>>>Erik,
>>>
>>>>The Sysops are watching, and have consciously and collectively decided to take a passive stand.
>>>
>>>Then change the rules of conduct. To do otherwise is absolutely ridiculous.
>>
>>Agreed. I will make sure that all of the Sysops see your suggestion.
>
>I think that the Sysops doing nothing when there are personal attacks would be a terrible thing to allow. There are choices in between doing nothing and freezing threads or locking people out. How about having Sysops speak to offenders to remind them of the rules of conduct? Do you really want the UT to be a place where anyone can say anything to anyone else?
>

Yes, Tamar, I'd like to be able to exercise free speech, which is why I'm spending more time on devx, where I have both a moderated discussion area (devx.vfp.general) and a free-fire zone (devx.off.ramp) where I can diverge from the topicality of the vfp.general focus, get the increasingly valuable insights of VB weenies and C++ geeks on what I first thought of as a VFP issue, and let loose a little napalm (in a friendly, expected and sanctioned fashion - anyone wanting to deal with things sipping tea with pinkies raised has clear warning that entering OR without a flak jacket and helmet is not advisable, and they need not enter if they don't want to be greeted by a friendly FOAD! or two) where and when it seems right.

I sysoped on CSi for a number of years for PCWorld, and Adaptec. There used to be a little place called Canopus. Do you remember Canopus? I didn't frequent it much, since I tended not to be terribly political, but I went there to have discussions with some very saavy people when we needed an environment that was not "PC". The recent consolidation campaign resulted in PCWorld's technical forums and Canopus being forced into a new 'consolidated' message area run by Larry Finklestein's organization under the heading "Emerging Technologies". The resulting consolidation was a bad mix; everybody had to play by Larry's rules, which got the CanPoopUs crowd very upset, and they headed off for the Internet to a NOT("kinder, gentler") environment. They behaved like poorly mannered children, and are now deployed to a new home on the net away from C$i. The PCWorld sysops have also had our share of disagreements with Larry's group leadership, and Emerging Tech has recently lost much of it's "best and brightest" staff because of the C$i/AOhHell management - and PCWorld is now fully Web-deployed, too.

I've strayed from the basic issue here - UT will benefit from having a non-topical Chatter area IMO, and will lose some of the people who contribute here to other areas if those people feel there's a need for a more open forum format. We need not have a fully free-fire zone to at least have an area where we can have some small scrapes and bruised egos without a worry of the PC, and particularly the less-than-clue-endowed PC, calling for the expulsion of the participants. If UT finds that I can't live in their rule structure, I've no doubt that I'll be informed to cool my jets or take a hike - to date, I've no cause for complaint that the sysops have taken any action that, given their set of rules of conduct, I haven't brought on myself. I perceive that some people are seemingly permitted a wider range of ongoing transgression of the rules, but given that most of the sysoping is done here behind the scenes, I may not be aware of what is being said, or to whom it has been said, outside the public arena. I'm certain that some people feel I'm being given the benefit of the doubt; the most I can do so agree with JVP and say that I get the occasional friendly kick in the shins from the sysops when I'm being less PC than might be appropriate.