Mark, Do you see something we don't

[Bruce Cohen]

Mark,

I'm rather displeased at your locking a recent post, Re: General McCrystal. I, for one, have usually gone way overboard in regards to "politically referenced" postings, and I think I know when the stuff will hit the fan.

By your locking this post, I really feel that you've overstepped your authority this time. I see nothing "wrong" with this thread, maybe it's because I've "been there" and if I remember correctly, you haven't.

I first felt that I was going to PM you with this and keep my feelings quiet, but I feel that the all the members should have the benefit of arriving to their own conclusions. If I'm found to be wrong, then I owe you a major apology and at least a case of whatever beer you drink.

I feel that in no way was this thread political, but just a question posted questioning the General's future status in the US Army.

Somehow, you have taken a "McCarthy" like attitude in locking this thread.

Take a few moments and rethink your actions, I'm sure you'll agree with me.

Bruce

[cabinetman]

I feel that in no way was this thread political, but just a question posted questioning the General's future status in the US Army.

Bruce

That's the same way I saw the thread.
.

[LinuxRandal]

He said there were two posts that were deleted, right before he locked it. Have you guys seen either of them?

[Black wallnut]

Bruce I must see things that you do not. I see the posts that I delete. I see posts that others delete. The thread did not as you will agree start as political. However one of our members changed it into a political discussion at which point I deleted and locked. My message needs to be loud and clear: Avoid politics or threads will become locked and posts will be removed.

I voluntarily do a job most simply will not do. There is no way to please everyone.

[Stytooner]

Yep. I concur. He does see things you didn't. I back him fully with his action.
The thread was headed in the wrong direction. You can only dance around it becoming political for so long before someone steps on or over the line. It happened. Done.

[sweensdv]

Locking that thread served no useful purpose as there was nothing in the OP's original posting that was political in nature. Just delete the responses that break the rules and leave the rest of the thread alone.

[JR]

Locking that thread served no useful purpose as there was nothing in the OP's original posting that was political in nature. Just delete the responses that break the rules and leave the rest of the thread alone.

A noble idea, but then Mark has to spend his time monitoring and editing and monitoring and editing. he has a day job.

I saw the offending posts. They weren't real bad, but as Lee says, they were headed in the rong direction.

I think Paul got what he was looking for out out of the thread.

JR

[LinuxRandal]

Avoid politics or threads will become locked and posts will be removed.

[/B]I

Locking that thread served no useful purpose as there was nothing in the OP's original posting that was political in nature. Just delete the responses that break the rules and leave the rest of the thread alone.

Breaking the rule serves no useful purpose. The rule is above. Someone made it political, so the thread was locked, PERIOD.
Sounds like Sweensdv, might be asking for a moderators job.

[os1kne]

Locking that thread served no useful purpose as there was nothing in the OP's original posting that was political in nature. Just delete the responses that break the rules and leave the rest of the thread alone.

On the surface, it seems like this would be a good solution. However, I suspect that if the moderators were to simply delete offending posts and NOT lock the thread - the problem would reoccur over and over.

The moderators perform a necessary function, for little to no thanks. So, if locking a problem thread helps to make their job easier, I support it (not that my support/approval means anything).

[sweensdv]

..................
Sounds like Sweensdv, might be asking for a moderators job.

The first thing he would do is lock down the coffee pot. Problem solved.

[atgcpaul]

A noble idea, but then Mark has to spend his time monitoring and editing and monitoring and editing. he has a day job.

I saw the offending posts. They weren't real bad, but as Lee says, they were headed in the rong direction.

I think Paul got what he was looking for out out of the thread.

JR

My curiosity is sated and I thank those who replied.

I was alarmed at the locking, too, but I didn't see the two deleted posts
either so if Mark deemed it fit to delete them and lock the thread, then so be
it.

Our first child is due in a week and this thread locking got me thinking about
discipline. Thread locking is one thing but are there additional ways to deter
the actions that lead to the thread locking like a "time out" from posting? I'm
not saying we ban anyone from the forum, just give them some time to think
about their actions that got them to that point so it doesn't happen again.

I'm going to go put my fire retardant suit on now.

Paul

[gsmittle]

I did see one of the offending posts, and I have to agree that the thread was starting to go down a political path. The post I read referenced obliquely one political persuasion, and insinuated that the opposite end of the spectrum would have behaved differently.

Bruce, while I understand your frustration, personally I think Mark erred on the side of caution, which is fine with me. There are plenty of boards where I can read and post my fill of political commentary. Politics, religion, and table saws () are three areas where it's extremely difficult to stay on the behavior/situation/whatever and off the person. Ad hominem attacks are too easy when the issue is so emotionally charged. A quick example, if I may: In one of my previously lives, I worked in a commercial photography darkroom. One day one of my co-workers, with whom I really got along and was a good friend, and I got into a conversation about gun control. Things started to get a little heated, and we both stopped, looked at each other and said, "Looks like we'll have to agree to disagree on this one." We changed the subject and got back to work. He remains a good friend of mine to this day.

I think maybe it's time to go back out in the shop…

g.

[RayintheUK]

By your locking this post, I really feel that you've overstepped your authority this time. I see nothing "wrong" with this thread, maybe it's because I've "been there" and if I remember correctly, you haven't.

Bruce, I greatly respect the fact that you've been there, but I believe that this problem is a much simpler one, unrelated to personal experience and especially unrelated to commonsense.

I first felt that I was going to PM you with this and keep my feelings quiet, but I feel that the all the members should have the benefit of arriving to their own conclusions. If I'm found to be wrong, then I owe you a major apology and at least a case of whatever beer you drink.

Now we both appreciate, don't we, that you and I are breaking the rules yet again by discussing moderator action openly. Please don't feel the need to apologize on my behalf for doing so!

I feel that in no way was this thread political, but just a question posted questioning the General's future status in the US Army.

The catch, my friend, is that you can put a "political" slant on practically any statement you care to make or - in this case - interpret. For me, asking a question seeking opinions regarding the General's like future is not political at all. However, I (and many others now) did not see the "offending" posts, so have no way of knowing how they "became political."

Somehow, you have taken a "McCarthy"-like attitude in locking this thread. Take a few moments and rethink your actions, I'm sure you'll agree with me.

Please don't hold your breath, Bruce - that outcome is as unlikely as you finding gold in them thar hills! That, for some, seems to be the attraction of the moderating role - an appearance of authority without accountability. For you and me (and many others, no doubt), our past careers demanded accountability once responsibility was awarded or achieved - we live in lesser times now, unfortunately. As an aside, I am aware, as I know you are, that the role is voluntary - I don't need constantly reminding about it as though an excuse for recent action.

Read this swiftly, I can't see it surviving very long!

Ray

[Mrs. Wallnut]

I have been following this thread and I have been quiet for a while now. And yes Mark you may delete this if you feel that I am over stepping things here.

I feel that the personal attacks of this thread should have been in a PM to Mark. Not for a public hanging. I know you guys are going to think that I am defending my husband and you would be correct in this matter but if it was someone else that had done it I would be doing the same thing.

You all have no idea what Mark goes through being a moderator on this forum. Some times he takes hours or even days to decide what to do about certain posts. Plus he is holding down a full time job and doing camping trips with our oldest sons scout troops but always find the time to help out and give advice to everyone on this forum. He doesn't get paid to help out here but he was asked by Sam and he felt honored to be asked. If he locks a thread there is a reason.

I know that I have probably said too much in this post but it is the way I feel and I do not like this high school kid way of dealing with things. Come on we are grown ups lets deal with it like adults.

I am going to work now. I am sorry to those that I have offended in any way and if you would like me to you can tell me in a PM and I will no longer post things. Have a nice day.

[Alex Franke]

I'm pretty sure I saw the offending posts, but I don't remember exactly... they weren't that memorable. For that reason, they didn't strike me as entirely over the line, but my opinion on that doesn't much matter. In general (no pun intended) I thought the thread was interesting and I learned something from it.

It would be nice if -- even if a couple posts do stray off course -- the rest of the community could steer it back on. It's been nice when I've seen that happen in the past, and it makes the forum more self-policing. A lot of folks here are good at that type of thing.

For newer folks in particular, it takes some time to learn the ropes here -- and just how sensitive mods can be to the taboo topics (or topics that seem like they could be interpreted as taboo topics. The "line" is a little fuzzy sometimes). For the people that have been around for a while: well, they should know better and when in doubt leave it out.

But at the end of the day, I realize that I'm just a guest here... It's not my house and I don't make the rules. And unless I feel I'm being unfairly wronged, I'll respect the rules and decisions of those that run the place. That's my US$0.02.