The quality of the post isn't a primary issue. Further, it's hard to tell from an excerpt.
I don't click on blogs other than as an expeditionary function to learn what malware and adware is present.
if a bad blogging thread is found, why can't the mods be asked to deal with it?
I'll get real basic here: Would you rather be a tattletale or a vigilante?
If some cholo comes into my yard and kicks my dog, I'm not calling the cops.
I'm going upside his head with a stick. I'm good with a club.
If some crackhead breaks into my house in the middle of the night,
I'm gonna cap him. It's my house, my dog, my community.
I object to the idea that the rest of us have to be protected from dumb posts
Dumb posts are a peripheral issue. Pimped excerpts are the issue.
I think we are each able to police the site. If we find a violation, we can ping the mod.
Would you rather be a tattletale or a vigilante?
We shall just have to disagree on this, as you say.
Cheers.
You know the answer to that, hg!
But that's the problem: some, it seems, are in this simply because they like to be vigilantes.
You know as well as I do that when you're in an organization with a chain of command, USING THE CHAIN OF COMMAND is not "tattletelling." And vigilantism is a sure way to completely break down a unit/organization/community.
(Which, come to think of it, is what this issue is sort of doing to FR.)
In my view, it's wrong for a group of freepers to take it upon themselves to speak for JimRob or the mods. The mods are there to take care of garbage posts and they do so ably and efficiently.
Freepers can "take out" posters simply by withering criticism. However, methinks it goes too far when those freepers invoke the owner's name, when he may or may not agree with them on a particular thread's "badness," and proceed as though they are speaking for the entire community.
That's what the mods are for: to speak from on high as to what is and is not appropriate on FR. We help them do their jobs by checking things out and bringing potential problems to their attention. We should not try to usurp their authority by acting on their behalf, according to a standard that has not CLEARLY been laid down and an authority that has not CLEARLY been given.
So, here we are. Let's call it a day. I think we've done a good job at laying out the pros and cons here. Thanks for a civil discussion. Charlie Mike!