Blacknight
Seeker
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?
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?