders are the designated agents of the site owners charged with carrying out their policies.
They apparently are allowed a lot of latitude in this.
For example, I do not like that they have disallowed the posting of all images regardless of content. I think that in
certain circumstances this constitutes censorship. On the other hand, I do recognize their right to do so, and I
accept it, regardless of my personal feelings on the matter. If it bothered me to the point I couldn't handle it, I
would simply go to another site.
As for abuse of his power, I guess that could be debated. The sheriffs and bartenders are undoubtedly told to
remove offensive postings. They have to be the judge of what is offensive. If some impartiality is evident in carrying
out those duties, it is enough just to point it out and not make a federal case out of it.
With recent events in the world, some of the Americans find certain things particularly offensive that they would
have undoubtedly overlooked before 9/11. The events have touched different people in different ways. What may
seem like innocent comments to a non-American can be taken far differently than what may have been intended by
an American. I'm not going to go look through all your past posts and pass my own judgement on whether or not I
feel you are anti-American, but I do seem to remember you being on the opposite side of me on some of the
arguments here. It is possible that some found your past comments anti-American and offensive and felt compelled
to take action.
My advice is just deal with events as they are, learn from it, and press on.
[This message has been edited by Jason Menard (edited November 05, 2001).]

[omar khan]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
If some impartiality is evident in carrying out those duties, it is enough just to point it out and not make a federal case out of it.
My advice is just deal with events as they are, learn from it, and press on.

Thank you Jason. That is what I am trying to do, namely politely asking the reason behind the behaviour of one of the sheriffs. But what I get- in the best case- is childish remarks and pointless accusations.
I guess one expresses what he is able to.

[Marilyn de Queiroz]

Originally posted by OMAR KHAN:
... politely asking the reason behind the behaviour of one of the sheriffs. But what I get- in the best case- is childish remarks and pointless accusations.

Only the person whose behaviour you are questioning can answer the question as to the reason behind that behaviour. Other people can only surmise based on what that person says and their own background.

Whether all moderators and sheriffs agree with another person's behaviour here at JavaRanch is another question altogether. Let me state, for the record, that all moderators and sheriffs do not agree on everything that happens at JavaRanch any more than all people working for the same employer agree on everything that happens at work, or all people in any group agree on every thing that every person in that group does.

Each moderator and sheriff volunteer tries to make his/her best decisions possible. Sometimes (most of the time) it also appears to others to be the best decision. Occasionally it does not.

[omar khan]

Originally posted by Marilyn deQueiroz:
Only the person whose behaviour you are questioning can answer the question as to the reason behind that behaviour.

That was precisely the addressee of my previous post.
I had to be vague because I did not want to appear as personally attacking somebody.

Let me state, for the record, that all moderators and sheriffs do not agree on everything that happens at JavaRanch

That is one of the reasons why I still keep on posting in MD
Thank you Marilyn for your time.
[This message has been edited by OMAR KHAN (edited November 05, 2001).]

[paul wheaton]

I know that there was a temporary policy about "no images", but that was temporary. Folks can now post images in their messages again - BUT! If that image is something that a moderator is not comfortable with, it is possible that the image may be converted to a link.
I think that images in messages is cool, so I want to encourage that. But it is possible to put an image in a message that doesn't ride well with the "friendly place for java greenhorns" theme, so something will need to be done. Rather than making hard and fast rules, I prefer to let the moderators use their best judgement.
I think we all agree that well moderated forums are the best.

[Mapraputa Is]

I'm not going to go look through all your past posts and pass my own judgement on whether or not I feel you are anti-American, but I do seem to remember you being on the opposite side of me on some of the arguments here. It is possible that some found your past comments anti-American and offensive and felt compelled to take action.
Jason, you are sometimes on the opposite side of me, does that mean you are anti-Russian? "Not going to go look through all your past posts..." Well, part of the problem is that when we rip posts out of context, they may look worse than they are, which happened to Omar post.
To easy life for you , here is some context. http://www.javaranch.com/ubb/Forum32/HTML/001014.html
I cannot see anything anti-American. Also shows that (unfortunately) "Tony vs. Omar" case has some history

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:

Jason, you are sometimes on the opposite side of me, does that mean you are anti-Russian? "Not going to go look through all your past posts..." Well, part of the problem is that when we rip posts out of context, they may look worse than they are, which happened to Omar post.
To easy life for you , here is some context. http://www.javaranch.com/ubb/Forum32/HTML/001014.html
I cannot see anything anti-American. Also shows that (unfortunately) "Tony vs. Omar" case has some history

No I'm not anti-Russian, I'm anti-Map , and anti-"people who pretend to be Russian", you know who I mean, that Petr Zhirkov guy or whatever his name was. I feel it is the duty of every Rancher to have an ongoing feud with a moderator, and I choose you.
Seriously though, I wasn't calling Omar anti-American, I was simply stating that since he was usually on the opposite side of the argument as myself concerning our actions in Afghanistan, it is possible that some of his comments were misconstrewn by some as being anti-American.
[This message has been edited by Jason Menard (edited November 05, 2001).]

[Paul Stevens]

Paul if it hasn't already been posted in MD I will alert folks to change.

[Angela Poynton]

Originally posted by shailesh sonavadekar:

The person running the site for 2 years should not say this.

The person running this site can say whatever he wants. It's HIS site, we are here because he lets us be, don't forget that.

If naming policy is there for others , then I think you have moderator guidelines. Plus , you have sheriffs & Bartenders.

The naming policy is there for EVERYONE (except in MD but that place is just insane) and as you well know we DO have Moderator Guidelines and also frequent discussions in MO about how to handle certain situations. I can assure you there has been as much if not more debate on this issue in MO as there has been in the public forums.

If Sheriff becomes emotional , then what is the value attached the post of Sheriff to whom Ranchers respect a lot.

I think Tony deserves a heck of a lot of respect. I don't agree with everything that he has done but I know deep down, he's a guy. He's a little more than emotional right now because he has suffered a tragic loss which thanks to the current situation he is reminded of day after day. Sheriffs are not robots, we can't turn our emotions off when we log into the ranch. We, like Bartenders, ranchhands, greenhorns and unregistered guests here are just HUMAN!

I think as owner of site , the responsibility becomes yours. As you know in game , even though Captain performs well , but if others don't do well , Still Captain is held responsible.

Again, it's Pauls site. However, he's not our mother, he's not our captain. Everyone here takes responsibility for their own words and actions, like every adult should do. Do you let your supervisor at work take responsibility for you doing something wrong? If you expect other people to take responsibility for your word, this isn't the place to be. Also it's not like we get PAID, we're volunteers, we do this because we want to, we're under no contract and as you know can decide we don't want to moderate at any time. I personally would seriously object to being told what I can do or say under these conditions. Paul I know thinks long and hard about who to promote to Sheriff, he, as far as I can see has not gone wrong yet. He has chosen people who have selflessly worked hard for the site, used as lot of their free time to improve the site, are popular with our visitors, are helpful, friendly and fun.

I think you should develope framework so that the necessary behaviour is there. Otherwise , there will be hardly any difference ranch hand , bartender , sheriff etc. I think Every Well Wisher of Ranch must be thinking this way.

Well if that's the case, that would sadden me a lot. People like the "humanity" of this site. They like cos it's so personal and friendly. However, the occasionally downside of allowing us to let our personalities shine is that sometimes we won't be in a smiley happy mood. It's not like it happens every day. I know I've done something drastic in a fit of anger or frustration, it's life ... deal with it.
[This message has been edited by Angela Poynton (edited November 06, 2001).]

[shailesh sonavadekar]

Angela , nice to listen your emotional speech. I think you are totally missing what I am trying to say.
I think Paul must have got the point. You are saying it is Paul's site. Plus you are saying He is not captain. Other time you say that Sheriffs are selected by him. Please think carefully what are you saying. He is definitely not the mother , but still he is responsible for this site.
You also said that person owing the site can do whatever he / she wants to do. Then , mind you nobody will come to such site. it can act as any other site. Here , you are talking about public particiaption.
where is the question paid or unpaid comes ? I think you have become too emotional.

There is no point of arguing. I think the people who have to understand logically , must have understood. many people have a long way to go in understanding many things. I hope you are getting me.
As you have also mentioned that something related to if this site is there for me or not. i think if such things happen frequently , then i think people are going to exercise this choice , rather they are exercising , because nobody wants to deal with anybody's anger or frustation unnecessarily.

[This message has been edited by shailesh sonavadekar (edited November 06, 2001).]

[Jason Menard]

In the midst of all this BS let me just extend my heartfelt thanks to the staff of JavaRanch for the outstanding job they do in creating a community where people want to come together. You are not always going to be able to please 100% of the people 100% of the time, but you guys do what you can. You are also all human and should feel free to act as such. Your varied personalities become the personality of the sight and it is what keeps the sight human and worth visiting.
I realize this is not a business, Java Ranch provides a service, and people have no right to treat this as a business where they feel you owe them something. You all take time out of your busy schedules to help people out and to help maintain the community.
So anyway accept a pat on the back for a job well done and keep up the good work.

[Paul Stevens]

Thanks Jason.

[paul wheaton]

Thanks for fielding that Angela .... Yeah! What she said!
Thanks for the kind words Jason. It's nice to get the pat on the back once in a while. Makes writing those checks a little easier.
shailesh, I'll make a feeble attempt at addressing your concerns. I suppose if somebody wanted to get sue-happy, they would come after me. So ultimately, I'm responsible for everything posted here, whether it is posted by bartenders or by greenhorns (although the IP tracking stuff might help to shift the blame when needed ).
I suppose if this were an income site making millions and each of the sheriffs were paid, say, $200,000 per year, we probably should consider what each sheriff says very carefully and take some huge responsibility for anything that goes wrong.
The reality is that we're a bunch of geeks just trying to be helpful once in a while when we can spare a few minutes. I try to ask the users "be nice" and the moderators "be helpful" (although most moderators have already done this and that is how they became moderators).
I think what you are looking for is a loooooong list of rules and procedures that make things here work like clockwork. In management school (I took one management class in college) this is called "structured management". The opposite is called "organic management". In organic management, there is very little structure and most folks have a pretty good idea of the direction of the company is. Each person can see work that needs to be done and does it. First come, first serve. Everybody pretty much trusts everybody else to push the company in the right direction. I think JavaRanch is proof that this unlikely technique does work.
As long as you have good and decent people doing the work, everything seems to work out pretty good. It might not be the most efficient thing, but it sure feels good.

[shailesh sonavadekar]

That is Paul. That is what I wanted to say. People are not going to sue Angela or Tony or anybody. It is you who will be in the thick soup. Great . That is like a owner of the site. Just hint was sufficient for you , which was totally missed by sheriff.

[shailesh sonavadekar]

Paul , what I am trying to say is possible with organic management also. I am not at all talking about Sloan's theory of Assembly line workers or taylor's theory. it is passe.I am not at all looking at long list of rules. If you are saying that I am not having control over sheriff or bartenders behaviour then what is the point. you have to address the issue.rather find out the way how it should be addressed ? Ultimately , As Angela says you are the big boss( First one to be sued also ****** ha ha)

[Jason Menard]

[Fei Ng]

heheehehhee...... cute animation.

[Angela Poynton]

Oh I see, I'm clearly not smart enough to see your point Shailesh because I don't know about various theories on managment structure. Fair enough!
I agree, when it comes down to it, Paul has ultimate responsibility for every single word posted here, by ANYONE, not just Sheriffs.
I stand by my point though. He may have appointed us Sheriff, but he still has no way of telling us exactly what we can and can't do. It just won't work. If we have some long convoluted set of rules to abide by we'd never post anything because it'd take to long to go through the rule and make sure we're not breaking any. Anyway, as far as I can tell Paul likes it that our personalities come through in our posts. I've seen some posts made by him that I might consider downright mean, but that just reflected his mood at the time. As did Tony's.
Being Sheriff, does not mean we're smarter than anyone else.
Being Sheriff, does not mean we're better programmers than anyone else.
Being Sheriff, does not mean we can't have emotions (BTW I don't think my last post could in any way be described as "emotional", but I guess you needed to use something as an excuse to argue).
Being Sheriff, does not mean we can't express our emotions.
Being Sheriff, DOES mean, we have full access to the administrative tools for these forums and the server for the site. In fact the job description sounds pretty boring doesn't it.
I think though that the fact that Paul, who I'm sure you won't deny, is a very smart man has entrusted to us the power to effectively control the exisitance of this site (if we were any less trustworthy any one of us could shut this site down in a few clicks ... but we never have ) says that he believes we are the kind of people he wants to represent him here. We're all very different people, Myself, Ajith, Frank, Jim, Tony, Carl, Marilyn and Matt, there isn't a "type" that will become Sheriff, we have all earned Pauls trust and respect, and that's it.

[shailesh sonavadekar]

Jason. it is really cool. It is for my posts or Great Sheriffs post ?

[Jim Yingst]

If you have to ask... Loved the graphic, Jason.
Oh, and Shailesh, thank you for your joke as well. But I am concerned that someone might actually take you seriously and try to sue Paul. If anyone out there is thinking this, please, I implore you... be sure to sue me as well, so that I can get another good laugh out of this idea. Thanks.

[Angela Poynton]

Jason, I forgot to add earlier.
Thank you for your support. You're the kind of person that makes doing this worthwhile.

[Dave Vick]

OK, let me try.
I think that what Paul is trying to say (and let me know if I'm wrong Paul), is that yes he understands he the one ultimately responsible for this site. Yes, he is the one who selects the sherrifs. And, most importantly, yes, he could set up a huge list of rules and guidlines for the sherrifs and moderators to follow. The whole point of it that Amgela and Paul are trying to get across is that he doesn't want to. It works just fine the way it is, so why change it?
Yes, it has its problems - show me a place this large that doesn't.
Like Angela said it is the fact that there are not strict rules to be followed by the managmnet that allow the entire ranch to have some personality.
Above all, if there was a set of strict rules to be followed by the moderators and sherrifs then there would be an even longer one to be followed by the users - and your post probably wouldn't be here!!
It all boils down to the fact that the site works just fine the way it is, sure there are some minor changes to be made and they do get made, but all in all the ranch does what it says it wants to do - it helps people get ready for the SCJP and helps out in answering basic java questions by others.
Then there is the fact that if people don't like it they don't have to be here.
just my opinion
Dave
I also agree with Jim, I'd love to see the court case if anyone was stupid enough to try to sue someone over anything that happened here. It is all well and good to talk about responsibility and who's in charge but when you come down to it, it is only a website about a programming language - it's not that big a deal!!! (there goes my job )

[Paul Stevens]

I was just thanking Jason for the kind words.

[Angela Poynton]

not you Paul, the other Paul, you know Mr Wheaton sir!!

[shailesh sonavadekar]

Jim , thanks for your jokes also. I think people are wise enough to understand the seriousness. Explaination from you saying my post as joke , was really unwarrented in that case.Especially from Sheriff like you. why doubt in your mind about my joke ? without your explaination also , they can make decision whether this is joke. you ridiculing me , will definitely just like ridiculing anybody coming to ranch, who is suggesting valuable things. if you want to use your excessive powers , then delete my posts. no problems.
I think what I am saying is preety clear. I don't know about others including you, whether they think they are jokes. Poiunt here was not to fight with anybody , but to make suggestions. I think Owner has got the message I wanted to convey. If Sheriffs are admant to ideas , in that case nobody can do anything.



[This message has been edited by shailesh sonavadekar (edited November 07, 2001).]