Too much locking.

[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.