I'm confused?

I\'m confused?

I thought that "The Cafe" was for off topic discussion of non-flashlight topics.

Yet lately, anytime anything becomes the least bit controversial, not even adverserial, just with a disagreement of opinion, it seems to get shutdown or a mod seems to hush everyone down.

I've seen it most recently happen twice on threads about the new Supreme Court ruling on eminent domain, but similar results have occurred with other topics.

Is this not the place to discuss this? I went back and read the posting guidelines and it SEEMS to be pertinent and appropriate, so I'm more than confused!

The only thing I see is this from Empath:

"Occasionally it becomes necessary for various reasons to close a thread. For whatever reasons, the moderators or administrators have determined that the topic or activity has reached a point of conclusion and input is no longer permitted.

Once a topic or subject has reached such a point and the thread is closed, it is not permitted activity to attempt to continue such discussion by means of renewing the discussion in existing threads, opening new threads, nor any other ingenious methods of circumventing the intent of the moderator's or administrator's decision to conclude the discussion.

ALL parties involved in such efforts will be subject to having their posting privileges restricted."

While I certainly won't and don't want to complain or whine about the rules, I'm confused as to what the rule is!

This latest thread certainly seemed appropriate, though I will certainly admit that some of the venting in the other similar thread was NOT.

However, honest, open discussion seems to benefit everyone, so long as no one is attacked or harmed. This last discussion and news article seemed reasonably restrained and the topic certainly seemed to be kept on the subject.

There didn't seem to be anyhing threatening about it in the least.

Bill

Re: I\'m confused?

the way i see it is its hard to be a moderater.im sure they make mistakes so if they close a thread i like.i just find a new thread ive had a few threads ive started closed kinda bummed me at the time but then i just found new thread

Re: I\'m confused?

Its impossible to be a mod...they watch this, ALL of it, ALL day long. I think the modding here is MORE than fair . They have seen most all of it before, and will usually stop the bad experience before it gets outta hand. My congrats, no butt-kiss here either.. there are other rabbit holes to hide in. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/bowdown.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/buttrock.gif

Re: I\'m confused?

I'm not criticizing the mods...I'm trying to figure out what the real guidelines are.

It's sort of like when you are a kid and told, "don't do that" but no reason is given because you wouldn't understand it anyway. The problem is, most of us are adults, and the ones who aren't tend to act like they are, so if we had the guidelines and the reasons, it would be much easier to stick to them.

Bill

Re: I\'m confused?

lol bwaitees im not sure what they are either.i dont think there set it stone they kinda look how a thread is going and then decide if they should stop it beofre something happens

Re: I\'m confused?

I think that specific eminent domain thread died because somebody invoked Second Amendment rights as a defense against improper use of eminent domain powers. While no overt threat against an elected official was made, the implication was pretty obvious. Empath had made it quite clear within the thread that threats of violence against government officials or agencies would be grounds for locking, after re-opening the thread.

I'm OK with The Cafe hosting non-flashlight-related topics, but I don't necessarily want the mods to tolerate a lot of controversy and acrimony. We're not all adults here, and I usually appreciate the moderators erring on the side of caution when a thread starts to go bad. There's plenty of goofiness in the Underground for those that want it, not to mention the innumerable *other* forums available on teh Intarnets suitable for flamewars.

Re: I\'m confused?

There's nothing really confusing about it. The thread itself was okay. However, it was a continuation of a closed topic. As was pointed out, reopening the topic in a new thread in order to circumvent the closure isn't permitted, so it too was closed.

What purpose would it serve to close a thread, if it was only going to be continued by opening a new one on the same topic?

Basically, the topic of the Supreme Court decision regarding property seizure through eminent domain is closed to CPF. If and when the subject is approached again on this board, it would be at a later date when connecting the activity of one thread to the other isn't likely.

Re: I\'m confused?

I completely missed the part about implied violence in the thread. If that was the reason for the closure then I stand corrected. I'll sit down now.

Re: I\'m confused?

Just so I don't inadvertently create more confusion...

The *original* thread I mentioned (i.e. the 2nd Amendment one) is here:

High court expands home seizure right


The *second* eminent domain thread (with no reference to 2nd Amendment) that bwaites and Empath seem to be referring to is here:

Supreme Justice's house/and may be seized

Heh, wouldn't it be ironic and fitting if the thread were locked now, since it seems to have dead-ended? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

Re: I\'m confused?

Empath,

So it is clear to me, as I understand it, the thread was closed because of the topic, not the implied threat?

I could certainly understand the closure based on the threat, but the closure would not then be subject to reopening rules if the threat was the reason for the closure, not the topic itself.

I think the topic is pertinent, it's a very important issue today and while I would vehemently disagree with those who would threaten others based on the decision, to outlaw the topic simply because it may be volatile seems to be reaching.

What you seem to be saying is that it might be OK at another time, but even that stretches it, because anyone who has seen it will simply search the old thread.

I'm sorry, but it seems we have gotten to where we are SO politically correct and worried about offense that even logical, cogent discussion is now avoided.

Because one person, or even two or three, cannot handle proper discourse, instead of telling THEM how to act, we simply cut off the discourse.

Many of us simply avoid the "Underground" altogether because too many otherwise reasonable people spout off completely out of control when their identity is hidden. We don't appreciate the language, the aggressive behavior and so on found there.

Many of us belong to CPF because we have found the vast majority of people here also refuse to subject themselves to similar offense at other sites, but desire honest, open discourse.

The problem would be very easy to fix. Require EVERYONE use a variant of their real name, post their real name in their profiles and give a legitimate email address. When people know who you are and your name is on it, it takes a lot of the stupidity away.

However, as it is, I frequent the "Cafe" less and less because less and less real discussion occurs here.

I suspect that like many who have migrated to other places, I will soon do the same, since REAL discourse here is becoming less and less common. I used to read the "Cafe" topics assiduously, now I seldom spend more than 30 seconds checking to see if something besides the usual has shown up.

The "Cafe", once, not too many months ago, had active and interesting discussions on many varied topics, but now it's most active threads are "what kinds of .... do you like?". While those threads certainly deserve their place here, they don't lead to much useful discussion.

The minds at CPF are bright and sharp and interesting, but more and more we are seeing the "lowest common denominator" causing a thread to be closed, while many with interesting thoughts then can no longer discuss the topic.

I have had my mind changed about many things here, declawing of cats, LED superiority, etc. Now though, there is not a single topic in the "Cafe" that really holds any interest, much less can convincingly discuss and show opposing points of view.

As for the closure of that particular thread, of course the previous thread deserved some guidance, but ban the OFFENDER, not the topic. This seems all too reminiscent of those who would ban guns, not the criminals who use them inappropriately!

Oh well, I expect now I'll be closed or banned for "complaining or whining". I'm sorry, but it seems like someone had to say it!

Bill

Edited for grammar.

Re: I\'m confused?

PM sent instead.

Re: I\'m confused?

I do not expect the mods here to fix the worlds ills nor do I believe you do , I believe they are simply doing more than can be expected in todays "climate". Most things that occur here are barometers to what occurs outside of this forums limited presence. Please don't take this as being hostile in ANY way.

Re: I\'m confused?

The topic could end up winning an award for the most closed/reopend topic. The topic has been closed twice on the original thread, and reopened once. The follow-up thread has been closed once. With the second thread's initiating topic being a discussion of vengeful effort against one of the SC justices, I'd suspect that vengeance discussion would begin even earlier. The original thread also had a tendency to go off in the directions of socialist/liberal/conservative/left/right type accusations, but was held relatively stable through some persuasive suggestion. Permitting those types of responses too, leads a thread straight for a train-wreck. The threats of course can not be tolerated, period.


Now, why did I just bother writing such a boring paragraph? Aaron, sent me a persuasive and well written PM, just as you too presented yourself well. The first thread survived as long as it did, partially, because there was someone involved that would push it back when it's topic headed off. It's not that the posters want to take it off on tangents. It's just the nature of forum threads. With someone there reminding them, sometimes it helps. And then sometimes, nothing helps.

Bwaites, and IlluminatingBikr, if you'll agree to watch over the thread, and attempt to keep it within reasonable limits, I'll reopen it. If it gets closed this time due to threats, or the train-wreck of discord from political accusation and labeling of other members, or placing blame (excessively) on the opinions and philosophy of other's political preferences, then it will suffer a final closure. I couldn't imagine myself reopening it a third time. Three closures, and two reopenings are sufficient.

I'll await your answers and agreement. Following that, or given sufficient time for response, I'll be closing this thread, since technically it's a violation of the rules.

Re: I\'m confused?

Empath,

I have no problem watching over the thread and trying to steer it to keep it on course, but as you mentioned, sometimes that becomes impossible to do, and especially so if you have no administrative power.

However, my point was really only illustrated by this thread, in that too often now we see closures simply because the thread MAY get offensive or inappropriate, not because it is! I still prefer to see individuals held accountable for their actions, instead of blaming the thread or the topic itself.

I recognize the difficulty in the mods/admins job, and have posted many times how much I appreciate the job you all do. It is difficult and with little appreciation for the effort!

That said, I appreciate the time you have taken to consider my points, and apparently those of IlluminatingBikr!

Thanks for listening!

Bill