Note that I have no issue at all with the rules laid out for JohnClay regarding his posting habits. I think a majority of us are on board with that directive.
However, you gave him a warning for ignoring mod instructions by opening that thread and mentioning the other one - but they were on different topics. The thread closed by Ellen was about his budding possible homosexuality (or something?) and the new thread was about the concept of good decisions coming out of bad ones and about a separate personal matter.
Now, I agree that the new thread is just as bad as the first in terms of talking about his personal life too much and I’m not arguing that it should be kept open - but a warning for ignoring mod instructions still seems wrong here and I think it should be re-considered.
Ellen’s note was about him laying off the personally revealing threads for a bit. Less than 19 hours later he was at it again. Such things - to quote my favorite onscreen lawman - need to be nipped in the bud. Idle Thoughts did that.
I find the personal threads to be entertaining at times. I can ignore them, or read as much or little as I please. Jeez, if we banned people from posting about “Your wife, your personal relationships with others, sex, or sexuality” we’d lose half the posts on here.
Let the poor schmuck spill his guts if he wants to.
Bolding mine. Despite what IdleThoughts claimed it is clear thatJohnClay was not ignoring moderator instructions. A suggestion is not an instruction.
I’ll also reiterate what’s already been said: JC’s thread was not about personal relationships, but how experiences shape future experiences. Since it is a JohnClay thread, there were personal anecdotes that were pretty irrelevant, but they were not the topic of the thread. JohnClay specifically said:
I agree that Ellen’s instructions were just a suggestion and it’s unfair to give him a formal warning for this, but I have no problem with that thread being closed.
While in general I fully support letting people start pointless or annoying threads that other people can choose to ignore, there comes a point where I think the mods need to protect the posters from themselves. JohnClay’s threads rarely go anywhere good, and keeping them open so we can all point and laugh is cruel.
I enjoy threads where some idiot poster gets a well-deserved lashing, but JohnClay is perhaps a little…naive…about how he comes across and what kind of responses he’ll get.
True, but every post after the OP was back on the topic of JohnClay personally. It had no hope of becoming an interesting conversation about decisions and experience.
I think most of JohnClay’s threads are either narcissism or attention-seeking, and i don’t think i’ve ever participated in one, but if you explicitly tell someone that “there is no prohibition on you doing X,” you don’t then give them a formal warning for doing X.
By the way, there was also actually a piece of good moderating involved here too, from Ellen Cherry:
After reading this topic (and rereading the other two) and thinking things over, I agree the warning was unjustly given under the circumstances, so I’m going to rescind it.
However, please note, this is only taking back the warning given for “Ignoring mod instruction”, which I see now wasn’t really the case.
It is not rescinding the instruction or new rule that JohnClay cannot start any new threads regarding things of a sexual nature, personal relationships with others, and his wife. That is still in effect and will be held to.
I agree. One of the best traits of this board are the mods who listen to the poster-base and take what they have to say into consideration whether they reverse a decision or not. It shows that they care about the board and the posters.