Moderators and controversy

[Dario]

It is sad but it seems that some moderators hardly post here and when they do...it actually causes more controversy than actual moderating.

To those who have the power, feel free to delete or lock this thread as you deem fit. [V]

 

[Mikey]

Seems to me that some members just can't read and other members (mods and members)can't take criticism.

 

[penhead]

Actually Dario, you make a very good point and I agree with you, at least to a certain point.

Because that 'moderators' hardly post here is a compliment to the membership itself.

 

[gerryr]

I don't understand why the topic about the blank Ron got from Eagle was locked. The entire discussion was completely civil, until a moderator jumped in and basically accused Ron of trying to stir things up. I don't believe he even read what had been posted. Where was a moderator yesterday when Jeff drug the topic about Scott's site off topic. I tried to get it back on topic, but it didn't work and Scott said it was OK for it go off topic. It seems that the business of staying on topic is not fairly or evenly applied.

And now, questions are being asked in a locked topic so nobody can reply.

 

[GaryMGg]

John,

If you hadn't jumped in to "cover" Curtis' back (which he didn't need) the thread wouldn't have been locked. It was going well and was a valuable discussion. Heck, it's the EXACT thing many of us want -- the ability to discuss frankly. That blank is a magnificant piece of work way beyond the current level of expertise most are attacking. When you talk about raising the bar, there it is. So don't stifle it! []

Gary

 

[jeff]

Let's hear what you all feel is effective moderation.

I am fine letting topics run if that's what you all want. This place doesn't exist for the personal enjoyment of me and the mods, it's a community. These are small issues largely unrelated to penturning, but they generate a lot of annoyance for everyone. Let's figure out how to stop it. More moderation? Less moderation? No moderation?

 

[Dario]

Moderator's job is not enviable (atleast not by me)...it is a tough job since you can NEVER please everybody. For that I laude the moderators for taking this "thankless" job.

Jeff asked on the other (locked) thread what is "acceptable moderating"? I am not in any way qualified but I will try to throw some of my ideas.

1. Rowdy as this group may become...they are actually mature people. Treat them as such. Let them play sometimes. []
2. Sometimes venting is actually healthy.
3. Do not act until "blood is actually drawn"...you will be amazed how other people realize and accept responsibility for their mistakes before this is reached. It is a learning process and sometimes it helps some to go through it. Others learn by watching too.
4. Threat usually causes more trouble than good.
5. Profiling is a useful tool...but do not over use it and generalize too much.

As I said, you have a difficult task but someone has to do it. Where to draw the line is a vast gray area...but even with that, it is clear to me when it is drawn too far left or right.

As mentioned by others...I've seen a few threads I thought would be locked but never did and some that were locked that shouldn't.

 

[gerryr]

Jeff,
I don't believe there is a "one size fits all" answer. Moderation is fine, but it needs to be done fairly and evenly, not selectively. Curtis's post was, as far as some of us are concerned way off base. He apologized for it and I think the issue should have been settled at that point. Why John jumped in there is anyone's guess. It wasn't necessary, unless his intent was to lock the thread so nobody could discuss Eagle's blank. The way that topic and the topic about Scott's site came across is that it's OK if some people take a thread off topic but it isn't OK if others do it. That leads me to the conclusion that there is bias on the part of some moderators toward some people, be they members or not.

 

[Randy_]

Originally posted by gerryr
<br />I don't understand why the topic about the blank Ron got from Eagle was locked.....

Apparently you didn't read the whole thread, then. This had nothing to do with the discussion of eagle's blank and everything to do with a few people who could not control their mouths after being asked and warned to stay on topic. It was really pretty straight forward.

1. Ron posted about a blank that was given to him.
2. A bunch of comments about the blank.
3. Mod's ill-conceived comments.
4. Member's criticism of mod's comments.
5. Mod's apology.....<b>which should have ended it right there!!!</b>
6. Continued discussion(negative) of mod's comments
7. Very polite request by second mod to get back on topic..........<b>which, again, should have ended it!!!</b>
8. Request ignored buy several members.
9. Thread locked.

If some guys aren't going to respect and honor the reasonable requests of the moderating staff, I would speculate that there will be a lot more threads locked. Some people just don't when to let go!!!

 

[cozee]

A moderator's job, is at times, making a decision on things which must be judged soley on perceived intent and purpose. If the thread in question was solely based on the discussion of the blank then why wasn't it appropiately named as such? Clearly the title was not intended to draw one in with an intent to discuss the blank. Yes, the topic was named after the one who created the blank and could feasibly be worked into the discussion but since said creator cannot post here to answer questions concerning the construction of the blank, seems there was more than meets the eye behind the intent.

I have been one who has been banned from this board yet here I am. I have no grievences against any of the actions taken and do applaud those who acted in such a way as to help protect this board. It is clear that no bias was imposed within the decisions which let to my time off. As members, when we registered, we supposedly read and agreed to the terms of the usage of this board. Granted, some get so legalistic as to agrue over a single word or term which they attempt to use ase their loophole. But if one were to see these rules in the spirit for which they were written, then we would all understand when a moderator steps in. I as much as anyone have no problem with a more open sense of government here at IAP but do fully understand the intent behind not allowing things to get out of hand and personal.

To Jeff and the rest of his staff, I say keep up the good work. You cannot nor will never be able to please all the people all the time. I for one am more than willing to comply by your requests so as to help maintain a level of commeraderie which brings enjoyment and enthusiastic participation from every member.

 

[JimGo]

Originally posted by gerryr
<br /> Curtis's post was, as far as some of us are concerned way off base. He apologized for it and I think the issue should have been settled at that point. Why John jumped in there is anyone's guess.

I have to agree with Gerry on this. With all due respect to John, Curtis appologized for his comments and, althoug a few people were still taking him to task for it (a bit of a dead horse at that point, but...), it seemed like the topic would move on. I was surprised to see the thread locked when I logged in this morning, and even more surprised when I read it.

That being said, I think the moderators generally do a heck of a job keeping things civil here and my hat is off to Curtis, John, Scoot and especially Jeff (and any other mod's who I may have forgotten - that's a sign that things are going well here - I can't even remember if there ARE any other mods!). Sure, they screw up every so often - but which of us doesn't? I like to see the mods contribute - for example, Curtis and John have a lot of good experience and knowledge that they're willing to share. I'd hate to lose that simply because they have taken on the added responsibility of being moderators, and even if it means that they might do/say something with which I disagree. As long as there are other mods to help moderate the moderators, and as long as Jeff gives us (the members) the opportunity to voice our opposition to what the moderators do, then we'll continue to have a productive "society" here.

 

[Randy_]

Originally posted by Dario
<br />Moderator's job is not enviable (at least not by me)...it is a tough job since you can NEVER please everybody. For that I laude the moderators for taking this "thankless" job.....

It appears that you were one of the "unpleased" this time, Dario. When I read your opening comment, my first thought was to wonder why Dario was stirring the pot and opening an old wound. To reopen a subject that has been closed and "laude" the mods in the same breath strikes me as being contradictory??

 

[alamocdc]

Just me thinking out loud again. If you read the description of Casual Conversation as labeled, it reads "Off-topic, general chat". My question then is this; can an off topic post really be taken "off topic"? I mean, it was there to start with. In the few years I've been a member here, a huge number of us have been a party to taking a comment and chasing rabbits (and even poking fun). Only rarely was the original poster unhappy with the playful banter that followed, and the vast majority of these have been good laughs for us. Other OT posts of an instructioanl nature have even been taken in a new direction all together leading to more learning and instruction. We've even seen posts in the other forums go this way. If there is something to be learned, we learn it. If there is a laugh to be had, we have it. If the original poster requests that the thread be brought back to it's origin, we should all respect that. The only thing we should not and cannot tolerate is an outright personal attack. Yes, we've had some of these, unfortunately, but they've been dealt with accordingly. Has the moderaton been perfect? How could it be? Our moderators are people and people make mistakes. This too is a learning experience, and hopefully such mistakes will not be repeated. FWIW

 

[gerryr]

Originally posted by Randy_
<br />

Originally posted by Dario
<br />Moderator's job is not enviable (at least not by me)...it is a tough job since you can NEVER please everybody. For that I laude the moderators for taking this "thankless" job.....

It appears that you were one of the "unpleased" this time, Dario. When I read your opening comment, my first thought was to wonder why Dario was stirring the pot and opening an old wound. To reopen a subject that has been closed and "laude" the mods in the same breath strikes me as being contradictory??

I would say this post is off topic. And yes, I did read the entire topic, I was involved in the discussion.

 

[Dario]

Randy,

So we all have to stay on topic everytime? When I talk to my friends, one thing usually leads to another...I think that is very healthy.

Did they attack anyone that warrants locking that thread?

The members posted/expressed how they felt about it in a controlled manner anything bad about that? Moderator or not, we all should know when we are wrong and admit it.

As Jeff said, this is a community...I think we have to evolve beyond "stick to the topic" if we want to grow.

I agree with Gerry...fairness is the key. There is another penturning site I used to visit, but because I saw some "preferential treatment" towards other members. Honestly, I wasn't directly affected but I cannot take that so I decided to leave (silently). I heard through an email that it is "fixed" now but I haven't visited that site back yet...maybe in the future.

 

[Dario]

Originally posted by Randy_
<br />

Originally posted by Dario
<br />Moderator's job is not enviable (at least not by me)...it is a tough job since you can NEVER please everybody. For that I laude the moderators for taking this "thankless" job.....

It appears that you were one of the "unpleased" this time, Dario. When I read your opening comment, my first thought was to wonder why Dario was stirring the pot and opening an old wound. To reopen a subject that has been closed and "laude" the mods in the same breath strikes me as being contradictory??

Randy,

Yes, I am one of the not so pleased people on the current happenings.

Is it wrong for me to laude them for the good job they did?
Should I concentrate on this last (not so good) experience?

Maybe it is the way for some...but that is not me.

 

[Dario]

Jeff,

From http://www.penturners.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=24461&whichpage=2

Originally posted by jeff
<br />Just curious...

Was Scott's site better in some way or just "different" ?? I can understand the appeal of somewhere new and different, but was there some fundamental difference between there and here? jeffj12 said "There was a good exchange of ideas, good company and some great looking pens." and isn't that exactly what we have here?

We're always trying to improve this place, and if there is some good that can come out of Scott's site closing down, let's find it and apply it here.

Originally posted by LEAP
<br />Jeff, Scotts sight was very much like this one, just a little different atmosphere. Kind of like a bunch of good buddies who are also co workers. At work they enjoy themselves have a good time, exchange ideas, swap tall tales etc. You get the picture. After work some of them gather for a few drinks, things loosen up a little jokes flow more freely and conversation tends to take a different direction. Scotts sight was kind of like the IAP after the second scotch. The posters seemed more willing to loosen their neck ties and joke around with the smaller group. I would imagine it was much like the early days of the IAP. Thanks to you both.

I think this is what we need added to make this BEST forum even better.

 

[Randy_]

If you removed all of the police from the public highways, there would be enough drivers who totally and excessively ignored the speed limits that the roads would be exponentially more dangerous than they are with the "moderating" of the police. Many human beings are just adverse to following rules if they are not enforced.

I have seen several unmoderated(or lightly moderated) boards and they are highly unpleasant places to visit. Typically, it is only a small percentage of the population that has little or no self-control and little or no regard for their fellow members; but that small group can unleash an enormous torrent of unpleasantness that corrupts the entire forum.

As far as I am concerned,if there is any fault to be assigned to the IAP moderating policy or staff, it is the fault of being too lenient with the application of the rules of the board. I would hazard the opinion that for every thread that is locked or edited, there are ten that should have been and weren't.

I, for one, am reasonably happy with the way things are run here. To those who are unhappy, go back and read the rules that <b>"YOU"</b> agreed to when you signed up. If you don't like the rules, talk to Jeff about it <b>PRIVATELY</b>. Then, if you can't convince him that a change is necessary, you have a choice to make.......abide by the rules or go elsewhere.

It's really pretty simple??

 

[DCBluesman]

FOR CRYING OUT LOUD! I just read a response to the now "infamous" and still locked thread simply titled "Eagle". It seems that some are still privileged and can post to the thread, even questioning another post, and the thread be impossible for others to respond to. THIS IS EXACTLY THE DAMN PROBLEM!

Hi Lou - What would be "non-censoring" moderation, if a simple "keep it on topic" is not acceptable? It seems to me that ANY moderation implies SOME level of censorship.

Of course, one purpose of moderation is to control behavior, such as personal attacks. We try (and sometimes fail) at that, but beyond being referees, what IS acceptable moderation?

What exactly is the purpose of this thread except to stir up trouble and muddy the waters???? You guys know that the whole Eagle thing is very controversial here at IAP and that Eagle is no longer a member here due to this controversy. What are your trying to accomplish by this thread?

What are the standards? I know Curtis has rescinded his unfortunate comments and I can accept and respect that, nonetheless, John and you are indicating that there is something evil in invoking Eagle's name. In it's own way, that is making a personal attack. Because you own the site and CAN control it, doesn't mean that you (or your Mods) SHOULD control it. We are not a bunch of grade schoolers who need to be told who is "in the clique" and who is "out." Those who choose to reply to a post like Ron's can have any motivation that suits them. No one took a shot at anyone until the Mod Squad did.

Non-moderation? Well, let me tell you, Jeff, this kind of moderating makes it a very unappealing site. I have been a member for quite some time and although you clearly believe that I am part of the problem, I believe that your current solution needn't exist. Let topics run as long as they do not become direct and personal attacks. Either that or adopt a "we moderate what we want" position. Let the membership understand the intent. We can all make decisions regarding our participation if we know the rules. And if the rules are clear and evenly enforced, there will be no need for these topics and discussions.

Again, this is my (NEVER HUMBLE) opinion.

 

[Dario]

Randy,

No one ever talked about going unmoderated (except Jeff on a question). If there is then I missed it.

I respect you a lot but I for one am glad you are not running this forum based on your statement.

 

[its_virgil]

I've gone back and read the thread several time...very carefully. I do not read any post as being disrespectful to a moderator. Critical..yes, but the criticism was not disrespectful. If criticism is disrespectful, then I can complain about several disrespectful posts where one (several) of my pens was criticized. Is questioning the action of a moderator being disrespectful to that person? How can a topic that is already in an "off topic" forum be taken off topic or how can any civil discussion in that forum be deemed not "on topic"? I'm confused. I know, several will agree. We have had very little need for moderator involvement in the past few months...that says something about our members and their behavior. We are getting along quite well. What should the moderator's involvement here be? I can't answer that question. But, we've been doing quite well as of late. Thanks for all of the participation here. It is a great place to hang. I hope it continues to be so.
Do a good turn daily!
Don

 

[jeff]

Lou - I am sorry. I don't mean to be part of the problem. I did not notice that the topic was locked until after I asked for your response. I was not trying to create a problem or make a problem worse. Please accept my apology.

There is nothing evil in invoking Eagle's name. Invoke away.

I was not under the impression, and maybe that shows that my head is in the sand, that over or under moderation is a widespread problem at this site. I have not had feedback that this is a "very unappealing site"

You ask that the rules be "clear and evenly enforced". That's a good goal, but as long as humans are in the loop, there will always be subjectivity in the interpretation of rules. One man's "direct and personal attack" is another's joking around.

We TRY, we really do, to be even handed, but just like the posters, we're human. Sometimes we make mistakes. I would like the opportunity for us to correct those mistakes without labeling the entire site "unappealing".

 

[cozee]

Perhhaps those who cry wolf the loudest should be given the opportunity to moderate for a while so they can experience what goes on behind the scenes that most do not see!!!!

 

[ctwxlvr]

Moderation is a necessary evil, if a forum is not moderated it soon dies, or becomes so trashed it is no longer useful for its intended use.

The Moderators here on IAP have a hard job to do, and I do not want that job as I have the same problem at one of my sites, about 10% of the people cause 99.9% of the problems.

To answer Jeff's Question as to what type of moderation is needed, it needs to be moderate, fair, and equal.

Simple guide lines I use for moderation:

1. any moderator can lock a thread, after it is locked no one can post to that thread unless it is unlocked by the site admin.

2. moderators will pm the site admin upon locking a thread, the admin will them pm all mods asking their opinion on if the thread should remain locked. replies expected within 24 to 36 hours.

3 site admin will make his decision on evidence, history, and recommendations from mods.

4 if necessary site admin will archive the thread and lock any thread pertaining to archived thread, intended to start up the problem again.

 

[gerryr]

I would still like to know why the topic was locked. And I don't for a minute believe it was because it was off topic. Lots of discussions go much further off topic and nothing ever happens. What made this different?

 

[DCBluesman]

Originally posted by jeff
Please accept my apology.

Accepted, Jeff, and thank you.

 

[Dario]

I think "very unappealing site" is such a strong statement and I disagree. This is still my favorite site/forum and like most (or everything)...it still have room for improvement. []

 

[LEAP]

Originally posted by Dario
<br />Jeff,

From http://www.penturners.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=24461&whichpage=2

Originally posted by jeff
<br />Just curious...

Was Scott's site better in some way or just "different" ?? I can understand the appeal of somewhere new and different, but was there some fundamental difference between there and here? jeffj12 said "There was a good exchange of ideas, good company and some great looking pens." and isn't that exactly what we have here?

We're always trying to improve this place, and if there is some good that can come out of Scott's site closing down, let's find it and apply it here.

Originally posted by LEAP
<br />Jeff, Scotts sight was very much like this one, just a little different atmosphere. Kind of like a bunch of good buddies who are also co workers. At work they enjoy themselves have a good time, exchange ideas, swap tall tales etc. You get the picture. After work some of them gather for a few drinks, things loosen up a little jokes flow more freely and conversation tends to take a different direction. Scotts sight was kind of like the IAP after the second scotch. The posters seemed more willing to loosen their neck ties and joke around with the smaller group. I would imagine it was much like the early days of the IAP. Thanks to you both.

I think this is what we need added to make this BEST forum even better.

Dario I find life always flows smoother after the second Scotch.[]

 

[PenWorks]

I love the smell of napalm in the morning [] Feels good to clear the air every now and then. []
I mean this subject comes up almost as often as How do I apply a CA finish or which mandrel do I use.
We seem to learn nothing from history, just ask George W.

I for one don't think the site is over or under moderated. Seems to be very civil most of the times. We all know this was coming anyways, with the closing of TPWU and just the mear mentioning of Eagle. How many thousands of threads are started vs how many actually get locked? I would have to guess the percentage is under 1%. I for one am not going to debate wether the topic should have been locked or not. Not my call, that is why I would never want the job of a moderator. Goes back to something good ol Abe said about pleasing people most of the time but not all the time.

I still enjoy IAP ALL the TIME []

 

[JimGo]

Originally posted by DCBluesman
<br />

Originally posted by jeff
Please accept my apology.

Accepted, Jeff, and thank you.

THIS is one of the best examples of:
1) why I keep coming back here;
2) why I don't feel we're over moderated; and
3) why I have a lot of respect for both of you.

 

[gketell]

oi I don't want to get into the middle of this but...

Jeff,
from a newbie's point of view, if a thread is going to be locked/severely moderated just because of the mention of some person's name with the claim that "that is controversial" then there needs to be a public list of controversial, to-be-avoided topics AND A REASON FOR EACH. Otherwise you are just laying land mines for those of us who weren't around to have learned it directly.

Having joined after the Eagle fiasco and having no idea what it is about, this all seems pretty ridiculous to me. Once upon a time I posted a pen and in the post thanked (among others) Eagle for his inspiration. That was sent to him and he contacted me. As part of the conversation he told me he had been banned but, like the gentleman, would not say why. Personally, just looking at his craftsmanship I think having him on here would be a great asset to the membership. I know I've learned a lot just looking at his pens and far more in the ONE conversation I've had with him. I can't imagine how much further along I would be if I actually got to interact with him on a daily/weekly basis.

From these two threads I've surmised/assumed (with all that implies) that the controversy was due to one or more personality conflicts. To me, this is neither a reason for banning nor for moderating messages from OR ABOUT the person. If you don't like someone, tough, as long as they are not breaking the written rules you have to deal with them as fairly and equally as you deal with everyone else you do like.

I like this site very much. It is one of only two pen sites I visit. This thread, and the "Eagle" thread have knocked it WAY down in my respect. Personal interaction is what a social forum (and all forums are social forums or it would just be a file full of tutorials) are about. If people are penalized for being social, that is a bad thing. On the other hand, penalizing people for being anti-social is appropriate.

Sorry for the rambling thoughts. It sort of came out as it came into my mindlessness.

GK

 

[Paul in OKC]

Randy, I agree with both of your post. We all agreed to rules when we signed up. If we can't follow them, or even take a 'nudge' when the mod gives it then.... But we are all human. Using Eagle's name in a post just saves the time of someone asking, "Where did that come from." Eagle is one of the most talented people I know.
All that aside, Jeff, you do a great job, and I wouldn't want it for nuthin'. This is the best place to hang out, IMO. []
(And if every one would let me have the last word for once, this can be over now!![])

 

[Mudder]

Originally posted by Dario
<br />Jeff,

From http://www.penturners.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=24461&whichpage=2

Originally posted by jeff
<br />Just curious...

Was Scott's site better in some way or just "different" ?? I can understand the appeal of somewhere new and different, but was there some fundamental difference between there and here? jeffj12 said "There was a good exchange of ideas, good company and some great looking pens." and isn't that exactly what we have here?

We're always trying to improve this place, and if there is some good that can come out of Scott's site closing down, let's find it and apply it here.

Originally posted by LEAP
<br />Jeff, Scotts sight was very much like this one, just a little different atmosphere. Kind of like a bunch of good buddies who are also co workers. At work they enjoy themselves have a good time, exchange ideas, swap tall tales etc. You get the picture. After work some of them gather for a few drinks, things loosen up a little jokes flow more freely and conversation tends to take a different direction. Scotts sight was kind of like the IAP after the second scotch. The posters seemed more willing to loosen their neck ties and joke around with the smaller group. I would imagine it was much like the early days of the IAP. Thanks to you both.

I think this is what we need added to make this BEST forum even better.

Dario,

Looking at the site stats, Jeff has over 1800 posting members, I had just over 150. Not a real good comparison.

I would suspect that 600 of these IAP members are ones who post regularly, I on the other hand had probably 35 who posted regularly. I don't think that any valid comparison could be made because I remember the IAP being a much more tight knit community back when I joined in August of 2004 and there was less than 1000 members.

One simple observation that I have made and I have been guilty of this on a few occasions so it's easy to recognize.

What usually happens with threads such as these is that we have some who will let emotion overtake logic, feelings get hurt and grudges are harbored. My main philosophy when I started my site was to let EVERYONE start with a clean slate and hopefully the ill feelings would be set aside. My signature line said "Check your attitude at the door". Unfortunately, I realized that I was beginning to lose sight of my principle and it was brought to my attention in a painful way that I was harboring grudges from things that happened on other sites. How could I continue?

There has been more than 67000 posts on this site and the vast majority have been good ones. I may not always agree with the moderators or the admin of the site but I am thankful that they are here.

 

[gketell]

Mudder said:
"I may not always agree with the moderators or the admin of the site but I am thankful that they are here."

100% agree with this!! Jeff, et al, Thank You.

GK

 

[airrat]

Wow, I guess it is sad to say just the mentioning of Eagle's name still stirs up emotions/controversy. I never enjoyed the controversy but I did enjoy seeing his work. Time to move past seeing the name and just keep going.

I don't always agree with the moderators, but its not an easy job.

My question is what are we looking for?
Moderation in all threads?
Moderation in moderation only on certain threads?
Complete anarchy in all threads?
Complete anarchy in only certain threads?

 

[GaryMGg]

My $.02:

Jeff Brown and your moderator team:
Thanks. I think y'all do a great job and while I'm rarely disappointed as I was with the locked thread, I respect the job y'all do AND thank you for the great site you provide. I've met and made a lot of new friends here.

A criticism or disagreement with another is not disrespect. It is communication. At times, it may be necessary to disagree in order to find a comfortable, common ground. In fact, there are times when folks must agree to disagree.

I believe Jeff Brown has made it clear in his writing that he desires that the level of moderation guiding this forum be satisfactory to it's members and he has asked for our input. I have nothing specific at this time to add to that. I'm still thinking and if I feel I come up with a useful contribution, I will send it to him. Ultimately, I will abide by any and all rules that he puts forth as I'm in his home.

Gary

 

[DCBluesman]

Originally posted by DCBluesman
Well, let me tell you, Jeff, this kind of moderating makes it a very unappealing site.

Time to fall on my sword. The site is not unappealing or I wouldn't still be here nearly 3 years after joining. While I enjoy the forum and have OFTEN said that it is the best "forum" I have ever experienced on the internet, it is the referenced "moderating" that is unappealing. I certainly meant no disrespect to the IAP. Without it, I would not be a pen maker today.

 

[YoYoSpin]

Bravo...

 

[mick]

There was a thread not too long ago asking how it was that so few folks were posting lately. Personally I think it's things like this that deter a lot of people from posting or commenting on something. They don't want the hassle of something they've said being misconstrued or misunderstood. Everyone has an opinion....or a certian way of looking at things. I've figurately bit my tongue...or fingers many times when I'd read something I thought was way out of line or over the top. I think many of the "old regulars" do the same. It's just not worth it. We come here to further our craft. To learn and share. To show off a great pen, or ask why something didn't turn out the way we planned. We log on to ask for thought and prayers, to share small victories and joys of everyday life. We are a community, a neighborhood of mostly like minded individuals here to do all of the things I listed above, not to go through what has happened in this and the other thread. Yes we're gonna have disagreements, no we'll never all see things the same way....even though there's a rumor that Frank is turning "plastics" now. Although this thread has cleared the air, apologies were made and accepted it's still not what we come here for....let's get back to that. Ok I'm done now!

 

[Jim in Oakville]

Moderating a forum is not always an easy thing to do (I moderate on a WW forum, trust me, it's more than what you see on the screen) , some times the obvious is obvious, some times you have to back off to see the trees....I think the people who offer their time and personal reputation do a great job.

One thing I will say about the IAP community, I have seen other forums flare up and turn into septic tones. The core here often are very level headed and on the rare occasion where emotion gets one of us, we usually have the common grace to apologize and it's always accepted. IAP has made me a better pen maker, IAP has introduced me to many good friends.