My point is the moderators do not need to close topics because of one or two or even several individuals. That action is far too extreme and only serves to stifle discussion as well as prevent future discussions on similar subjects from being had due to the fear that said individuals will return once more and get that thread closed. Rather than completely obliterate the thread, moderate the individuals and allow the rest to continue discussing the topic at hand and, if they choose to, allow the thread to die of inactivity.
I don't mean to sound aggressive, but my point, here, is that you've completely disregarded what I said previously.
"Moderate the users" is no more acceptable a solution than any other because there simply is no way to keep a person out of a thread short of banning them from the community. At the end of the day, that's the last thing we want to do. If there were some consistent, reliable method of removing from heated threads those people who were steering things in the wrong direction, we'd likely not have stringent rules on what can and cannot pass as a feasible topic. I wish there was more to say here, but there isn't. The user will either continue to cause an issue in the thread(s), or will end up being banned for the sole reason of not knowing when to butt-out. If the latter is
really what you claim the user-base wants, then be prepared to see more than a few people removed from the community on the basis of statements made in the heat of the moment (doesn't sound like a great reason, does it?).
MC said:
Maybe the problem isn't the forum members but rather the moderators and administrators. We can't always point the finger at one group of people, no matter how innocent they seem.
I object to the forum staff being treated as though it were a community unto itself (despite the inappropriate and sudden removal of a certain, recent thread - which will be reversed as soon as I can sort a few clerical details out, I hope). The staff, with the exception of the odd team member that has been placed at its head, was drawn from plain-Jane community members over a number of years who seemed to be able to post clearly, have a grasp on being able to construct cogent arguments and complex ideas, and who seemed genuinely interested in keeping the community going without trolls and other disrespectful folks. We're not some distant population that has inherited some god-granted crusade for justice that we will pursue while spitting in the face of logic and reason. If that's the image you're getting, then I apologize, but you've completely missed the point. I might not be as "real" as moderators and administrators in other communities, but that's just me - I do use grossly pedantic and unnecessary vocabulary in daily life, and I do like to portray myself as being someone whose strength is almost solely intellectual, but there's no need to demonize myself or others like me on the staff for carrying that personality into this community. You shouldn't mistake my composure for unfriendliness and stolidness (just ask anyone who tends to contact me via PM, where, unfortunately, most of my fleshed-out discussions end up taking place, save this one. A number of people can vouch for me being approachable).
As for the multiply-restated "fear of banning" - perhaps that's due to the machinations of the staff in the past; I don't know. We were, indeed, a lot more proactive and tough when the community was more booming (circa the early beta days) because the community simply required a firm hand back then. For some of us, old habits are hard to shake. As for myself, a few staff members (including the aforementioned Phobius) will tell you that I take far too long to come to a decision that ends up with someone being banned. Being one of the two people who can be considered the "Head Administrator", knowing that I prefer not to resort to such terribly drastic action should be reassuring, not off-putting.
I suppose what I'm trying to get at is that I'm rather perplexed at where this "fear" is coming from. If it's from some belief that there is a great "war machine of moderation" working behind the scenes to consistently confound every member interested in carrying out discussions as involved as this one is, then that fear is completely off the mark. I will admit that there are some staff members that like to internalize issues more than I would care to (even to the point that some discussion must be kept from the "junior" staff members in order to ensure smooth functioning), but the majority of the active staff members aren't interested in keepings things in the shadows. It may have worked for a different time and a different group, but it's no longer the case, now that the community is largely full of people who are just "hanging around" for the discussion boards, rather than the developmental side of things.
I'm really not quite sure what other reassurance to offer that much of what some of you appear to be "afraid" of is irrational. If the sudden removal of the "What do you miss?" thread was the source of some new "let's undermine the moderators and administrators!" movement (for lack of a better term), then let me assure you that you'll be wasting your effort if you're trying to speak out against a group of people whose actions you are generalizing from those of one person. If you want to know my opinion on the issue of that thread, it is as follows: It was removed from the public eye unnecessarily on the part of someone who made the wrong kind of comment at the wrong time. I neither approve of it, nor do I intend to let it last longer than it takes me to deal with some more pressing issues (med school application, philosophy assignment, behavior modification assignment - you get the picture).
To make an incredibly long post short, I want to restate that I don't find any logic or gain in making sweeping statements about the group of people who, among other things, are trying to ensure that everyone in the community remains respectful. If there are certain people who seem to be putting that tenet behind some other agenda, then don't apply that to every other member of the group. If the fact that I've spent the last good chunk of time constructing this post doesn't make a statement to the extent that the moderation team is actually concerned about the user base in a manner that doesn't involve imposing threats of banning and whatever else in order to shut them up. I agree that the regulations on discussion topics is a bit dated, but it was effective for a time, and that's why it never really got dislodged from its place. That's not an indication that it will hold until the end of time (or this forum - whichever comes first, heh).
*sigh* I think I've been doing this for too long, heh. Almost time to retire.
EDIT:
MC said:
But then there's the issue of what's considered "out of line".
What's out of line is what is disrespectful. Challenging someone to accept a new idea as valid is not out of line. Calling someone's spritual beliefs "stupid" to their face is not good discussion (at best), and is disrespectful (at worst). Insulting a person's character based on their political affiliation falls into that same trap. Do you see where I'm headed?
