Some help from mods on why a thread gets locked

[GunLawyer001]

Abuse his power?

The inclusion of checks and balances to power is generally regarded as good for a wide range of different organizations.

Whether the mod has integrity or not, just the perception by users that the mod might not have integrity is harmful to the organization. People with the ability to provide good content to the forum will generally avoid places that appear to be organizationally corrupt or biased in favor of bad cops (now that the topics have blended here ).

I suppose that those who assume that all cops abuse their power, are likely to assume that all mods abuse their power as well. Yet you say nothing about abuses by any members, which echoes those who accuse the Ferguson cop or the Baltimore cops or the Rodney King cops, without mentioning that every one of those "victims" was a bad guy who was doing bad things.

How would you feel about a corollary to your proposed "mods in a thread are powerless to do anything" rule, that anyone receiving an infraction is barred from commenting on the moderator who issued it? Or perhaps, anyone who started 5 anti-cop threads has used up his lifetime limit on participating in anti-cop threads? That would help prevent the sort of bias you see, wouldn't it?

I think a lot of this stems from the "nobody tells me what to do" mindset, which works great if you're living alone in a vast wilderness, building your own house from local lumber and carving an iPad from local rocks and silicon, but it fails utterly the moment you have to interact with other human beings who have rights and expectations. I suspect it's why we never heard of the "Mountain Men Union" or the "Misanthropes Annual Dinner" (similar to why you never attended a "Procrastinator's Gala".) On a related note, it's why pure libertarianism could never work, because everything I've seen assumes that "someone" enforces the few rules, and that "someone" would need more enforcement powers than the extreme libertarians expect; those "voluntary contracts" aren't going to enforce themselves, you know, and the libertarians would chafe under those enforcers.

[Carnes]

I suppose that those who assume that all cops abuse their power, are likely to assume that all mods abuse their power as well. Yet you say nothing about abuses by any members, which echoes those who accuse the Ferguson cop or the Baltimore cops or the Rodney King cops, without mentioning that every one of those "victims" was a bad guy who was doing bad things.

How would you feel about a corollary to your proposed "mods in a thread are powerless to do anything" rule, that anyone receiving an infraction is barred from commenting on the moderator who issued it? Or perhaps, anyone who started 5 anti-cop threads has used up his lifetime limit on participating in anti-cop threads? That would help prevent the sort of bias you see, wouldn't it?

I think a lot of this stems from the "nobody tells me what to do" mindset, which works great if you're living alone in a vast wilderness, building your own house from local lumber and carving an iPad from local rocks and silicon, but it fails utterly the moment you have to interact with other human beings who have rights and expectations. I suspect it's why we never heard of the "Mountain Men Union" or the "Misanthropes Annual Dinner" (similar to why you never attended a "Procrastinator's Gala".) On a related note, it's why pure libertarianism could never work, because everything I've seen assumes that "someone" enforces the few rules, and that "someone" would need more enforcement powers than the extreme libertarians expect; those "voluntary contracts" aren't going to enforce themselves, you know, and the libertarians would chafe under those enforcers.

You confuse libertarians with anarchists, you fail to see the value in checking and balancing power, and you use rhetoric riddled with logical fallacies to support your position.

You're the mod, you do as you please. But, don't assume that most people here are too stupid to see when you are blowing smoke. Generally, when you are making a good quality argument (which you frequently do, just not this time), you don't need to resort to suggesting that the people opposd to your position are progressive, anarchist, mouth-breathing, temper-tantrum throwing children.

Logic and reason generally suffice, unless you are wrong, then the logical fallacies start flying.

[Noah_Zark]

Well stated. I nominate you for a moderator position...

No thanks. You couldn't pay me to be a forum mod . . .

Not me, he's too wordy. Wall of text BS.

Sez the man who used to carry around a 2" thick code book . . .

Noah

[gummy jones]

can we lock this down already?

[GunLawyer001]

You confuse libertarians with anarchists, you fail to see the value in checking and balancing power, and you use rhetoric riddled with logical fallacies to support your position.

You're the mod, you do as you please. But, don't assume that most people here are too stupid to see when you are blowing smoke. Generally, when you are making a good quality argument (which you frequently do, just not this time), you don't need to resort to suggesting that the people opposd to your position are progressive, anarchist, mouth-breathing, temper-tantrum throwing children.

Logic and reason generally suffice, unless you are wrong, then the logical fallacies start flying.

What I wrote is what I wrote, and I'll let the words speak for themselves for the other 60K members to evaluate. You don't have to agree, but there are people on the Internet who just can't accept that someone else can make them do (or not do) anything on private forums. And the same people hate cops, and mods, and zoning restrictions, and home owners associations, and people who ask them not to talk during movies or smoke in restaurants.*

(*When drawing comparisons, I'm not necessarily accusing you of smoking in a restaurant or being an extreme libertarian; the point of comparisons and analogies is to change the context to illuminate a truth in the topic at hand. This confuses some, such as the folks who hear "if we allow gay marriage, what principled reason is there to ban incestuous marriage?" and think they hear "gays are just like pedophiles". Listen and read carefully, it's a matter of respect and civility.)

[phill]

can we lock this down already?

In total agreement!!!!!!!!!!!! I personally have had to change my opinions on several who had appeared to be squared away individuals. As I suggested to GBO days ago please leave it lay.

[Noah_Zark]

Okay.

Noah