I wont be there but just a thought...

Have you tried any local steak / wing house type places? I know down here they'll let you reserve larger amount of seats in advance and people can just order whatever they want off the menu which even the 'expensive' stuff is pretty affordable.

That and you could look into reserving a dining area from one of the local Motels. Company I used to work for did this a lot for meetings , training, etc.

I'd still like to see specific examples instead of broad brushstrokes.

I'm not trying to start a public lynching. But since you're a mod and it's my hope that this conversation has some positive result, I PM'd you a few examples.

You're assuming that a major chewing-out of one person who's stepped WAY over the line is going to equate to your getting pissed on if you pose a reasonable, private question to the mod.

Threats are designed to cause fear, it's unreasonable to make open ban-threats directed at a thread at large and then expect people to accurately interpret who they were meant for. Personally, in those instances, I assume that everyone is included in said threat/warning regardless of having violated rules or not. I'm not a mind reader, it's not up to me to assume or figure out who was being chastised and who wasn't. So I find it only reasonable for me to make that assumption.

Plus, and I repeat, you still don't have anywhere nearly all the information. I've SEEN massive chewings-out. They're a sort of compliment - they mean that the person getting chewed out at least seems to have the POSSIBILITY of straightening up and flying right, becoming a contributing member of the forum. WJM is a perfect example. He was (sorry, WJM, but I think you'll agree) pretty damn dickish. He got a thorough chewing-out and now he's a member in fine standing here - because, as he said, he didn't just negligently get booted but was actually ADDRESSED, actually given more than just "You screwed up" to show him how and how BADLY he had stepped over the line.

This goes hand in hand with how you don't "want to read constant exasperated 'I'm so sick of you people' posts by admins" honestly misses the point. Yeah, the mods could just boot people. Do you really think they'll learn? Especially when they're repeat offenders who have more than once entirely missed the point about HOW they're offensive? If a punishment is to have any effectiveness, it must be strong enough to catch and HOLD the attention of the person receiving it. They have to know in absolutely NO uncertain terms WHAT they did, WHY it's wrong and WHY it's not fit for polite society. And when there's a whole freakin' flood of people doing that, are you honestly surprised that there are "I'm so sick of you people" mod posts?

And finally, aren't you exaggerating a lot with the "constant" description? Happened a handful of times, and anyone who honestly claims that those times were quiet and peaceful and NOT exasperating as hell needs to see a surgeon to fix that rectocranial inversion.

I can't really comment on the example of WJM since I didn't witness the events in question. However, whether or not I have all the information is irrelevant if I'm being subjected to the end result. Keep in mind, I'm not passing a judgment which requires me to have the full information, I'm commenting on things which admins/mods have chosen to expose me to by openly posting it.

Even if member_01 went off calling me every name under the sun resulting in me reporting the post, I still would have no desire to witness a mod/admin beat them down. And if an open post was required by said mod/admin, I would prefer it to be assertive yet still mature and respectful. I don't believe in calling in a bigger bully to beat up the smaller bully; if they're both bullies, they're both wrong.

As to my use of the term "constant", I believe it was fitting in regards to posting proportions. For example: if admin/mod_01 makes 10 administrative posts in a week and 9 of those are offensive, I'd call that constant. And in my opinion, this has been the case in some instances, maybe not throughout the course of a week, but the example is still valid.

And even more to the point, there are a lot of things going on behind the scenes that simply don't get seen. Mods try to take the long view, and that includes trying to keep up on posters' behavior over time and through multiple sets of stimuli. We ain't perfect. Also, when we see someone who damn well should know better, especially after having gotten a number of friendly reminders or introductory warnings, both public and private, we do tend to get a mite tetchy. Downright rude, even. Or when one mod's tried a non-nuclear public statement and gotten flamingly ignored, the others will pile on.

Combine all the above with, for example, a bunch of off-stage arguing against a request to tone things down, and you've gotten someone who needs to have their attention thoroughly gotten. Does that attention-getting venture over the line itself sometimes? Yup. Consider it similar to "Dammit, son, what the HELL is WRONG with you? You KNOW better."

In short, one poster may see what seems to be a bolt from the blue or a merciless piling-on. Just try to keep in mind that more times than you might think, it's simply the tip of the iceberg, the straw that broke the camel's back.

Sometimes, this stuff's enough to drive me to quit drinkin'.

This makes sense too. But "tip of the iceberg" or not, it's still wrong IMO. "One law for the ruled, another for the ruler" isn't going to work if you expect the members not to grumble and eventually disperse.And there is the whole "lead by example" thing. My understanding of the policies/rules is that there isn't any justification for violating the rules.

Disclaimer: I primarily stick to the Spoiler sections so I'm likely uninformed about a lot of things people are talking about here.

I think the rules are perfectly acceptable and I believe that by posting we are accepting and agreeing to comply with said rules/policies. However, the enforcement is sometimes lacking. Below are a few examples of what I mean:

I'm not saying these problems occur every time a mod/admin steps in. I'm merely commenting on things I have seen in those posts I have actually read, which I see as an issue.

One problem I see is sometimes Mods / Admins jump in with a remark that is, in my opinion, more snide / rude/ offensive than anything previously posted in the thread to 'warn' people that they are beginning to go down the path that will result in a Ban / Suspension / locked thread. I think it would be better in these instances for mods/admins to just PM the offending poster(s). And I understand it gets frustrating to 'police' forums, but if mods/admins lose their cool and make the same kind of posts they're trying to prevent, it doesn't really solve anything.

Another problem is when the mod/admin intervention is vague and directed at an entire thread in general. There's a difference between a friendly heated debate and a rude heated debate. There's been a few thread I was involved in in which I felt people were doing an excellent job at keeping the text passive. But after Mods/Admins jumped in, I found myself re-reading all the posts trying to find the hidden jabs and such. It kind of promotes a sense of paranoia. I don't really agree with calling people out in the open, but if you're going to jump in and slap down a thread/debate in the open, might as well be specific.

Also, when 3 + Mods jump a thread within the course of a few hours before anyone else even comments. I understand the need for authority figures to support each other, but sometimes it comes off more like people just throwing their weight around. I think if one mod is handling it and people are complying, there's no reason for 2 or more to also jump in with a bunch of caps locked threats, etc.

Also , going back to the non-specific comments. I've seen cases where multiple threads have equal "heat values", but only one gets slapped down. And since it's not specifically clear on why that one was selected to get slapped down, it tends to make one wonder if it the choice had as much to do with the posters involved as it did with the actual posts. This (I hope) is simply a by-product of not knowing exactly why one thread is being moderated and not the other(s), but as it stands it leaves a lot to interpretation.

In regards to Maggie LeFay's "Way Stone" (for lack of a better term):

It's said a few times throughout the series that where the Nevernever touches the mortal world changes as the mortal world changes. I also recall in WK it's implied that the person creating the 'Way' can effect where they end up in the Nevernever.

That being said, would it be right to assume that the stone is more of a utility that senses the 'Ways' as relevant to the user at the moment of use, basically Maggie's affinity for Ways imbued into an item, as opposed to it merely being the collective knowledge of maggie's travels/mapping?

Personally, I wouldn't even consider any of the mods until SMF 2 is fully released.  You know none of them are going to work on the new system, and you'd just be stuck fixing them again.

Actually a lot of them are compatible with higher versions, which is natural for most technology. However, there's a lot more useful mods (especially where administration is concerned) that currently only work for 2.x versions. Though in truth there's not a whole bunch of useful ones for 1.1.11.

This Multi-Quote Mod could be rather helpful.

Personally, I find that after spending a day away from the forums I find myself having to copy quotes to a text editor (because you can only see X amount of posts while replying) and I don't like to spam a thread with a post per quote. The mod would instead allow you to tag posts for quoting as you read through them, then when you hit "reply" the tagged quotes will appear in the reply box for you, and of course the quotes can then be trimmed down as needed just like any other quote option.