Too much locking.

[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.