You've made your challenge of me personally and I've pinged JimRob. Now you're leaving?
Let's see if I'm in the wrong, shall we?
Oh, please. I’m not “leaving.” I’ve been here over a decade. But neither you nor I nor anyone else has an obligation to stay on a thread 24/7, without at least a pee break.
You funny.
I simply don't agree that JimRob's post necessarily deputized a bunch of freepers to go out and filter FR for the rest of us according to some standard they have created in JimRob's name.
I see JimRob's post as him saying HIS thoughts on how HE will handle certain situations, on a CASE-BY-CASE basis.
If he's okay with what you all are doing in HIS name, and in the name of the entire community, including the mods, that's fine. But I personally would not assume that from my careful reading of JimRob's post.
I set out my reasoning on JimRob's post here, at #295, and at #300.
To review:
JimRob's post said he was concerned about bloggers posting "brief excerpts."
That doesn't necessarily mean he thinks the solution is for blog posts, even if they are 50 pages long, to be posted in full at the demand of a group calling themselves Blog Overlords or Blogbusters.
JimRob's post said he was concerned about bloggers posting in such a way that they were “only and obviously attempting to draw away our participants.”
That doesn't necessarily mean that he is opposed to bloggers self-posting a link and excerpt in ALL cases, because ALL articles on FR have a link and freepers go read the article and then come back here and discuss it because, well, we like to discuss things with other freepers. So I personally would want more clarification on this before I started approaching bloggers and making demands in JimRob's name.
JimRob said that when HE found posts that met HIS understanding of the above criteria, that HE was more “apt . . . to ban his account and blog.”
That in no way means, to my reading, that JimRob is deputizing Blog Overlords to go make demands of bloggers and shut down their posting in HIS name. He doesn't even say he will ALWAYS ban the account and blog. He says he will review the case and make a decision based on all the circumstances, according to HIS discretion.
I just don't get from that the authority to do what you apparently, according to the several threads by bloggers, are doing. That is all.
As I told hg, who conceded this was a "vigilante" move by some freepers, that does not respect the CHAIN OF COMMAND here.
Yes, heap criticism and abuse on any poster you please. But that is quite different from stating you (meaning: the group involved in this) have determined the community standard and that you can act in JimRob's and the mods' name to effectively shut down self-posters that YOU find a problem with.
Shut them down, if you like, by calling them stupid or reporting them to the mods. But I personally don't see leaping from JimRob's post to thinking anyone here wears a badge but JimRob and the mods.
First, you repeatedly wail that I am stating my points over and over again -- though I'm always, um, responding to your points and those made by those who agree with you.
Secondly, you wail that I am bailing on a thread because I won't hang out here overnight for some reason.
Finally, I am not trying to prove you are "in the wrong."
It doesn't matter to me if you are wrong or right or in the middle.
This is about an issue that is a matter of controversy, not clear, and causing bloggers to post thread after thread about their treatment at the hands of people making demands on them in the name of JimRob, the mods, and the entire community.
I am expressing my opinion, which disagrees with blog overlording, and simply suggesting that if you think JimRob needs to clear this up, as you told me in a recent post, then by all means, ask him if what the BO's are doing in his name meet with his approval.