Too much locking.

[Nomex Maximus]

To the moderators:

Entirely too much locking on CAPTALK. It's your website and of course you can run it however you like, but please consider that this is probably THE primary place on the internet where CAP people gather to chat. I would really like it if you just let people chat as they want, and not lock threads just because they get slightly off topic, or discuss a controversial topic. If someone posts something offensive, then delete the posting, or ban the individual, but don't lock the thread.

Thanks

[MIKE]

Please review the Membership Code of Codunct... Also, if you want to chat, find or start a chatroom somewhere else.

[Nomex Maximus]

Can't "chat" about CAP? Seems quite an odd rule.

"Members will only discuss matters on topic for the forum in which they are posting.  Members will not make blatantly off-topic posts or attempt to derail legitimate discussions. All topics must relate and be of interest to CAP members in a professional aspect."

Suggest you modify this rule or enforce it less stringently.

Just my opinion.

[pixelwonk]

professional aspect, or rather the lack of it, often being the key reason for a lock.

[Pylon]

I am really getting tired of reiterating how CAPTalk works.


The Code of Conduct is quite lax.  If members start berating each other, tossing out name-calling and personal attacks, and generally become unprofessional the topic gets locked.  It has nothing to do with controversial topics, other than certain forum members personal inability to carry on a dignified and professional conversation.  This board has seen numerous, highly controversial topics discussed without being locked.  We've also seen petty, inconsequential issues devolve into unbecoming conduct.

It's not as simple as deleting one inappropriate post or warning one user for a single inappropriate comment.  Anybody who has been here for longer than a few months has likely seen numerous threads devolve into inappropriate and unprofessional conduct by numerous people.   Locking the thread puts an immediate stop to that.   If you feel you have something of true, professional interest to add to a topic, you can always PM a moderator to allow you to post it or carefully consider opening a fresh topic on the related, professional issue.

The moderating is quite light-handed, despite your apparent impression.  Of the 1,000 topics in the lobby section alone, I'd guess that maybe 50 are locked - mostly due to people being inappropriate.    There would be a lot less locking if members of this discussion community could handle themselves in a manner befitting adults and professionals.

The rule has nothing to do with "chatting."  However, topics should be 80% or better of a professional nature.  That's the stated purpose of this community.  I have said again and again that this is not the Civil Air Patrol water cooler, nor the CAP rumor mill.   There are other chat rooms or IM services out there you could use to chat.  It's not an odd rule.  You wouldn't sit around and toss around banter, inappropriate jokes and nonsense about Star Wars at a wing staff meeting, would you?

Finally - the small administration and moderating staff for CAPTalk are helping out in their spare time.  We all have jobs, we all have regular CAP duties - but we offer and support this board in an attempt to help other CAP members connect to share resources, ideas and advice to improve CAP as a whole.  Jerry pays for the hosting of this site out of his own pocket, I personally pay for the domain, and we all pitch in in keeping the site running and appropriate. 

[LtCol Hooligan]

I know this is slightly off topic, but since we were discussing code of conduct in this thread, I thought I might add something.  I was doing some research today on why e-mails from a CAP list serve where showing up in a google search for a members name, state, and Civil Air Patrol and thought, wow I wonder what the same thing brings back for me.  So, I searched Erik Ludlow North Dakota Wing Civil Air Patrol.  Just a few things on my website and articles I wrote a while back on the first page.  But, page 2- very interesting- CAPTalk information returned.  It had my profile on one link and a link to posts I responded to on the next link.  I always sign my posts as I stand by what I write, but I found it interesting to think about.  What if one of my cadets decided to see what the Lt Col was doing in his spare time and came across my posts and saw me blasting someone?  What if I was applying for a job and the future employer did the same search?  It would look pretty bad if I was blasting someone in a forum and chances are, I would never even know they found it.  The cadet would file it away in the don't make the Lt Col mad file and the employer would shuffle my application to the circular file as a do not hire.  Just food for thought when we talk about conduct.  What we type here is found on the internet and open to all who wish to read it.

[RogueLeader]

My opinion is that they have done a very good job of moderating the site.  It's not their fault for people acting in a way that goes against their stated objectives.  Numerous times they have warned people to stay on topic- sometimes it works other times it gets the Brinks treatment.  They have also mentioned numerous times that this is not the CAP water cooler, and that it was to be a professional resource.  kudos to the Mods and Admin.
:clap: :clap: :clap:

[Nomex Maximus]

I am not critical of the moderators. I just think that things should be a bit looser here. Do you all really want a website that is run as tight as a Wing meeting all the time? If you do, then fine but I suspect a lot of other people really aren't looking for that much formality.

Please don't take this the wrong way but perhaps I should start the CAP Watercooler website if you all don't want CAP chit-chat on this site.

[dwb]

I am really getting tired of reiterating how CAPTalk works.

Well, the site is popular and new people come and go all the time, so what are ya gonna do?

Combine that with the axiom that all Internet forums eventually collapse into conversations about the forum itself, and you've got this thread.

There's nothing wrong with at least entertaining the idea that the forum culture is going to evolve over time, and you're not going to be able to control that culture by executive fiat.

[dwb]

Please don't take this the wrong way but perhaps I should start the CAP Watercooler website if you all don't want CAP chit-chat on this site.

What you're going to find is that the forum will be filled with garbage and people will drive you nuts.  Seriously.

The constant insistence on being somewhat "mission focused" (or "on topic" or whatever) is precisely why this forum is interesting.  Give people free range to discuss whatever, and you get garbage.

That said, the mods could be a little nicer...

[MIKE]

That said, the mods could be a little nicer...

Bite me. 

[Nomex Maximus]

Please don't take this the wrong way but perhaps I should start the CAP Watercooler website if you all don't want CAP chit-chat on this site.

What you're going to find is that the forum will be filled with garbage and people will drive you nuts.  Seriously.

The constant insistence on being somewhat "mission focused" (or "on topic" or whatever) is precisely why this forum is interesting.  Give people free range to discuss whatever, and you get garbage.

That said, the mods could be a little nicer...

If it's my website I will delete whatever I wish to delete and ban whomever. No biggie. I think I could keep things CAP related.

Of course, an alternative to this is to simply allow a "Chit-Chat" section to be added to the forums here. Ooops, in most forums that's the "Lobby"...

[RogueLeader]

That said, the mods could be a little nicer...

Bite me. 

Um isn't that against the code of conduct, and get the thread locked?   just wondering. . . . .

[RogueLeader]

Please don't take this the wrong way but perhaps I should start the CAP Watercooler website if you all don't want CAP chit-chat on this site.

What you're going to find is that the forum will be filled with garbage and people will drive you nuts.  Seriously.

The constant insistence on being somewhat "mission focused" (or "on topic" or whatever) is precisely why this forum is interesting.  Give people free range to discuss whatever, and you get garbage.

That said, the mods could be a little nicer...

If it's my website I will delete whatever I wish to delete and ban whomever. No biggie. I think I could keep things CAP related.

Of course, an alternative to this is to simply allow a "Chit-Chat" section to be added to the forums here. Ooops, in most forums that's the "Lobby"...

Then that makes you worse than what is going on here.  They only delete things that are very serious, not because they disagree.  You would well find out that your site might not fare so well . . .   Just saying.

[Nomex Maximus]

I am not arguing about their right to lock/delete/ban I am just suggesting that they could loosen up a bit and not lock things quite so often.

[thp]

¡viva la revolución!... just kidding

[RAZOR]

MIKE  "SUPER MODERATOR" says it all.. :angel:

[Short Field]

I just wonder why it takes them so long to lock some topics  - there are some horses that are never going to rise again.   

[MIKE]

If you see a Code of Conduct violation you can click Report to moderator at the bottom right of the post in question to bring it to the attention of the site staff for review.

[Pace]

I'm pretty sure this topic has out-lived its usefulness.  Every side of the issue has been addressed, and circular arguing is all that is left.  I'm also pretty sure the thread died after this comment given the irony (especially the emphasized portion):

If it's my website I will delete whatever I wish to delete and ban whomever. No biggie. I think I could keep things CAP related.

Of course, an alternative to this is to simply allow a "Chit-Chat" section to be added to the forums here. Ooops, in most forums that's the "Lobby"...

And if that didn't do it, this one (and the response to it) did:

That said, the mods could be a little nicer...

I see this devolving quickly so let's keep it clean to avoid a lock.  Besides, given how other CAP web forums (past and present) conduct their moderation, we could easily be much stricter.  Just a little food for thought.  YMMV and probably does.

[jb512]

Another one got the lock...

http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=3786.0;all

[mikeylikey]

^ Some people just don't like criticism.   

[shorning]

Another one got the lock...

Get over it and press on...

[Nomex Maximus]

I'm pretty sure this topic has out-lived its usefulness.  Every side of the issue has been addressed, and circular arguing is all that is left.  I'm also pretty sure the thread died after this comment given the irony (especially the emphasized portion):

If it's my website I will delete whatever I wish to delete and ban whomever. No biggie. I think I could keep things CAP related.

Of course, an alternative to this is to simply allow a "Chit-Chat" section to be added to the forums here. Ooops, in most forums that's the "Lobby"...

. . .

I don't see the irony. The owners can do with the website whatever they want. The issue here is what should they do with it. This website seems to lock topics quite rapidly. My comment was simply that things might be better if there was less locking done. Let people talk. It won't result in the utter distruction of CAP if their conversations get off topic.

[RiverAux]

The moderators are very reasonable about locking threads for personal attacks.  I'm not in favor of locking threads due to drift (especially after only 1 or 2 posts in a row outside of the topic), especially when they have the option to split the topics. 

[jb512]

Another one got the lock...

Get over it and press on...

I'm still a little shaken, but I'll be ok...

[a2capt]

Another one got the lock...

..and for a supposed interpreted personal attack.

Funny, I don't see one there at all.

What I do see is the moderators opinion being expressed, disagreed with, and the thread locked.

Perhaps threads should only be locked if an some level of flags raised, not just someone in position to do it, not agreeing with the content.

Thats kinda like, "fine, don't like what I say, I'm taking my ball and locking the gate. You go home."

There does seem to be an awful lot of locking going on here at times, but there's plenty of threads to get involved in. In the end, it works.

[mikeylikey]

^ Lock.

[CadetProgramGuy]

Whats the ol' military saying...Improvise, adapt, overcome?

Lets overcome this issue, press on, and lets not have another statistical locking of the thread because we can't get along.....

"Please can't we all just get along?!?"

I'm gonna go haze myself now.......

[jb512]

Since we're already off topic and in danger, thanks for the chuckle...  I forgot about the "go haze yourself" line.

[Nathan]

I'm gonna go haze myself now.......

Man, that just never gets old, does it?

Seriously, I'm almost amused at some of the posts I see here (and CadetStuff) that talk about a sort of Nazi-like forum where the moderators are obviously conspiring against the normal populace by banning disenters and censoring opinions that go against theirs.

Please.

For those of you who don't know me, I'm a moderator over at CadetStuff. I can't say that the websites are run the same way, but I do know that I've been accused of the same things that the mods here are, and I know for a fact that I have much better things to do than to sit around and lock posts because I'm bored. The mods don't sit around and discuss banning anyone simply because we don't like them (trust me on this, because there are MANY people we don't like that are still around...).

And honestly, it's a forum. The internet. Made up of electronic pulses and pixels. There's a profound lack of concrete or iron keeping you here. You don't like it? Find another forum, or make your own, and then you can talk about whatever you want, however pointless and mind-numbing. Their sandbox, their rules.

Sheesh.

[ADCAPer]

Just because I was curious, and had to sit through a long conference call:

I count 71 locked topics in "The Lobby".

Four of these 71 locked topics were initiated in 2005, and three were locked in 2005

Four of these 71 locked topics were initiated in 2006, and two were locked in 2006

62 of these 71 locked topics were initiated in 2007, and 65 were locked in 2007

25 of these 71 topics were locked within 24 hours of being started, and 23 of those were from 2007

The longest running topic before being locked, "Is CAP Failing Miserably?" It was open for 588 Days

[Major Carrales]

Just because I was curious, and had to sit through a long conference call:

I count 71 locked topics in "The Lobby".

Four of these 71 locked topics were initiated in 2005, and three were locked in 2005

Four of these 71 locked topics were initiated in 2006, and two were locked in 2006

62 of these 71 locked topics were initiated in 2007, and 65 were locked in 2007

25 of these 71 topics were locked within 24 hours of being started, and 23 of those were from 2007

The longest running topic before being locked, "Is CAP Failing Miserably?" It was open for 588 Days

Understandable since this was a year of contentious events.

[RogueLeader]

^^ also look at the numbers of members, and how the threads developed.  When there are say 150 members, as compared to around 1300now; can you see how the magnitude will change the dynamics of a forum?  I find it very short-sighted to not take all these factors into account, and I find that the Mods are doing a great job of walking the fine balance of good discussion and blatant chaos.

[capchiro]

Mike, the Moderator, noted above that if one wanted to chat they could go elsewhere.  If that is so, then they need to change the descriptions used to define the topic areas.  The one for the Lobby plainly states:

"Feel free to talk about anything and everything in this board. Get to know one another, chat with other CAPers, and field topics not covered elsewhere."

This certainly sounds like an invite to discuss anything and everything with anyone and chat as chat may..  Am I missing something or are the Mods missing something??  Kind of like when I catch my cadets up to no good wannabe types stepping over of authority??  JMHO so don't get carried away with the flames..

[addo1]

  I agree.  If you dont want "everyone and anyone" to "chat." then you need to fix that description. 

  So, prettry much, if you want chat, I suggest from now on, go somewhere else.

[Nomex Maximus]

. . . and I find that the Mods are doing a great job of walking the fine balance of good discussion and blatant chaos.

"Blatant chaos"? Some CAP members want to talk about ~whatever~ and we really need someone not involved in the conversation to step in and say,"Hey! You've strayed from what the conversation was originally about. I'm stopping this conversation right now. LOCK."

Why do you feel that simply talking (writing) about something can lead to "blatant chaos"? Why do you feel that CAP members (most of whom are adults and the one's who aren't are usually fine upstanding lyoung adults) need to be controlled in their communications like this? Strikes me as childish and silly.

DELETE offensive posts. DELETE inappropriate topics. BAN abusive posters.  But don't LOCK conversations just because you don't find them interesting or because they have been (partially) discussed elsewhere or because you wish to make a statement about what CAP members should or shouldn't be thinking. Treat the CAP members who come here with respect and as adults, not as your private squadron for command and control.

If you don't like a thread which is not abusive then IGNORE it.

[Pace]

I am neither agreeing or disagreeing with anyone's comments about the current trend in moderation; however, let me humbly remind everyone that this is a privately owned and operated site.  The direction this discussion is going cannot lead to anywhere good in a public setting like this.  I recommend PM'ing one of the administrators if you have any comments regarding the moderation of this site (I promise you'll get more progress and be better received than you will by calling moderators out in public).

[pixelwonk]

I swear, the expectation of entitlement up in here is astounding.

Show me someone who is offended by topics being locked because of drift, and I'll show you someone with a majority of useless posts.
I'd be willing to relax my stance on thread drift issue, but the general membership on this forum cannot be relied upon to police its own.

[Nomex Maximus]

I. . . but the general membership on this forum cannot be relied upon to police its own.

Wow.

[Dragoon]

Quite frankly it's his basement, his rules.  If you can't live by that, what the heck are you doing in a military organization?

(and yeah, if I was running it, I wouldn't lock so much.  But I'm not.  So it ain't my call)

[Nomex Maximus]

Quite frankly it's his basement, his rules.  If you can't live by that, what the heck are you doing in a military organization?

(and yeah, if I was running it, I wouldn't lock so much.  But I'm not.  So it ain't my call)

<snaps to attention> "Sir! I am doing the best I can - SIR!"

What on earth does being in a military organization have to do with anything?

[Major Carrales]

I recommend PM'ing one of the administrators if you have any comments regarding the moderation of this site (I promise you'll get more progress and be better received than you will by calling moderators out in public).

Yes, do that...so they can make an example of you with an indirect flipant comment...

sidebar*
Folks, please don't PM the mods to shut down threads because you simply don't like them.

Choose to ignore.  mmmkay?

http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=3613.msg68756#msg68756

Can't say I dislike the moderators.  The there are those that say, "go out and start your own forum."  Others, "I hate posts about the forum."  Well, as was said before; when a forum passes a certain number of members it stops being a forum and starts being a community.   People invest in and take ownership of their communities.  It too much locking is an issue, well it is an issue.  Address it.

This is a precarious place, order is needed, but sometimes...

"The world would be much better off if people would stop trying to run it, and leave the 'Godding' to God." -Grandpa

[ColonelJack]

"The world would be much better off if people would stop trying to run it, and leave the 'Godding' to God." -- Joe Ely Carrales, III 

Sparky,

There's something just ... unsettling ... about a person who quotes himself.  (Or are you quoting another Joe Ely Carrales?)

Okay, maybe unsettling isn't the right term.  What is the word I'm looking for?



Jack

[Major Carrales]

"The world would be much better off if people would stop trying to run it, and leave the 'Godding' to God." -- Joe Ely Carrales, III 

Sparky,

There's something just ... unsettling ... about a person who quotes himself.  (Or are you quoting another Joe Ely Carrales?)

Okay, maybe unsettling isn't the right term.  What is the word I'm looking for?



Jack

Opps, I was quoting my Grandfather.  I'm just used to typing ",III" after it.

[BlackKnight]

I wanted to insert a poll asking when we think this thread will be locked. 
But I can't find an option to insert a poll into an existing thread.  So we'll try this.

Question: When should this thread be locked?

• Lock it NOW!
• On New Year's
• After 999 posts or bottles of beer
• Never

[Major Carrales]

I wanted to insert a poll asking when we think this thread will be locked. 
But I can't find an option to insert a poll into an existing thread.  So we'll try this.

Question: When should this thread be locked?

• Lock it NOW!
• On New Year's
• After 999 posts or bottles of beer
• Never

Locking the post will do several things...

1)  Be ironic
2) Confirm the agendists that there indeed is a conspiracy by the mods to silence thier positions
3) Confirm to the revolutionaries that the tyranny will go on
4) destroy the popularity of the mod that locked it
5) someone will continue to start another one until the forum is shut down, causing others to open forums that will swell with membership

[NIN]

Speaking as someone who has had to "walk the line" as an administrator of a popular Internet site concerning cadets and (largely) Civil Air Patrol, allow me to say this, about that.

Moderation comes down to community standards.  At CadetStuff, we elected to keep the modding to a minimum and only lock/remove/mod those posts that were outrageously egregious or clearly out of line.

Sometimes we let discussions/threads go on WAY too long.  OK, that's fine.  What we found is that the community of readers/posters (collectively "participants") tended to throw a little nudge or adjustment into some of our more vehement posters when they got out of line, enforcing the "community standards" among themselves without resorting to "calling the cops" (mods).  Sort of like neighbors chatting across the fence to each other: "Hey, there, Stonewall, nice car going to pot in your yard.  It sure is an eyesore...." versus "Hey, local PD, my dirtbag neighbor has an unregistered Studebaker in his yard with weeds growing out the hood. Its an eyesore!  Can you tell him to move it?"

The key is that a) the community has to be familiar with the basic published standards, and later, familiar with the "locally accepted practices" that surround the published standards; and b) the community at large has to be generally following the guidelines.

I don't often see very much of that here.

[SarDragon]

I have, at times, sent PMs to members discussing various aspects of their posts, as a part of this self-policing idea. Some folks respond favorably, and make the requested changes.

Many aren't so cooperative. Sometimes I get a strong MYOB; other times I get a blast, asking "who the **** are you to tell me how to post?". Still others just offer excuses why their posts look like crap.

Bottom line - I don't do that so much any more, because it's turned into a waste of my time.

[Dragoon]

Quite frankly it's his basement, his rules.  If you can't live by that, what the heck are you doing in a military organization?

(and yeah, if I was running it, I wouldn't lock so much.  But I'm not.  So it ain't my call)

<snaps to attention> "Sir! I am doing the best I can - SIR!"

What on earth does being in a military organization have to do with anything?

Simple.  Military organizations have commanders.  They make the rules.  You follow the rules, or you quit. 

You know, just like this website.

I'm having difficulty imagining someone who can't handle the authority of a  humble web site owner not causing all kinds of headaches for a CAP commander.

[ADCAPer]

Understandable since this was a year of contentious events.

Well, that could be one factor, but I'm not sure it's the only one. I don't have the time or the access to investigate any further, so your theory carries as much weight as anything else I can think of.

I personally think that at least part of the problem, or possibly contributing to the perception, is the few self appointed moderators who relentlessly patrol this board looking for reasons to be offended and then requesting that topics be locked when they don't agree with the way the thread is going.

[ADCAPer]

Simple.  Military organizations have commanders.  They make the rules.  You follow the rules, or you quit. 

You know, just like this website.

I'm having difficulty imagining someone who can't handle the authority of a  humble web site owner not causing all kinds of headaches for a CAP commander.

WHAT!  Sorry to break this to you, but military Commanders (as well as CAP Commanders) do not make the rules.

I guess this will be end of this thread, because this is way off topic now, but someone has to throw a major BS flag here.

A commander exercises authority over their subordinates due to their status as a superior commissioned officer, and that authority is based on the rules and the regulations that are enacted by the Congress. In case you hadn't noticed, these subordinates are also all volunteers, who have sworn an oath to "...obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice."

I don't know where you got the idea that military members could either follow the rules or quit. The only options are to either follow the rules or prepare for the consequences, which are outlined in the UCMJ. You may decide to not follow the rules, and this may in fact get you removed from the military, but it won't be because you decided to quit.

Also, CAP commanders, like real military Commanders, often discover that they have problems with their troops when they decide to make up their own rules instead of following the regulations that are put in place for them to follow.

The difference is that the real military ensures that their Superior Officers are provided with at least a basic level of leadership and management training before they set them loose on their first set of unlucky subordinates. They may not have it figured out before they end up in charge, but it helps them understand that their subordinates will do things for them as the Commander because they have to, but it's much better to have them working for you because they want to.

Unfortunately, CAP is not the real military, and there is no way that CAP can provide  even the basic level of training that a real military officer receives. For that matter, most volunteers will never have the time or the desire to complete that much training.

The bigger problem is that CAP is a military affiliated organization, with a large percentage of volunteers who have a real military background, and every now and then you end up with an individual in charge who either has no military background, but thinks that they do, or worse yet, couldn't make it in the real military and decided to quit, yet thinks that they know enough from four years in the real military to qualify as a Colonel in CAP. At some point they finally run into someone who throws a BS flag on their attempt make the rules, and then the problems begin.

[Nomex Maximus]

Quite frankly it's his basement, his rules.  If you can't live by that, what the heck are you doing in a military organization?

(and yeah, if I was running it, I wouldn't lock so much.  But I'm not.  So it ain't my call)

<snaps to attention> "Sir! I am doing the best I can - SIR!"

What on earth does being in a military organization have to do with anything?

Simple.  Military organizations have commanders.  They make the rules.  You follow the rules, or you quit. 

You know, just like this website.

I'm having difficulty imagining someone who can't handle the authority of a  humble web site owner not causing all kinds of headaches for a CAP commander.

"...can't handle the authority of a humble website owner..."

Guys..... this is a website. No one here is under the authority of any of the moderators. They are not in any chain of command, as if being in CAP actually gave anyone any authority over anyone. This is not a military organization either, this is a website.

Y'all need a real big dose of reality here.

Cheers,

[JayT]

Quite frankly it's his basement, his rules.  If you can't live by that, what the heck are you doing in a military organization?

(and yeah, if I was running it, I wouldn't lock so much.  But I'm not.  So it ain't my call)

<snaps to attention> "Sir! I am doing the best I can - SIR!"

What on earth does being in a military organization have to do with anything?

Simple.  Military organizations have commanders.  They make the rules.  You follow the rules, or you quit. 

You know, just like this website.

I'm having difficulty imagining someone who can't handle the authority of a  humble web site owner not causing all kinds of headaches for a CAP commander.

"...can't handle the authority of a humble website owner..."

Guys..... this is a website. No one here is under the authority of any of the moderators. They are not in any chain of command, as if being in CAP actually gave anyone any authority over anyone. This is not a military organization either, this is a website.

Y'all need a real big dose of reality here.

Cheers,

No, I think you do.

This website is private operated. Meaning that we post here at the pleasure of whoever owns it. If the powers that be, who run this website, decide that certain topics are not to be discussed, then we can either A. Appeal to them B. Stop posting here or C. Deal with it.

It appears that you have a problem with para-military structure in CAP. Since you appear to outrank me, I won't tell you to 'deal with it,' but I do suggest you should reconsider your attitude.

[Pace]

No one here is under the authority of any of the moderators.

No one has ever claimed the mods are in your CAP chain of command, but if you choose to participate on this site you are bound to the Code of Conduct at the discretion of the mods and admins (which is clearly stated in the CoC).

This is the point Dragoon was trying to make and it's very simple.  The rules are in place.  The mods and admins have discretion over the conduct of this website.  If we ask you to cease a line of comments or decide to lock or remove a topic, that's it.  If you think it's unfair then by all means contact the admins via PM and ask them to look into it.  If you're still unhappy, then please don't let CAPTalk cause you any more stress or headaches.

I don't plan to respond to this topic again, but my finger is twitching over the lock button after a few of the comments I've seen.  Last warning.

Happy posting!

[BlackKnight]

I don't plan to respond to this topic again, but my finger is twitching over the lock button after a few of the comments I've seen.  Last warning.

Hah!!  I KNEW this thread wouldn't survive long.

Reading it is like watching the movie Tombstone: 

I'm your Huckleberry;

Say when...   

[Nathan]

I personally think that at least part of the problem, or possibly contributing to the perception, is the few self appointed moderators who relentlessly patrol this board looking for reasons to be offended and then requesting that topics be locked when they don't agree with the way the thread is going.

...Right... that's exactly how moderating works..

In CAP, there are SO many better ways to have a power trip than over a bunch of whiny CAP members on this board.

As has been so blatently and ironically pointed out by our Latin-pun loving friend,

Guys..... this is a website. No one here is under the authority of any of the moderators. They are not in any chain of command, as if being in CAP actually gave anyone any authority over anyone. This is not a military organization either, this is a website.

If you want, you can leave. You aren't being compelled, ordered, or forced to be part of this community, and the mods don't have the authority to keep you here if you don't want to be here. If you DO choose to participate, then you have to play by the rules of the guy that controls the ability to throw you out of the sandbox.

And if you don't like that, then refer to the second sentence of the above quote, which states that there is no chain of command. This is not a democracy. Think of it like a benevolent dictatorship. They have the power, they choose who has the power, and that's the way it is. From what I know about these guys from other boards, they tend to be pretty upstanding people, so I can't imagine them being any different as moderators. They have stated numerous times that they will listen to your complaints, but just because they are granting you the right to be heard does not mean that you have the right to be listened to.

Stop trying to apply democratic principles to every aspect of life. You can go wave your flags and root democracy all the way, and believe than anything you CHOOSE to participate in that doesn't support a fully democratic view is just wrong, but you may...

...need a real big dose of reality here.

Thanks, LT!

[Major Carrales]

Stop trying to apply democratic principles to every aspect of life. You can go wave your flags and root democracy all the way, and believe than anything you CHOOSE to participate in that doesn't support a fully democratic view is just wrong, but you may...

Yes, and that reads as American as Swastika Armbands and Black Undershirts.

I think a point is missed in this thread that is of importance...

The idea is not "Fascistic Moderators" more than it is inconsistency.

I can assume this is so since this place is not monitored "full time."  If there was a paid mod 24/7, that was applying justice equally, that would be a different matter.

There are some issues with the culture in here.  I have already mentioned "community."  Intended or not this is one of the largest CAP Communities...ANYWHERE!!!  Where else can people from across the ENTIRE Civil Air Patrol gather together in one place and "chat" on issue ranging from double-breasted service coats to the lastest REDCAP.

The moderators would be fools not to consider that, or to throw it away based on paradigms like...

If you want, you can leave. You aren't being compelled, ordered, or forced to be part of this community, and the mods don't have the authority to keep you here if you don't want to be here. If you DO choose to participate, then you have to play by the rules of the guy that controls the ability to throw you out of the sandbox.

I have made contact via this forum through chit-chat, even some that has been locked for being too "annoying to a mod" that has resulted in benefits to my unit. 

Many of you laugh and scoff at the idea of an "Official CAP NATIONAL FORUM."  I find that interesting and am left wondering why.

Any forum, once it has gathered synergy, grows beyond the intellectual control of its moderators.  That is the nature of forum communities.  Are there alternatives to CapTalk?  Yes.  There are many.  But I will write again,  The moderators would be fools not to consider what they have here, or to throw it away based on the megalomanical paradigms described in the above quote.  Threadsters need Moderators to exists and Moderators exist for the Threadsters, if not, why have a forum at all?

[Nathan]

I can assume this is so since this place is not monitored "full time."  If there was a paid mod 24/7, that was applying justice equally, that would be a different matter.

There are some issues with the culture in here.  I have already mentioned "community."  Intended or not this is one of the largest CAP Communities...ANYWHERE!!!  Where else can people from across the ENTIRE Civil Air Patrol gather together in one place and "chat" on issue ranging from double-breasted service coats to the lastest REDCAP.

What is being failed to be considered is that the moderators here are all on the same leash. They may have different personalities, different tolerances, and so forth. If we were really going to attempt to have every mod be the exact same person, then that would reach a lot closer to a Nazi forum than it is now. Understandably, you have different people with different ideas.

However, a moderator has to be appointed by the administrator. There is no way around that. And when a moderator is appointed by an administrator, then the administrator is basically saying, "This person has the authority to enforce the rules I have set and that you have to obey if you want to participate in this community." If a moderator screws up, then they are reprimanded by the administrator and other moderators, albeit in private.

The moderators are doing what they are allowed to do, and if they keep locking threads of a particular nature or for a particular reason, then it only stands to reason that they are doing so with the owner of the board's permission. Your beef isn't with the moderator; talk with the admin. If you can get the admin to change his mind, great. If not, then attacking the moderators certainly isn't going to get anything accomplished.

Any forum, once it has gathered synergy, grows beyond the intellectual control of its moderators.  That is the nature of forum communities.  Are there alternatives to CapTalk?  Yes.  There are many.  But I will write again,  The moderators would be fools not to consider what they have here, or to throw it away based on the megalomanical paradigms described in the above quote.  Threadsters need Moderators to exists and Moderators exist for the Threadsters, if not, why have a forum at all?

Because not every threadster decides that they would rather have a mob-run forum. As the moderators have already been compared to police once, we'll use it again. The police exist to catch criminals. The criminals do not exist for the police. The criminals exist to do what they want, and the police work to stop them from doing that. The police DO exist only if criminals exist, but then again, this would only be a bad situation if all people were either criminals or police.

This is certainly not the case in real life, and it's not the case here. As NIN pointed out earlier, CadetStuff requires very, very little modding. It's not because we are "nicer" over there, or that the rules are more lax (although I am not familiar enough with this forum to compare). But I know that the posters at CadetStuff don't generally do anything that requires extensive modding.

In your analogy, you are assuming that all Threadsters disagree with the moderation here, or that all Threadsters are wishing there to be some sort of change. That is simply not the case. Most of the posters here seem to obey the rules, and if something unfair happens, they go through the proper channels (ie NOT posting a ridiculous topic like this and piss of the mods even more) to solve it. If it's not solved, then they either suck it up or go away, and that seems to be what many people do. Try posting again in a month or so and keep the conversation from getting derailed. If you have one person continuously getting your threads locked, talk with a moderator and see what can be done. But, while you are correct in that forums oftentimes take on a life of their own, that does not mean that the life trumps the rules of the person who owns the board, nor does it mean that the majority of those making up the community wish that the moderators would change their ways.

If we could have a world without criminals, we could have a world without police, and that's not a bad thing. If we could have a forum without bad apples, we could have a forum without moderators, and that's not a bad thing either. But given the very nature of this thread, it seems that this board does need moderators, and this thread only exemplifies that for everyone to see.

[Major Carrales]

Because not every threadster decides that they would rather have a mob-run forum. As the moderators have already been compared to police once, we'll use it again. The police exist to catch criminals. The criminals do not exist for the police. The criminals exist to do what they want, and the police work to stop them from doing that. The police DO exist only if criminals exist, but then again, this would only be a bad situation if all people were either criminals or police.

Specious at best, if no one comes here to post, there will be no need for moderators.  There is no purpose for a moderator if there is no one posting.  Moderators are supposed to delete comments that are offensive to the state policies, not curtail discussions they find personnally annoying. 

Locking posts because "There is a post on this made last year," is ridiculous.  Doing so and demanding the use of the SEARCH function resulting in a three year old post coing back into the fray, then having another moderator lock a post because "its is an old post," is even more ridiculous.

There are some subjects that are going to be recuring.  Once a post passes its 5th page, it is basically impossible to comment upon with out spending 30 mins to and hour on.  So, a quick answer (which would save up to an hours time of moot posts) is greeted with the distainful comment "use the search engine" or "we have commented on this already.

This is certainly not the case in real life, and it's not the case here. As NIN pointed out earlier, CadetStuff requires very, very little modding. It's not because we are "nicer" over there, or that the rules are more lax (although I am not familiar enough with this forum to compare). But I know that the posters at CadetStuff don't generally do anything that requires extensive modding.

You forget that I too visit CadetStuff.org.  Was it not I that made protests over the disgraceful "UNIFORM" posts where people began name calling and remarking about the vitriolic and childish comments being made about CAP Officers and Cadets behind their back.  As I recall, people told me (in to so polite posts) to "mind my own business" or "if I didn't like it not to read it."  Is that the core value of integrity?  I think not.

Seems I recall some posts by certain folks at CadetStuff that required quite a lot of modding.  What is different here is that there are many former cadets, like Capt Naugle, and others that "self-moderate" and "self-appointedly" moderate the forum.  They are somewhat invested in it because they have taken ownership of if (in the sense of emotional investment), going back to the concept I have brought up about synergy leading a forum to become a community.

Don't confuse the concept of a BLOG, like CapBlog where Midway Six beings with commentary and invites reactions, with a forum, which is member driven.

In your analogy, you are assuming that all Threadsters disagree with the moderation here, or that all Threadsters are wishing there to be some sort of change. That is simply not the case. Most of the posters here seem to obey the rules, and if something unfair happens, they go through the proper channels (ie NOT posting a ridiculous topic like this and piss of the mods even more) to solve it. If it's not solved, then they either suck it up or go away.

You presume to assume what I am thinking?  Curious. 

This is a foum that has long developed its own culture.  There are personalities here that would take volumes of tomes to document.  There are numerous high level "lurkers" and even "incognito" types who fly test balloons of new policies and observe the reaction of the largest most stable on-line forum in CAP.

There are no "proper channels" here like in CAP proper.  A post like think fishes out opinions and would best serve as advice, rather than to "piss off" moderators.  If people feel a certain way on a matter they are honor and integrity bound to make their feelings known.  A fellow CAP Officer of Cadet is honor and intergrity bound to read it and asess its value.

If we could have a world without criminals, we could have a world without police, and that's not a bad thing. If we could have a forum without bad apples, we could have a forum without moderators, and that's not a bad thing either. But given the very nature of this thread, it seems that this board does need moderators, and this thread only exemplifies that for everyone to see.

Moderators best keep in mind that they are as much a part of the forums here as the code that makes it visible.  Their actions, and lack thereof, effect the polulace.  They, like all of us, are the ultimate arbitors of their actions.  I should hope that they are reading this thread and planning actions that are in the best interest of the forum, what ever those actions my end up being.  This type of thread is meant to help them see that they are no better than us and we no better than they.

[Nomex Maximus]

. . .
Yes, and that reads as American as Swastika Armbands and Black Undershirts.
. . .

GODWIN! GODWIN! GODWIN!


( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_Law )

BTW, I have black undershirts. They came with my CAP uniform. 

[Major Carrales]

. . .
Yes, and that reads as American as Swastika Armbands and Black Undershirts.
. . .

GODWIN! GODWIN! GODWIN!
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_Law )

COP OUT, COP OUT, COP OUT

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cop-out

[Nomex Maximus]

I'm kidding Joe. I think your past few posts were well written.

[Major Carrales]

I'm kidding Joe. I think your past few posts were well written.

I too was joking...   I could not resisit making a flashy comback to mirror yours.

[Nomex Maximus]

. . .
I'm having difficulty imagining someone who can't handle the authority of a  humble web site owner not causing all kinds of headaches for a CAP commander.

Well, let's see. My CAP commander just called me up a few days ago and asked me to be the next operations officer, saying that he wanted to do it because, "...you rock." So much for causing headaches...

[Nathan]

Specious at best, if no one comes here to post, there will be no need for moderators.  There is no purpose for a moderator if there is no one posting.  Moderators are supposed to delete comments that are offensive to the state policies, not curtail discussions they find personnally annoying. 

Once again, though, I don't see how you are getting from, "The mods are doing some things a few people don't like" to "Everyone is going to stop posting if things don't change." At least, I think that's the argument you are making. If it is, then my original retort still stands, "specious" or not. Not everyone is upset with the moderators. The mods mod when they need to mod. If they are allowed to mod, it's because the admin is letting them. If they screw up, they are usually told that they screwed up, although it's not going to be where everyone else can see it. Although I have not seen this comment where a moderator locked a thread because it was annoying, I have only seen you point out one instance where this was the specified reasoning, and you don't know what repercussions came with that for the particular moderator in question. For all anyone knows, that moderator could have been told to knock it off. If not, then the administrator found it annoying as well, and if that's the case and you just can't get over the fact that there isn't anything anyone can do about that locked thread, then it's time to find a new board where everyone gets to vote on which threads get locked. This doesn't seem to be it.

Locking posts because "There is a post on this made last year," is ridiculous.  Doing so and demanding the use of the SEARCH function resulting in a three year old post coing back into the fray, then having another moderator lock a post because "its is an old post," is even more ridiculous.

There are some subjects that are going to be recuring.  Once a post passes its 5th page, it is basically impossible to comment upon with out spending 30 mins to and hour on.  So, a quick answer (which would save up to an hours time of moot posts) is greeted with the distainful comment "use the search engine" or "we have commented on this already.

It is a personal opinion that such reasons for locking threads are useless. First of all, it seems that it is not always the moderators who make the comments for people to use the search function, but the "community" you talk about. Second, there are MANY reasons why it is more beneficial for people to use the search and continue old topics rather than start new ones. For one, you may or may not have any idea how difficult it is for the moderators to keep track of hundreds of new topics popping up every week. Because the moderators are expected to keep an eye on EVERY SINGLE THREAD that is created, having a new topic every time someone doesn't feel like spending five minutes playing with the search gets a bit tedious to monitor. It's much easier for the moderators AND the posters if they just keep as much as they can into one thread.

And besides, I've been able to find things just fine on the search. It's not Google, and oftentimes I'll have to play with it, but I get the feeling that it is exactly that reason that people don't like using it; they have to do more work. It's much easier simply to be given the answer. Think of it like asking the teacher when you already have a textbook with an index. It may be more convenient for that individual poster, but that's only okay if it doesn't hurt the rest of the community. And it's not only the moderators that feel the pain when someone is trying to find one certain point that came up in one certain thread in the thousands of threads that ask about beret wear.

You forget that I too visit CadetStuff.org.  Was it not I that made protests over the disgraceful "UNIFORM" posts where people began name calling and remarking about the vitriolic and childish comments being made about CAP Officers and Cadets behind their back.  As I recall, people told me (in to so polite posts) to "mind my own business" or "if I didn't like it not to read it."  Is that the core value of integrity?  I think not.

Seems I recall some posts by certain folks at CadetStuff that required quite a lot of modding.  What is different here is that there are many former cadets, like Capt ..., and others that "self-moderate" and "self-appointedly" moderate the forum.  They are somewhat invested in it because they have taken ownership of if (in the sense of emotional investment), going back to the concept I have brought up about synergy leading a forum to become a community.

Some people did require modding, yes. However, those that require modding generally only are the ones stepping out of bounds by OUR rules. You can't compare Captalk and CadetStuff in terms of which should be like the other, because we have two different missions and, more importantly, different moderators. We have our rules, and Captalk has theirs. The will of the people does not overcome the rules of those who host this community. This is member driven, true, but the forum is a SERVICE to the members, and membership is a PRIVILEDGE, not a right.

There are no "proper channels" here like in CAP proper.  A post like think fishes out opinions and would best serve as advice, rather than to "piss off" moderators.  If people feel a certain way on a matter they are honor and integrity bound to make their feelings known.  A fellow CAP Officer of Cadet is honor and intergrity bound to read it and asess its value.

The proper channels on a forum consist of anyone who has the power to do what you want to happen. It's the same way in CAP. There may not be a clear cut chain of command on this board (I'm not sure if there is), but there are still those with power, and those without. Your idea of a member-driven board is great, but it certainly does not force the moderators in a position to bow to the desires of a few people who make their feelings on a certain issue known.

You are acting like the moderators are not listening to you at all, but only a page or so ahead of this post, I read at least one moderator saying that he would be happy to hear any complaints about any aspect of the forum. Unfortunately, for the mass majority of complainers in this thread, they not only expect the moderating staff to listen, but rather to obey. I'm not sure about the "honor and duty" portion of listening to someone complain, but I do know that the staff have made that an option. Automatically submitting to the complaint was not included in the package.

Moderators best keep in mind that they are as much a part of the forums here as the code that makes it visible.  Their actions, and lack thereof, effect the polulace.  They, like all of us, are the ultimate arbitors of their actions.  I should hope that they are reading this thread and planning actions that are in the best interest of the forum, what ever those actions my end up being.  This type of thread is meant to help them see that they are no better than us and we no better than they.

I think that this is becoming much more idealistic than it needs to be.

The moderators, as people, are equal (that being such an American idea) to everyone else, true. But the power they have, and the powers the administrator have, trump the power you have in terms of who decides how best to run this board. They have already said that they are happy to take suggestions, complaints, and so on, but the final decision is left with them. I haven't heard anyone say that they are not willing to listen, which I think is the goal that you are attempting to argue for. And I certainly don't think it's appropriate for members here to attempt to "size down" the moderating staff. This thread does not need to exist had the proper methods of communication been utilized.

Too many times in CAP do we hear cadets saying, "My cadet staff sucks, and I want to lead an open revolution and MAKE them hear my ideas about how I can make the squadron better", and we always end up telling them the same thing. "You should go through your proper channels if you have a complaint." That is the EXACT same situational logic that needs to be applied here. Calling out anyone you have a disagreement with, whether a superior or a subordinate, in public is generally, especially in CAP, not considered kosher. "Praise in public, scold in private." What we are doing now is basically writing our own Declaration of Independence, telling the staff everything that they are doing wrong and telling them how to change it. In CAP, we tell cadets to go through the chain. Calling out a person with more power than you, even if you're right, is a bad idea because you almost ALWAYS lose. I have learned this from experience, and it's a lesson all cadets learn.

Surprisingly, the senior members on this board have to be taught a lesson that they expect the cadets to abide by...

FYI, if you want the "honorable" way to do this with "integrity", it's to contact them in private, let them know what the problems you see are, and if you'd like, a suggested fix. Every time I receive something like that in the form of a PM, I always immediately post it in the moderator's forum for everyone to see and talk about. I almost always ignore direct accusations and public challenges by board members.

Just some food for thought.

[Major Carrales]

Nathan, you seem to have a hard time dealing with the idea that moderators are not GODS.  Yes, I know you are a young man who has been given a good deal of responsibility at CadetStuff.org, but you have a great deal to learn about the nature of these forums and communities.  And, if you have been reading posts here I submit that you have learned nothing about the interaction of CAP Officers, Cadets and other interested parties.

Your posts are not serving your intended purpose.  In fact, I think some of your rethoric is having the opposite effect.  Some of your commentary and rationale is actually making me believe that some moderators may just be demogauges, and the evidence is inherent in your writings.  You actually justify moderator abuses. 

Read this and read it well, once free speech is impossible in a forum like this (and not abusive speech that certain Amendments do not protect) the usefulness of this forum is at an end.

I suspect this is so from your use of pronouns like "we" when refuting my concepts and ideas about member driven movements in CAP forums.  Can I now expect my posts at CadetStuff to be given sonderbehandlung by this mythical "We?" 

Also, the lengths of your posts reflect that you are somehow bothered by this disucssion.  Relax.  I, on the otherhand, am somewhat bothered by some of your comments. Thus explaining the length of mine. 

...and you don't know what repercussions came with that for the particular moderator in question. For all anyone knows, that moderator could have been told to knock it off. If not, then the administrator found it annoying as well, and if that's the case and you just can't get over the fact that there isn't anything anyone can do about that locked thread, then it's time to find a new board where everyone gets to vote on which threads get locked. This doesn't seem to be it.

How do you know this?  From what vantage point have you that you could know this?  Do you presume to patronize the populace of this forum by making us think you are somehow better than us because you serve as a moderator somewhere else?  You have a lot to learn, my friend. 

Because the moderators are expected to keep an eye on EVERY SINGLE THREAD that is created, having a new topic every time someone doesn't feel like spending five minutes playing with the search gets a bit tedious to monitor. It's much easier for the moderators AND the posters if they just keep as much as they can into one thread.

The Moderators aren't the ones that have to answer.  Most times when someone posts up something, they are soliciting the opinion and collected facts of the populace of the forum.  I have regularly come to this forum and posted an item that I  needed the opinions of varying viewpoints to make a decision as a squadron commander.  The various "Haven't we discussed it before" and "use the search engine" does not help in that regard.

Having things "all in one thread" is useless for purposes of utility. And that is where you seem to have a paradigm difference.  I can assume that to you a forum is a place to meet and talk about CAP stuff or exchange encampment pics or make fun of cadets out of uniform.  I know that to me this and other forums are places to exchange ideas for the betterment of CAP.  The idea is to know people on here and give them what is the best of me and take from them what is the best of them so I can use it.

CAPTALK is not a textbook with an index.  It is a random collection of ideas.  The only order was the discussion, which (after a month or more) has long ended.

You can't compare Captalk and CadetStuff in terms of which should be like the other, because we have two different missions and, more importantly, different moderators. We have our rules, and Captalk has theirs. The will of the people does not overcome the rules of those who host this community. This is member driven, true, but the forum is a SERVICE to the members, and membership is a PRIVILEDGE, not a right.

OK, I would like for you to compare and contrast the missions of both forums and demonstrate how that is germain to this discussion.

The proper channels on a forum consist of anyone who has the power to do what you want to happen. It's the same way in CAP. There may not be a clear cut chain of command on this board (I'm not sure if there is), but there are still those with power, and those without. Your idea of a member-driven board is great, but it certainly does not force the moderators in a position to bow to the desires of a few people who make their feelings on a certain issue known.

I think that becomes the main problem I see here.  The HAVEs vs the HAVE NOTS.  So these guys make a forum as a service to CAP.  What made them do that?  Desire to control CAP Officers and influence the CAP nationwide?  To sqeeze the marrow from the bones of CAP Officers and Cadets by throwing their weight around?  To insult the membership and use vitrolic sarcasm to shame those who are new?

MIKE, Tedda, Pylon and the like, should I bow down to them because they are mods?  The answer is no, I would bow down to them out of respect for their service in CAP and desire to improve the CAP via the forum.  I do bow down to them when they demonstrate wisdom in providing for this the largest and freest forum since CIVIL AIR PORTAL. 

The day I suspect they are abusing that power.  The day they are living by the code you have written in this post and make it clear they are the HAVEs and all others are the Have Nots, is the day I loose respect for them and they loose credibility to everyone here.

Being a Moderator is a responsibility.  Having the power to lock threads and ban people as an absolute requires that a person rise up above their petty annoyances, opinions and bias.  Yes, they can interject it...but that is editorializing.  Ridiculing persons on CAPTALK or mocking their ideas is not cool.  Some moderators here do it occasionally; but the day when they are locking threads to silence disucssion (aside from the blatantly inflamatory) is the day I will leave.

FYI, if you want the "honorable" way to do this with "integrity", it's to contact them in private, let them know what the problems you see are, and if you'd like, a suggested fix. Every time I receive something like that in the form of a PM, I always immediately post it in the moderator's forum for everyone to see and talk about. I almost always ignore direct accusations and public challenges by board members.

You know, I am a moderator at a few forums.  Your constant reminder that you are a moderator and what you do as if to somehow make me less of a member smacks of arrogance.  You may wish to temper that in the future if you want to have credibility.

Nourishment...

[pixelwonk]

you are taking and making this personal. 
if you wish to continue your dramatics, PM each other.

[Nomex Maximus]

Guys,

when I started this thread I simply wanted to suggest that there be a little less locking of discussions. That's really all I was about.  I think some here are taking this way too far.

--NMT

[Nathan]

you are taking and making this personal. 
if you wish to continue your dramatics, PM each other.

Right, which is pretty much why I'm done.

This isn't a court room, and this isn't some Hollywood set where we can sit here and talk about "the little man" and the tyrannical oppressive government. It's a freaking message board where one guy who pays the bills to keep your beloved forums up and running asks the members to do some things in order to participate, and has moderators to enforce that.

That's it.

When we start playing melodrama and acting like this is really a freedom fighter sort of situation, then it's a lost cause. I should point out the irony of attacking someone's right to say something based on their experiences as both a moderator and a regular forum goer, but that would just drag this on further.

[pixelwonk]

When we start playing melodrama and acting like this is really a freedom fighter sort of situation, then it's a lost cause. I should point out the irony of attacking someone's right to say something based on their experiences as both a moderator and a regular forum goer, but that would just drag this on further.

which you've effectively accomplished.
You know that whole " I'm done" thing you mentioned?  ...now would be good.