I think that if SteveRogers's landmark is up on the archive, mine should be too (he posted it after me). Or, is there some evil conspiracy of yours that the landmarks are MODERATED?
Hmm...!
JH
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
Sorry, that's his 500 landmark.
Add the new ones on!
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
JH, have you considered that this isn't the most gracious way to go about this? You could try asking why it's not there or approaching it as an oversight before you start yelling at people about evil conspiracies and "ahem-ing" them.
Our moderator is a lot nicer than I am, without a doubt, but personally if I was the moderator this thread would make me want to delete your landmark thread. I'm capricious that way. Posted by punwit (Member # 6388) on :
It's too bad we don't have a "petulant" smilie or perhaps one to indicate a mini temper tantrum.
[ April 17, 2005, 08:43 AM: Message edited by: punwit ]
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
It wasn't meant with such a tone. Sorry if it seemed so.
I was using the "ahem" and the conspiracy as humour - but forgot to mention'em such. Basicaly, I was asking for an explanation and pleaing, but it must've just looked wrong.
So let's try again:
Dear moderators,
I would be interested in knowing why the landmarks have not been updated for a while, and whether you could update them? I know it's a hard job with much scanning, but still?
Thank you in advance, Jonathan Howard
Posted by punwit (Member # 6388) on :
Much better and usually more effective. Humor is often lost when you are posting a tongue-in-cheek type post.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Personally, I think fewer landmarks should be archived. Perhaps we should archive any thread, for example, that at least three people ask to have saved for posterity.
[ April 17, 2005, 08:46 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Hmmmm. That's a little better, thank you.
I figured you were probably going for humor with the first post, to me the pleading was just a bit over the top for a first request. I've always found it far more effective to start relatively mild, perhaps even jocular, moving into whiney, demanding, and annoying only when I don't get my way immediately.
[ April 17, 2005, 08:52 AM: Message edited by: ElJay ]
Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
Approximately once a month, I send a list of landmarks to the administrator to be archived (though now I assume I'll just do it as Papa Janitor) -- landmarks which have been inactive for approximately a month. Occasionally I'm not right on the beginning of the month, and occasionally I fudge the "inactive for a month" a little to keep them in order.
Yours, JH, hasn't been inactive for a month yet (though if it receives no new responses by May it will go in the next batch). If you note the Landmark Thread when it pops up each month, you can see which landmarks are still active and which are archived, but you'll see all of them on the list. The list is updated pretty much every time I see a landmark, but the archiving and thread-bump is only once a month now.
--Pop
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
I see...
So it's the system-conspiracy!
Thanks, Papa Moose/Janitor, and again, I'm sorry.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Hey, Pop, my 5,000th post thread, which is archived here, wasn't a landmark. It doesn't need to be taking up space in the landmark forum. You're welcome to remove it, subject to your discretion, whenever you like.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)