big surprise (locked threads in the CE forum)

[KGs Knee]

The Limbaugh thread in CE got locked.  Saw that coming a mile away.  Why can't people resist the urge to attack others as a debate tactic?  Geez.

Just once, I'd like to debate. A "hit" topic without it devolving into insults.

[KGs Knee]

Meant-debate a "hot" topic.

Stupid phone.

[nickagneta]

I don't think that the thread got locked because of personal insults or attacks so much as once religion got involved and the relevance of it to the topic, the thread hit an area that could get too incendiary, so it was locked.

And without breaking rules and the wishes of the mods and rehashing a subject that was already locked, that's all I will say on the subject.

[Roy H.]

It got locked because as a staff, we've made a conscious decision to shut down Current Events threads as they start to go off the rails.  Rather than give ourselves a headache, we're just not going to deal with topics that start to devolve.  We definitely weren't thrilled with where that thread was starting to trend, i.e., into open criticism of the Catholic Church or religion in general.

Also, I hope it is very, very clear to everyone that when a staff member posts a public warning, it's to be abided by.  We issue warnings to keep the peace, and we ask that everybody respect that by complying with our requests, even if you personally disagree with them.  

As our rules state,

"If a member of the staff asks you to do something that you find objectionable, the proper course of action is to comply, and then write either that staff member or another member of the staff a private message indicating your disagreement, and the basis thereof."

We try not to be jerks about this stuff, but please don't make our lives any harder by openly defying our authority.  Stuff like that just isn't going to be fun for anybody involved.

[KCattheStripe]

I'm not surprised. Posters on this blog often forget the cardinal sarcasm.

[PosImpos]

I've already talked to a member of the staff about this, so I won't go into great detail, but I think the moderating staff is trying to have it both ways with the Current Events forum. 

Either keep it and accept the type of discussion that comes with it (within reason), or get rid of it.

[Roy H.]

I've already talked to a member of the staff about this, so I won't go into great detail, but I think the moderating staff is trying to have it both ways with the Current Events forum. 

Either keep it and accept the type of discussion that comes with it (within reason), or get rid of it.

I understand your point of view.  At the same time, our #1 rule on this blog is "respect each other at all times".  If people can't discuss politics without being divisive and resorting to rule-breaking, then they should choose a different outlet for their political debating needs.

[PosImpos]

I've already talked to a member of the staff about this, so I won't go into great detail, but I think the moderating staff is trying to have it both ways with the Current Events forum. 

Either keep it and accept the type of discussion that comes with it (within reason), or get rid of it.

I understand your point of view.  At the same time, our #1 rule on this blog is "respect each other at all times".  If people can't discuss politics without being divisive and resorting to rule-breaking, then they should choose a different outlet for their political debating needs.

I guess I just feel that the criteria for what constitutes "respecting other posters" seems really fluid and changes very quickly depending on the topic that's being discussed, and the people doing the moderating.

[Roy H.]

I've already talked to a member of the staff about this, so I won't go into great detail, but I think the moderating staff is trying to have it both ways with the Current Events forum. 

Either keep it and accept the type of discussion that comes with it (within reason), or get rid of it.

I understand your point of view.  At the same time, our #1 rule on this blog is "respect each other at all times".  If people can't discuss politics without being divisive and resorting to rule-breaking, then they should choose a different outlet for their political debating needs.

I guess I just feel that the criteria for what constitutes "respecting other posters" seems really fluid and changes very quickly depending on the topic that's being discussed, and the people doing the moderating.

I don't think it's realistic to expect uniformity from any group of people when interpreting and applying subjective rules, though.  Instead, we have a system where mods discuss actions and try to come to a consensus.  This prevents "rogue mods" from bullying members.

In this case, I can say that we've always had a very bright line rule about obeying moderator warnings.  There's really no gray area there at all.

[PosImpos]

I've already talked to a member of the staff about this, so I won't go into great detail, but I think the moderating staff is trying to have it both ways with the Current Events forum. 

Either keep it and accept the type of discussion that comes with it (within reason), or get rid of it.

I understand your point of view.  At the same time, our #1 rule on this blog is "respect each other at all times".  If people can't discuss politics without being divisive and resorting to rule-breaking, then they should choose a different outlet for their political debating needs.

I guess I just feel that the criteria for what constitutes "respecting other posters" seems really fluid and changes very quickly depending on the topic that's being discussed, and the people doing the moderating.

I don't think it's realistic to expect uniformity from any group of people when interpreting and applying subjective rules, though.  Instead, we have a system where mods discuss actions and try to come to a consensus.  This prevents "rogue mods" from bullying members.

In this case, I can say that we've always had a very bright line rule about obeying moderator warnings.  There's really no gray area there at all.

True enough.  I just think there's a lot of danger there for sending the wrong message with the way you're moderating the CE forum, because the standards there seem different than any of the other forums on the site, and even within the forum they seem to change depending on the particular topic.

That's all I'll say any further on the matter.

[Roy H.]

I've already talked to a member of the staff about this, so I won't go into great detail, but I think the moderating staff is trying to have it both ways with the Current Events forum. 

Either keep it and accept the type of discussion that comes with it (within reason), or get rid of it.

I understand your point of view.  At the same time, our #1 rule on this blog is "respect each other at all times".  If people can't discuss politics without being divisive and resorting to rule-breaking, then they should choose a different outlet for their political debating needs.

I guess I just feel that the criteria for what constitutes "respecting other posters" seems really fluid and changes very quickly depending on the topic that's being discussed, and the people doing the moderating.

I don't think it's realistic to expect uniformity from any group of people when interpreting and applying subjective rules, though.  Instead, we have a system where mods discuss actions and try to come to a consensus.  This prevents "rogue mods" from bullying members.

In this case, I can say that we've always had a very bright line rule about obeying moderator warnings.  There's really no gray area there at all.

True enough.  I just think there's a lot of danger there for sending the wrong message with the way you're moderating the CE forum, because the standards there seem different than any of the other forums on the site, and even within the forum they seem to change depending on the particular topic.

That's all I'll say any further on the matter.

We do have different standards in the CE forum.  I don't think we try to hide that.  As our rules state:

Participation in the Current Events Forum is on a discretionary basis.  Posting privileges in the forum can be revoked at any time, for any reason.  There will be very little tolerance for rule-breaking in this forum.

We try to be more strict in there, because those threads are more volatile.

[PosImpos]

I've already talked to a member of the staff about this, so I won't go into great detail, but I think the moderating staff is trying to have it both ways with the Current Events forum. 

Either keep it and accept the type of discussion that comes with it (within reason), or get rid of it.

I understand your point of view.  At the same time, our #1 rule on this blog is "respect each other at all times".  If people can't discuss politics without being divisive and resorting to rule-breaking, then they should choose a different outlet for their political debating needs.

I guess I just feel that the criteria for what constitutes "respecting other posters" seems really fluid and changes very quickly depending on the topic that's being discussed, and the people doing the moderating.

I don't think it's realistic to expect uniformity from any group of people when interpreting and applying subjective rules, though.  Instead, we have a system where mods discuss actions and try to come to a consensus.  This prevents "rogue mods" from bullying members.

In this case, I can say that we've always had a very bright line rule about obeying moderator warnings.  There's really no gray area there at all.

True enough.  I just think there's a lot of danger there for sending the wrong message with the way you're moderating the CE forum, because the standards there seem different than any of the other forums on the site, and even within the forum they seem to change depending on the particular topic.

That's all I'll say any further on the matter.

We do have different standards in the CE forum.  I don't think we try to hide that.  As our rules state:

Participation in the Current Events Forum is on a discretionary basis.  Posting privileges in the forum can be revoked at any time, for any reason.  There will be very little tolerance for rule-breaking in this forum.

We try to be more strict in there, because those threads are more volatile.

well, that's kind of the problem.  I guess my main point is that, as the original poster of this thread states, the Current Events forum is the place where people go to debate "hot" topics.  yet there seems to be a general aversion to "heated" debate on this forum.  which is fine -- you're certainly entitled to want to maintain that kind of atmosphere.  but you can't have it both ways.

and that's really all i'm going to say on the matter anymore.

[Roy H.]

well, that's kind of the problem.  I guess my main point is that, as the original poster of this thread states, the Current Events forum is the place where people go to debate "hot" topics.  yet there seems to be a general aversion to "heated" debate on this forum.  which is fine -- you're certainly entitled to want to maintain that kind of atmosphere.  but you can't have it both ways.

and that's really all i'm going to say on the matter anymore.

I disagree.  The vast majority of the posts in that thread were fine.  It's a cliche, but it's possible to disagree without being disagreeable.

[KGs Knee]

Ok, I think some may have misinterpreted what I meant.  I had absolutely no problem with the thread being locked.  
Reading some of the comments towards the end, it was obvious some were clearly breaking rules.

My disappointment was not with the mods, but with posters.  For the most part, the people participating in the thread were intelligent people (I say most part, because some posters I'm just not familiar with).  The point is, those I am alluding to are better than that, and didn't need to resort to that.


Edit:  I just want to say one last thing about this.  After re-reading this post, I think it may have come across a little "holier than thou".  I realize I have probably crossed a few lines myself in the heat of the moment.  So I don't consider myself above reproach.  Ultimately my point was, I thought the deabte was a good one.  And even though there are some posters that I obviously disagree with on issues, I enjoy debating them.  I fully well know those in that thread were some pretty intelligent folks, capable of making good points without the generalized attacks on certain groups.  I know, and you know, you're smarter than that.

Oh well, it's a dead issue now I'm guessing.