Unfortunately, one approach to quelling speech used by moderators of chat boards is the locking of threads. Other than preventing destructive speech, it really has no place in a marketplace of ideas. I recently posted a thread expressing a point of view regarding how the board is moderated. Nothing critical, just offering another point of view. That thread was locked. This thread, as the other, is not critical of either posters or moderators. It merely suggested another approach regarding offensive posts: the use of the ignore feature. I instead suggested that the ignore feature restricted one's ability to read posts that, while sometimes disagreeable, might be valuable anyway. And that if a post attacked someone personally (as I had been), one could always use the "Report" function. I even praised the moderators for their careful efforts in responding to such complaints. Locking a thread might very well be a necessary action to stop a flame war, or (more common to stop a poster who is bent on spewing hate on a thread). But it should not be used to stop free speech that otherwise does not violate the terms of service.
Okay fine, we'll do this. I'm all for a marketplace of ideas, but the majority of your comment wasn't about that, it was a gratuitous rehash of a situation that we had already put a lid on, yes with the name of the other party carefully left out, but their identity perfectly clear. We don't want to delete posts, and we don't want to lock threads. But after twenty years here, I think I can tell which threads are going to go south. And frankly, I believe you do too, and that this was an unsubtle attempt to goad the other party into making intemperate remarks, under the guise of being oh-so-reasonable. That's why we precluded replies. In the original incident, you reported a post, and we agreed with you, so we pruned that withered branch off of what was otherwise an interesting thread. You know what would be really helpful when that happens? Taking yes for an answer, and letting the matter drop.
I described the situation because it was relevant. I excluded the name because it was not. At no point did I say anything that would lead one to the person's identity in any way. And no, I have no desire to goad anyone into anything. I just couldn't care less. But I do care about the free exchange of ideas, even if from someone who is often odious in his/her behavior. Go back and look. I have never, ever initiated any discourse with this person, good or bad. You're very good about cutting it off when that person does it and it gets reported, and I appreciate it. But the thread you locked was both unnecessary and had nothing to do with the person in question. Nor does this. Happy New Year!
One other less relevant thing--but not worth starting a thread about: if someone was to take Steve Levicoff's place, would that be acceptable? I won't characterize his posts with specifics--he isn't here to challenge such. But if another poster here was to begin doing what he did, saying what he said to people, would that be okay? Steve had a lot of fans here, after all.
I'll just jump in here as a slightly interested third party. First, I have no clue what incident Rich was referring to or who he was referring to in his opening post. Second, speaking as a Steve Levicoff fan let me try to address the following. Here's my take. He was tolerated by the moderators, I think, because he seemed to treat everyone in the same irreverent manner. I don't think he was usually trying to be insulting as much as trying to be amusing. I think it was just his way. Also, he would usually say his piece and disengage. He would drop his bomb and leave, so to speak. This went a long way, I think, in there not being any issue for the moderators to deal with.
It wasn't a big deal. Another poster was being less-than-nice and I reported a couple of posts. Anything related to them was deleted, which included info I though was both valuable and relevant to the discussion. Then a moderator created a thread, posted once, and locked it. I had another view regarding that, hence this thread. I asked the question because I wanted to see the answer I already knew: that someone acting like him would not be acceptable. I held for a very long time that he was given special treatment and that confirms it. I don't agree with the "hit-and-run" characterization. He unilaterally flamed me for two decades with no one ever stepping in to stop it. Also, he was incredibly rude to new posters. And I think he went way beyond "irreverent." But it was the hypocrisy I wanted to illustrate, not to re-litigate his behavior. And that's been accomplished.
I completely understand your taking a dim view of Levicoff's comments, both at large and about you. But before you start throwing around words like "hypocrisy", consider whether the moderators who are active now are the same as those during his time here, and whether you're certain there may not be internal discussions of which you are unaware.
There's a lot that goes on backstage that members will not be aware of due to our policy of keeping moderator discussions private. If anyone here is wondering about a certain member or another who was once causing some issues around here but has slowed down or become dormant for long periods of time, there's a chance that something was done about it and you'll just never know. Permanent bans are extremely rare for anything other than spam. We have other tools at our disposal, and it works most of the time. One such thing is that over the years, there have been some changes in how some portions of the TOS have been interpreted and applied. If the entire history of this board is taken into account, then yes, there will be uneven outcomes due to these changes. Some people who had previously found a comfortable spot walking on the line may have found that line pulled further on the side of caution to prevent that kind of behavior. Longtime members who have made significant positive contributions over the years are also given a longer leash than newer members. Lastly, there are a handful of situations that Chip (the big boss) has preferred to take care of personally. Those situations are highly contextual and also confidential, sometimes even to the moderators.
By the way, it was decided that we as a community had issues that were better off discussed than deferred, and that this thread was necessary and helpful in that regard.
No, I'm good with that term. And "internal discussions" are moot if they do not result in change. I was fine with my initial post and not really interested in dragging this issue about. I've responded to things written to me, but would rather not. So, I'm done here.
