NationStates Jolt Archive

Mod response only, please (preferably hotrodia)

You just closed the "The most upsetting, disgusting, despiccable thing I've seen in some time (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=507407)."thread. (about 20 seconds ago...haha)

I understand the reason why, but I feel like some pretty good things were being discussed prior to certain parties joining in. Would it be inappropriate to start a new thread about it? I know that many of us are college students, so this is something that pretty directly impacts us, and I know that I would like to continue to discuss it. Not to mention it has raised some good points about how far is too far for any police officer.

Just curious if it would be okay to restart the topic (not right now, as that would invite the same problems), or if it should just be laid to rest? Also, if new info came up in it, would that be okay to post, even if I couldn't restart the thread now?

Thanks :)

Sorry Sarkhan, but I dont think it is appropriate for me to start a new thread in moderation about an issue that already has a thread.

Unlike you, I cant understand why the thread was closed. There is no excess of flaming/flame-baiting or trolling. I'd say (based on the formal rules and previous mod rulings) less than a dozen posts, out of hundreds, violate rules, and frankly if those less than a dozen do actually violate rules, they are border-line.

The number of posts over the 30 pages of postings that dont violate rules far exceeds the number of posts that possibly do. The majority of the posters and posts are obviously well within the rules.

When did it become policy to close down a thread with dozens of posters because of a few posters coming in after 100's of posts and making a few borderline comments?

If all it takes to close down a discussion when you dont like it, or it isnt going your way, is to get a few like-minded posters to come in and make marginal possibly rule-skirting posts, (especially if you can do so without punishment), we'll all be reduced to debating nothing more interesting or less contravercial than the merits of various knitting needles in regards to pearl-stitch.

There's no reason for this thread to have been closed when at 30 pages it is clear that many (in fact the overwhelming majority of) posters are quite capable of having the discussion without turning the thread into a flame feast. It certainly wasnt a flame feast when it was closed. There is little in the thread that can (consistent with earlier mod rulings) reasonably be construed as trolling, flaming, or flame-baiting.

It's unfair to the posters who were following rules that the thread has been closed, and inconsistent with the usual enforcement of rules given threads with much more rule breaking after far less pages are not closed down. Usually mods punish rule-breakers instead of giving them the power to close down threads so punishing rule-followers.

If there were (in the very few posts that might violate the rules) sufficient rule breaking to close down a thread with 30 pages and plenty of rule followers, then those very few posters ought to have been appropriately warned/punished and the thread allowed to continue for all those who abide by rules. I cant even find any indication that those very few who apparently ruined it for the dozens of rule-abiding posters were punished or warned.

It's not enough to issue public warnings but it's enough to close the thread?:confused:

If mods are not here to punish rule breakers so rule abiding posters can continue their debate within the rules, but are here to facilitate the closing down of any conversations rule-breakers dont like, then I'd have to question the point. Surely trolls are capable of closing down constructive debate unaided and preventing them from doing so is the point of the mods (rather than vice-versa).

I'm mystified, it's not like anyone in the thread thought there was a problem judging by the absence of a single complaint about it (or any posts in it) here in the mod forums.:confused:

I honestly think this decision was in error and ought to be reviewed (I understand that mods do review decisions from time to time and think this is a legitimate candidate for their doing so).

It's not enough to issue public warnings but it's enough to close the thread?
Closing a thread is almost always the lesser of the two choices. It's a very quick and easy way of saying 'knock it off'.

The massive essay above is a tempest in a teapot. You could have simply bumped the thread and asked for a ruling. Whatever.

As stated here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11966653&postcount=454), I've reopened it.

Mod response only, please (preferably hotrodia)

You just closed the "The most upsetting, disgusting, despiccable thing I've seen in some time (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=507407)."thread. (about 20 seconds ago...haha)

I understand the reason why, but I feel like some pretty good things were being discussed prior to certain parties joining in. Would it be inappropriate to start a new thread about it? I know that many of us are college students, so this is something that pretty directly impacts us, and I know that I would like to continue to discuss it. Not to mention it has raised some good points about how far is too far for any police officer.

Just curious if it would be okay to restart the topic (not right now, as that would invite the same problems), or if it should just be laid to rest? Also, if new info came up in it, would that be okay to post, even if I couldn't restart the thread now?

Thanks :)

Sure. There's already another one, started by MtaE, if you want to use that one. And if you have updated info, and can give a more comprehensive account of the events, that may warrant a new thread. Have at it. :)

Sorry for not seeing this earlier. I logged off very shortly after closing that thread so I could go out and enjoy my Friday night.

Note: I'll be snipping some remarks from your post because Fris has already addressed the point, or because I've addressed a point that makes them redundant.

Sorry Sarkhan, but I dont think it is appropriate for me to start a new thread in moderation about an issue that already has a thread.

Unlike you, I cant understand why the thread was closed. There is no excess of flaming/flame-baiting or trolling. I'd say (based on the formal rules and previous mod rulings) less than a dozen posts, out of hundreds, violate rules, and frankly if those less than a dozen do actually violate rules, they are border-line.

Advocating the assault of CSO's, which was in the first post responding to the OP, is borderline? I really don't think there's anything borderline about advocating that level of violence and illegal activity. I also don't think there's anything borderline about saying "fuck the police" which is blatantly trolling police officers.

The number of posts over the 30 pages of postings that dont violate rules far exceeds the number of posts that possibly do. The majority of the posters and posts are obviously well within the rules.

Which was why I didn't close it sooner.

If all it takes to close down a discussion when you dont like it, or it isnt going your way, is to get a few like-minded posters to come in and make marginal possibly rule-skirting posts, (especially if you can do so without punishment), we'll all be reduced to debating nothing more interesting or less contravercial than the merits of various knitting needles in regards to pearl-stitch.

There's no reason for this thread to have been closed when at 30 pages it is clear that many (in fact the overwhelming majority of) posters are quite capable of having the discussion without turning the thread into a flame feast. It certainly wasnt a flame feast when it was closed. There is little in the thread that can (consistent with earlier mod rulings) reasonably be construed as trolling, flaming, or flame-baiting.

Aye. And suddenly the level of baiting started to increase rapidly at the end there if you check out the last few posts. I'd rather prevent flame-wars than have to wade into the aftermath later and hand out warnings, thank you.

Prevention > Punishment as far as this Mod is concerned.

I honestly think this decision was in error and ought to be reviewed (I understand that mods do review decisions from time to time and think this is a legitimate candidate for their doing so).

If somebody feels the need to overturn it, I don't have a problem with it. The lock has served its purpose.

Closing a thread is almost always the lesser of the two choices. It's a very quick and easy way of saying 'knock it off'.

The massive essay above is a tempest in a teapot. You could have simply bumped the thread and asked for a ruling. Whatever.

As stated here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11966653&postcount=454), I've reopened it.
I thought it was expressing my concerns. I dont expect moderators to be either perfect, or to be mind-readers. When did honest and apparently (given the ruling) justified posts in moderation become deserving of criticism Fris? :confused:

I dont recall this being the attitude previously and I cant help but think there is more hostility about the boards lately than needs to be. It'd be nice if the mods could set an example in rectifying the latter.

I dont see that I broke any rules or protocol in my post, I stated my concerns in full (because it's unreasonable to expect moderators mind-read and because if my understanding was incorrect, I'd like it to be corrected). So why ought I be criticised for it? So what if I like to be clear and full in the presentation of my concerns? From my perspective your post is just nit-picking; isn't that slighty less necessary (coming from a mod in moderation) than the over-long posts in moderation?

Sure. There's already another one, started by MtaE, if you want to use that one. And if you have updated info, and can give a more comprehensive account of the events, that may warrant a new thread. Have at it. :)

Sorry for not seeing this earlier. I logged off very shortly after closing that thread so I could go out and enjoy my Friday night.
Sounds good. Thanks:)

Oh, and no worries about not seeing it sooner...I had seen that you logged off by the time I actually got this posted, and I was going to log off soon-ish anyway, so it wasn't exactly a pressing matter