Question for new Michigan Mods OT

[scot623]

This post ironically enough illustrates his point. Are you incapable of having a civil conversation void of jabs and sarcasm? At the very least, you could have simply ignored it and waited for the moderators. And if you didn't want the 'community' to respond, perhaps you should have pm'ed the mods?

For what its worth, my opinion is that the answer to your original question lies in the way you and a few others post responses exactly like the one I quoted above, instead of having a little tact and professionalism.

Hmmm, wasn't the post I responded to a jab at me?

First, the question was asked openly because I'm sure others are interested in the answer. Second, (jab alert)...you are aware this is an Internet forum? The end all be all place for sarcasm and jabs. Besides, posts of this nature have been on OCDO long before I got here, and threads weren't shut down like this. And lastly, to those who expect certain posters to have "tact and professionalism", you are likely to be continually disappointed. If you feel so strongly about certain people who hold certain positions posting in a certain manner...maybe you should hold those positions so you can control how professional they are perceived.

 

[Shadow Bear]

I'm only looking for mean spirited, personal jabs, potentially illegal or patently false advice and blatant forum rule violations.

Keep it civil & constructive, and we're good. I'll delete a comment before I kill a good debate.

 

[Big Gay Al]

I believe that I may have inadvertently locked the thread when I posted my comment... don't know how other than my post was last so I can accept the assumption.
That being said, I haven't purposely locked any thread... yet. I hesitate doing so only because typically a thread "derails" rather than starting out off-topic. However, I have no hesitation in removing individual posts which blatantly violate the website's rules. That being said, I am willing to consider that I misinterpreted what was being stated and an aggrieved individual is welcome to pm me about my moderating.

Nope, I locked that one last, at the request of the OP.

 

[stainless1911]

Best recent example is the Neighborhood Watch thread. It was humming along, Dr Todd made a comment about the cost of war..and bam! It's locked. There wasn't any personal attacks or nastiness I saw and yet it was closed. I PM'd him to ask why it was locked, he replied he didn't know why and reopened it. A few posts later it was locked "by special request".


The New to Michigan thread died a pretty quick death too...the OP barely had a chance to follow up with questions.

I know the OP, have for years. As soon as it went racial, he wanted it closed. He PMed the mods on my suggestion, and it was locked. you really can't blame the mods for that one.

My personal opinion, I have no problem with OT subjects, but they should be labeled as such, that way, everyone will know the thread is OT, and can ignore it if they wish. That's the way it's been done on other forums I've been on. And I myself have no problem with it being done that way.

The only remaining question would be if the admin agrees with it also. After all, he has the final word.

People can see without a label if a thread is OT, and can participate, or unsubscribe if they wish.

Often, threads will go OT, and will find their way back on topic, sometimes with a friendly nudge. It's the nature of conversation, especially online. A lot can be learned from threads going OT. An OT conversation can bring new views and opinions that would have otherwise been unheard. I have participated in many discussions where the new subject matter, or deviation was much more informative and productive than was the original intended topic.

That said, when threads go into the gutter, it's certainly not productive, but it can be great fun. It's also a good way to really find out what the people we think we know here are really like in personality. Sometimes things are said to make a point, or to do a little trolling now and then, many are guilty of that. Sometimes it's for good reason, sometimes, not so much. Bottom line, don't believe everything you read on the internet.

 

[scot623]

Unless a thread gets down right nasty or violates the established rules, I see no benefit to locking it. I don't care who requests it, it's not as if the OP owns the thread. Plus all this thread locking kills any chance of the awesome necro-posts that happen from time to time.

 

[autosurgeon]

Unless a thread gets down right nasty or violates the established rules, I see no benefit to locking it. I don't care who requests it, it's not as if the OP owns the thread. Plus all this thread locking kills any chance of the awesome necro-posts that happen from time to time.

I agree...

 

[Big Gay Al]

My main reference was to threads like this. Totally off topic. Something that starts out OT, should be labeled as such. As long as it is, then I have no problem with it. Now, there was another topic that I deleted, partially as OT, and partially as I got more than one complaint that it might be considered LEO bashing. That was the one with the picture of the Detroit female officer who had a gun in her mouth. Some things just don't belong on this forum. That one, was questionable in my opinion. But, with more than one complaint about it, I felt it was better off being gone.

My biggest gripe, since taking on this volunteer position is that I've been asked by at least 2 people to do something about a certain someone. It has been told to me that there is an exodus from this forum to MOC's forum. I'm not sure I see it. I look at both forums, and this one still seems to have more traffic. Frankly, I would like to see MOC's forums get more use. But I like this one also.

My thing is this, don't ask me to ban anyone, I can't do it. So far as I know, none of the Michigan Mods have the power to ban anyone. All we can do is pass on complaints to the admin, and frankly, if you have a problem with someone, I think you should tell the admin yourself. I personally, don't have a problem with anyone in here....well, maybe one or two. But, for the most part, I always try to get along with everyone. And as for complaining about the way someone responds to someone else's post, I think it's best to let the "victim" complain about it. If he or she doesn't object, or doesn't feel insulted, who are we to tell them that they were?

 

[stainless1911]

I didnt like the gun in mouth one either.

 

[Grapeshot]

Unless a thread gets down right nasty or violates the established rules, I see no benefit to locking it. I don't care who requests it, it's not as if the OP owns the thread. Plus all this thread locking kills any chance of the awesome necro-posts that happen from time to time.

Interestingly enough, editing/deleting/locking and overall moderating is not about who agrees with it. It is about keeping the site in conformity with the standards of OCDO as directed by the owner/administrator.

 

[scot623]

Interestingly enough, editing/deleting/locking and overall moderating is not about who agrees with it. It is about keeping the site in conformity with the standards of OCDO as directed by the owner/administrator.

You highlighted something I wrote and made a statement that had nothing to do with my quote. I merely stated, whether the OP of a thread requests it be locked should be immaterial. Locking threads "just because" seems silly to me.

 

[Grapeshot]

Originally Posted by scot623

Unless a thread gets down right nasty or violates the established rules, I see no benefit to locking it. I don't care who requests it, it's not as if the OP owns the thread. Plus all this thread locking kills any chance of the awesome necro-posts that happen from time to time.

Interestingly enough, editing/deleting/locking and overall moderating is not about who agrees with it. It is about keeping the site in conformity with the standards of OCDO as directed by the owner/administrator.

You highlighted something I wrote and made a statement that had nothing to do with my quote. I merely stated, whether the OP of a thread requests it be locked should be immaterial. Locking threads "just because" seems silly to me.

Oh it has everything to do with it.

You use the personal pronoun "I" 3 times referring to yourself, ending with "I" don't care who requests it. That's the real difference - I do care.

The administrator has honored the requests of OPs to lock a thread - approved or not on a case by case basis. Moderators simply follow his lead.

BTW - that is calling bolding - I seldom [highlight]highlight[/highlight]

 

[TheQ]

It seems this thread has a lot of testosterone in it -- maybe we should lock it:question:

:shocker: :cuss: :banghead:

 

[scot623]

Oh it has everything to do with it.

You use the personal pronoun "I" 3 times referring to yourself, ending with "I" don't care who requests it. That's the real difference - I do care.

The administrator has honored the requests of OPs to lock a thread - approved or not on a case by case basis. Moderators simply follow his lead.

BTW - that is calling bolding - I seldom [highlight]highlight[/highlight]

COMMENTS REMOVED BY ADMINISTRATOR: Personal attacks / inappropriate

 

[MKEgal]

(general rudeness)

:shocker:
Who peed in your Wheaties this morning?

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/misc.php?do=showrules
(2) RIGHT TO EDIT AND DELETE POSTS: We reserve the right to edit or remove posts for any reason, at any time, at our sole discretion.

(6) NO PERSONAL ATTACKS: While you may disagree strongly with another poster based upon their opinion, we will NOT tolerate any personal attacks or general bashing of groups of people based upon race, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, gender-identity or choice of occupation (e.g., being a law enforcement officer, in the military, etc). NOTE THAT THIS RULE APPLIES TO PMs AS WELL AS FORUM POSTS!!!

(9) HATE IS NOT WELCOME HERE: Any posts attacking others based upon race, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, gender-identity, or anything other than opposition to gun rights is NOT WELCOME HERE!
We reserve the right to impose immediate bans for such behavior.

 

[Evil Creamsicle]

Hmmm, wasn't the post I responded to a jab at me?

First, the question was asked openly because I'm sure others are interested in the answer. Second, (jab alert)...you are aware this is an Internet forum? The end all be all place for sarcasm and jabs. Besides, posts of this nature have been on OCDO long before I got here, and threads weren't shut down like this. And lastly, to those who expect certain posters to have "tact and professionalism", you are likely to be continually disappointed. If you feel so strongly about certain people who hold certain positions posting in a certain manner...maybe you should hold those positions so you can control how professional they are perceived.

Hey I'm not looking for you to be a shining example of corporate political correctness, in fact I don't really personally give a damn how you conduct yourself, nor am I necessarily 'expecting' anything from you. My comment was more about what I wouldn't have expected from you. But since I no longer hold those expectations, believe me, it is a one-time-only disappointment.

 

[Tucker6900]

COMMENTS REMOVED BY ADMINISTRATOR: Personal attacks / inappropriate

LMAO!

Oh man. It was a mistake making anyone a moderator outside of the original members. Say what you want, but that is the reason for this thread.

To the suits: You gave power to members when it was unnecessary. As my previous post mentioned, if you would have handle the situation better from the beginning, this wouldnt be an issue. Instead of causing chaos in the forums by putting "law" in place, UPHOLD THE RULES YOU ALREADY HAVE!! Like I said before, this truly resembles our current .gov operational status.

"Sir we have a problem."
"What is it?"
"People are not following the rules."
"Should we warn them that they will be banned if they continue?"
"Nah, lets just get more cops."

 

[stainless1911]

Grapeshot is a supermoderator, he can moderate anywhere, it is his job. I have taken a liking to the guy myself. Michigan is a very busy forum, and people were complaining about moderators who werent even from here, so now we have some. I see no problems with the choice of local moderators here either, smart, level headed folks dedicated to the OC movement in Michigan. People have been either banned, or warned. One advantage of not banning people, is that we all know who they are, under a recognizable screen name, instead of having to smoke them out and re ban them.

 

[scot623]

One advantage of not banning people, is that we all know who they are, under a recognizable screen name, instead of having to smoke them out and re ban them.

Yes...that is one of the many, MANY advantages of not banning jackholes...[sarc]

We certainly wouldn't want to have to deal with the likes of Legislave and Leadhose over here...

 

[stainless1911]

Actually, it is.

You only had 2 of my screen names over there?

 

[TheQ]

I renew my suggestion:

It seems this thread has a lot of testosterone in it -- maybe we should lock it:question:



:shocker: :cuss: :banghead: