A Process/Philosophy Question

[Blacknight]

One thing that very much irritates me about this Forum is the rather abrupt manner in which David, Gene and, now apparently, Paul Kimbal, can stop--and have stopped--a thread. I'd like to understand the thinking which feels it's appropriate to have an individual unilaterally decide when a thread has run its course and is to be closed. There's no debate, discussion or opportunity to dispute such a decision. And, on more than one occasion, I've felt it's been used as much as a deflecting tactic as a legitimate reflection of a thread having run its course.

Certainly I understand it's Gene's bat and ball and he can establish any rules and parameters he wishes. But in an open forum, particularly one on a subject which, by its very nature, should not merely support but encourage an honest and free dialogue, why does one person have authority to shut down continued input. Shouldn't a forum be self sustaining? Won't dialogue end when it has run it's natural course? It always seems to do that in every other thread. Why then is there even a facility for allowing individuals to impose near-despotic power to close down discussion?

In an environment in which truly vibrant and forthright debate gets too often shut down by static, political correctness and louder voices, it's disappointing that a "community forum" can have that community shut down at the whim of one person.

Let me be clear. I resent this and think closing a thread is a terrible thing to do. It is the equivalent of someone speaking to a peer as if he were a child, dismissively and derisively saying "You have nothing else to say, nothing more to contribute, so just go stand in the corner and shut up now!"

And my question is this...What is the justification and the philosophy behind even allowing such a thing except in the most extraordinary and limited of circumstances?

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Actually if you read our Terms of Service, you'll realize we do have the authority to restrict content for specified reasons -- or no reason.

This forum is available to the public, but it's run a private company. It's our sandbox. We try to be reasonable, but if things get out of hand, or threaten to, we will act appropriately.

You may disagree with us, but it's not a democracy here.

 

[marmer]

If I had to guess, I would guess that those gentlemen who have guest hosted some episodes have been given moderator status. The thread which just closed looked like a train wreck about to happen. PK has my thanks for his swift action.

 

[Blacknight]

I understand that you have the RIGHT to close a thread, I said exactly that in my post. You have the right to censor, modify, delete, selective bar participation, etc.

My question was not that. My question was, simply, this: Is it RIGHT to do that, not do you have THE right to do it. On more than one occasion a thread has been closed not because it was becoming legally problematic or obscene or even that it had clearly run its course but because one of he administrators thought it was being critical or seemed to be hitting a bit too close to the bone. So help me understand this. Are you saying administrators have unfettered discretion to close a thread whenever and for whatever reason he chooses? Are there are guidelines whatsoever?

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Common sense. It was poised to get out of hand. Time to move on.

Let's talk about the paranormal — which is why we're here. The thread is closed!