Common courtesy

[riverkid]

Rewboss wrote:

A few basic rules.

1. The thread was locked by a moderator for a reason. The discussion is over, and any attempts to revive it will be blocked.


It would be nice if the moderator in question told of this reason. The discussion was going along fine. The question had not been answered satisfactorily for the OP.

Why not have a basic rule that would have moderators and anyone else who purports to be a teacher provide some measure of proof for their contentions? That only seems logical. Edward was happy to have learned something new about language. Would that not one of the reasons for this site's existence?

+++++++++++++++++++++

Rewboss wrote:
2. The adverts are there to defray the cost of running of the forums. If you, riverkid, want to pay the hosting costs, we will of course gladly remove the adverts.

Just remove the ads to a place where it doesn't appear that the poster supports that company. It's like putting an add in someone's book or article without asking permission.

[Tdol]

I closed the thread- it was getting out of hand and I had received complaints. Sorry for not stating this.
I have already answered you about the ads when you first brought it up.

[riverkid]

Why not have a basic rule that would have moderators and anyone else who purports to be a teacher provide some measure of proof for their contentions? That only seems logical. Edward was happy to have learned something new about language. Would that not one of the reasons for this site's existence?

Tdol,

What of my suggestion above? It seems that in Ask a Teacher great pain is taken to sift out the non-teachers, some of whom offer excellent advice. Why not hold the teachers and moderators to a measure of responsibility that only seems eminently sensible?

[rewboss]

There is no policy to "sift out non-teachers". Indeed, non-teachers are encouraged to offer help and advice.

Also, riverkid, this is the second time you have opened a thread in order to discuss an issue that was locked. I'm leaving this thread open for now, but please don't do it again.

[riverkid]

There is no policy to "sift out non-teachers". Indeed, non-teachers are encouraged to offer help and advice.

Also, riverkid, this is the second time you have opened a thread in order to discuss an issue that was locked. I'm leaving this thread open for now, but please don't do it again.

Completely different issue, Rewboss.

Now, as to my question.

"Why not have a basic rule that would have moderators and anyone else who purports to be a teacher provide some measure of proof for their contentions? That only seems logical. Edward was happy to have learned something new about language. Would that not one of the reasons for this site's existence?"

[rewboss]

The "measure of proof" is their competence at answering questions, their knowledge of basic rules of netiquette and their courtesy in interacting with other forum members. Asking people to provide documentary proof of their credentials would be unnecessarily complex, time-consuming and possibly even expensive, if qualifications and certificates have to be translated into a language the admins can understand.

[riverkid]

I did not suggest for one moment, Rewboss, that you go into some lengthy process of checking credentials.

I said:

"Why not have a basic rule that would have moderators and anyone else who purports to be a teacher provide some measure of proof for their contentions?"

Go thru the thread yourself. You'll see that the measure of proof is limited to the typical cliche scare tactics of prescriptive grammar.

[rewboss]

Go thru the thread yourself. You'll see that the measure of proof is limited to the typical cliche scare tactics of prescriptive grammar.

In other words, you expect moderators to be replaced by people who wholly and unreservedly subscribe to your own personal views on grammar.

Such action would completely stifle debate, and I am not prepared to discuss it any further.