• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Thread Closure Question

DanM

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2008
Messages
1,934
Location
West Bloomfield, Michigan, USA
In the Michigan sub-forum, moderator "Shadow Bear" closed my thread "Question about MOC's philosophy on use of open carry gatherings." The issue arises from MOC's Facebook quotes that I provided and is relevant to open carriers generally in Michigan. I started the thread seeking a response from MOC, then in later posts I invited others to discuss my concerns.
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?108909-Question-about-MOC-s-philosophy-on-use-of-open-carry-gatherings

I need to understand the moderation, so that my threads do not get locked. I try to post things that are on topic for the website, within the rules, and won't cause moderators to use the nuclear option of deletion or locking. Obviously, the latter requires some predictability of the moderation. My questions arise from Shadow Bear's locking of the thread. The locking of my thread was surprising to me, and I now find myself at a loss to predict how Shadow Bear will moderate going forward. The only clues I have are Shadow Bear's last two posts in the thread:

Shadow Bear said:
When you wish to engage someone in discussion, you need to go where they are. Please feel free to post on MOC's forum; its obvious that you're not going to get satisfaction here; asking the same question over & over here will not help.
Shadow Bear said:
WilDChilD said:
I don't know if that's correct anymore. OCDO has become the Jersey Shore of gun forum. Everybody likes a good train wreck though.
Raggs said:
OK, but perhaps they should monitor here. This forum is a little more active than MOCs
The pity is, these two statements are a great observation. Time to do my job.
 

Shadow Bear

Michigan Moderator
Joined
Dec 17, 2010
Messages
1,018
Location
Grand Rapids
Seems pretty clear to others- if Mike wishes to address MOC leadership, and they've declined to engage him here- go to their forum.

Otherwise, its a waste of bandwidth. Thank Mike for the lock
 
Last edited:

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,182
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Just reading the complaint and the response, IMO, this is overmoderation.

We shouldn't lock ineffective threads, only those that are doing some harm. That thread may well be wasting bandwidth, but it can't possibly be wasting enough to be doing any harm to this site.

JMO, but sometimes less moderation is more. Be moderate in your moderation.
 

DanM

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2008
Messages
1,934
Location
West Bloomfield, Michigan, USA
Seems pretty clear to others- if Mike wishes to address MOC leadership, and they've declined to engage him here- go to their forum.

Otherwise, its a waste of bandwidth. Thank Mike for the lock
Do you mean Mike Stilly? My thread, whose audience for consumption and potential response is not only MOC but any open carry advocate here and covers a bona fide open carry issue backed up with source material, was locked because MOC stopped responding to Mike Stilly?

This does not make sense. It appears you are allowing "heckler's veto" to dictate that you lock entire threads, instead of moderating the heckler.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckler's_veto

To whom do I submit an appeal of your decision?
 
Last edited:

EMNofSeattle

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2012
Messages
3,671
Location
S. Kitsap, Washington state
maybe they should make a "Michigan minus Michigan mods" sub-forum where issues can be discussed without every single thread being locked.

the number of locked threads on that forum is astounding, the amount of venom on the michigan forum is way too extreme....
 

KBCraig

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
4,585
Location
Granite State of Mind
I'm unaware of any other state subforum even having moderators at all. The mere fact that I know Michigan's moderators by name, when there is relatively little rancor in that forum, indicates excessive use of the lock hammer.
 

Big Gay Al

Michigan Moderator
Joined
Aug 27, 2006
Messages
1,954
Location
Mason, Michigan, USA
I'm unaware of any other state subforum even having moderators at all. The mere fact that I know Michigan's moderators by name, when there is relatively little rancor in that forum, indicates excessive use of the lock hammer.
Clearly, you've not read all the threads in there.
 

Big Gay Al

Michigan Moderator
Joined
Aug 27, 2006
Messages
1,954
Location
Mason, Michigan, USA
I've read all of those that were recently locked, and saw nothing to warrant such.

I've also seen much more vigorous debate in other state forums, where people manage to move on without having threads locked.
Depending on the thread, some were closed at the request of the original poster. Some were closed for other, valid reasons.

I will close a thread if the OP requests it, since the OP can't do it themselves. My reasoning, I've seen some forum programs that do allow the person who starts a thread to close it. In most of the instances where the OP requested such action the conversation had either strayed way off topic, or else the vitriol was getting really thick. As for threads closed by other mods, I can't answer for them.
 
Last edited:

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,829
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
Thread Closures are the WORST possible option, for MANY reasons

Similar to the PM I sent Grapes, Mike, and John, but with a few key changes:

Grape recently wrote, "Gone waay too far off topic - no longer relative to the OP. Locked."

In 2006, when a local hooch on base in Yongsan, Korea (Seoul) was getting out of hand, and I held authority to either look the other way or shut it down, I chose the third option. I had a beer. In fact, I had several. During the course of that action, however, the bartender got the message: He was the moderator, and I expected him to moderate. That didn't mean shutting things down at the first hint of trouble. Instead, it meant growing a pair and sending the trouble-makers on their way before they could spoil things for the rest of us who were behaving ourselves, regardless of our state on inebriation.

Shutting down the whole shebang at the first, second, or third sign of trouble punishes everyone for the sins of one or two.

You cannot run a forum by doing precisely the same thing that we as this Internet forum's community decry as "foul" when practiced by federales.

Unless you're dealing with a spam thread, locking threads is the worst possible response any forum admin or mod could do. It punishes everyone for the actions of the few. This is precisely what we decry in our legislators with respect to our roles as law-abiding citizens, particularly with respect to our right to keep and bear arms. How can we possibly practice that which we preach against day in and day out as heinous actions taken by the government in their attempts to deprive us of our Constitutional rights?

Mike, John, I implore you to please stop this abhorrent practice.

Here's a thought: Use one of my rules as an admin on other forums to my mods:

9. Shutting down threads should only be used as a means of last resort. If the thread began as spam, don't just shut it down. Delete it and ban the user violating our no-spam rule. Post a brief note in our admin/forum log. If a thread seems like it's either getting out of hand or well off-topic, however, post a warning or two in thread in response to those who are dragging it off topic. If they continue, give them 24 hours off, along with a brief but friendly advisory to rethink their ways, with a link to the rules. If they continue upon returning, give them another message, again friendly, but in an "Hey, we let you know that wasn't acceptable, and pointed you to the rules (hyperlink "rules")," and give them three days off. If they persist, try 7 days, then 21, 3 months, then 6 months, and a year. Update the admin/mod forum so the rest of us remain aware of what's going on.​

But shutting down a thread? Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. That's the same travesty of justice against which we complain with respect to our right to keep and bear arms. Such hypocrisy should never be tolerated on any message forum, much less one supporting our right to keep and bear arms in the current political climate.

In summary, thread-locking is a mindless way out. It's a cheap, lazy response to a very real situation with highly relevant issues and easily worked alternatives. Punishing everyone for the sins of the few, however, remains precisely that why the vast majority of us here at OCDO are here: No acceptable. When the alternative requires so little additional work (I've been there, done that), there remains absolute zero excuse for thread closures. Such actions harm those who were legitimately participating in the thread, and harm both the forum as well as the community of open carriers as a whole.

Addendum: Yes, this message, this thread, and the entire thread in question have been preserved for posterity, screen shots and all. All too often in American history, important things keep "disappearing."

No more.
 
Last edited:

Maverick9

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
1,400
Location
Mid-atlantic
I've also experienced overmoderation (IMO) and asked for a thread not to be deleted or be undeleted. This thread contained nothing which would require deletion, perhaps closure.

I asked politely in a PM it be undeleted just so people could see the link to a relevant item. It was declined. Further I was scolded for not providing a link to the message for the Moderator (IIRC).

People have their own agenda. Sometimes there's good, sometimes not so good. Information wants to be free, IMO.

(Note, it's been a while, so I could be hazy on some of the particulars above. Please forgive - it's early and coffee has not yet been obtained).
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,347
Location
Valhalla
False premise & allegation

Similar to the PM I sent Grapes, Mike, and John, but with a few key changes:

Grape recently wrote, "Gone waay too far off topic - no longer relative to the OP. Locked."

In 2006, when a local hooch on base in Yongsan, Korea (Seoul) was getting out of hand, and I held authority to either look the other way or shut it down, I chose the third option. I had a beer. In fact, I had several. During the course of that action, however, the bartender got the message: He was the moderator, and I expected him to moderate. That didn't mean shutting things down at the first hint of trouble. Instead, it meant growing a pair and sending the trouble-makers on their way before they could spoil things for the rest of us who were behaving ourselves, regardless of our state on inebriation.

Shutting down the whole shebang at the first, second, or third sign of trouble punishes everyone for the sins of one or two.

You cannot run a forum by doing precisely the same thing that we as this Internet forum's community decry as "foul" when practiced by federales.

Unless you're dealing with a spam thread, locking threads is the worst possible response any forum admin or mod could do. It punishes everyone for the actions of the few. This is precisely what we decry in our legislators with respect to our roles as law-abiding citizens, particularly with respect to our right to keep and bear arms. How can we possibly practice that which we preach against day in and day out as heinous actions taken by the government in their attempts to deprive us of our Constitutional rights?

Mike, John, I implore you to please stop this abhorrent practice.

Here's a thought: Use one of my rules as an admin on other forums to my mods:
9. Shutting down threads should only be used as a means of last resort. If the thread began as spam, don't just shut it down. Delete it and ban the user violating our no-spam rule. Post a brief note in our admin/forum log. If a thread seems like it's either getting out of hand or well off-topic, however, post a warning or two in thread in response to those who are dragging it off topic. If they continue, give them 24 hours off, along with a brief but friendly advisory to rethink their ways, with a link to the rules. If they continue upon returning, give them another message, again friendly, but in an "Hey, we let you know that wasn't acceptable, and pointed you to the rules (hyperlink "rules")," and give them three days off. If they persist, try 7 days, then 21, 3 months, then 6 months, and a year. Update the admin/mod forum so the rest of us remain aware of what's going on.​

But shutting down a thread? Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. That's the same travesty of justice against which we complain with respect to our right to keep and bear arms. Such hypocrisy should never be tolerated on any message forum, much less one supporting our right to keep and bear arms in the current political climate.

In summary, thread-locking is a mindless way out. It's a cheap, lazy response to a very real situation with highly relevant issues and easily worked alternatives. Punishing everyone for the sins of the few, however, remains precisely that why the vast majority of us here at OCDO are here: No acceptable. When the alternative requires so little additional work (I've been there, done that), there remains absolute zero excuse for thread closures. Such actions harm those who were legitimately participating in the thread, and harm both the forum as well as the community of open carriers as a whole.

Addendum: Yes, this message, this thread, and the entire thread in question have been preserved for posterity, screen shots and all. All too often in American history, important things keep "disappearing."

No more.
Many posts violated the OPs request and my admonition to honor that restriction. The thread could have been deleted. It was not - it was left available to be read, just not accepting more replies, therefore no one was harmed. The OP's point was to ensure that everyone knew of her passing - that was accomplished.

You presume to know what action may or may not have been taken regarding other posters. Point of fact you do not - that is not open to public discussion or disclosure.

Comparing OCDO to "federales" is a strawman argument. OCDO is private property and we guests thereon who have voluntarily agreed to abide by the owners' wishes. OTOH it is the government that is restricted regarding our RKBA. These are polar opposites.

You are free to run your forums as you wish, but have no license to dictate by rant, intimidation and/or false allegation how this forum is moderated. You then compound the issue with insulting words: mindless, cheap, lazy AND quote virtually the exact contents of a PM (private message) w/o even waiting for a response. Divulging the contents of a PM is a rather serious violation as are the insulting remarks.

You chose to "go public" - I can only conclude to force your opinion. Think you have become the pot calling the kettle black....and that is a shame.
 

twoskinsonemanns

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Messages
2,326
Location
WV
I don't see the practicality of complaining. This site is private property. There are rules listed as a courtesy to the posters as an indication of why your posts/threads might be edited or deleted. But it is a courtesy.
You may be edited on a whim such as disagreeing with a moderator or a friend of a moderator. But realize your presence here is a privilege provided to you without cost. Complaining is useless.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
7,054
Location
here nc
OMG, this Bovine scat is almost 2.5 years old, REALLY since9, you dust off your soap box to climb upon to make a political statement against something that occurred that long, long ago and mismanagement your argument so badly at that!

surely, since9 and maverick there are more contemporary issues you can whine about?

grabbing a bag of Boy Scout Caramel Corn to munch on as i watch the firefight..

ipse
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,347
Location
Valhalla
I don't see the practicality of complaining. This site is private property. There are rules listed as a courtesy to the posters as an indication of why your posts/threads might be edited or deleted. But it is a courtesy.
You may be edited on a whim such as disagreeing with a moderator or a friend of a moderator. But realize your presence here is a privilege provided to you without cost. Complaining is useless.
However, reasonable suggestions submitted respectfully may be considered by the Administration (John and Mike).
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
7,054
Location
here nc
since9, first thanks for your 20 years service in the officer corp mate, i am sure those who served under you appreciated your military guidance.

however, your rant of (paraphrasing) i'm bigger, badder, and have, could've, or done it better, than you are really inconsequential arguments on whom is digging a bigger hole for one to climb into or out of whichever kettle is blacker.

therefore, instead ranting, raving, and raising Cain resulting in the raising of your tired olde blood pressure.... leave the forum!!

as in any instance where you are not happy with the service, you are free to take your business somewhere else and do what eye95 did or the Colorado minions did...start your own forum group, let me know, by PM when your forum reaches the respect, prestige of this one.

BUT, please do so quietly so you save face as IMHO your conduct in this debacle is definitely not of gentlemanly quality or exhibiting christian principles!

ipse
 
Last edited:

stealthyeliminator

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
3,100
Location
Texas
AND quote virtually the exact contents of a PM (private message) w/o even waiting for a response. Divulging the contents of a PM is a rather serious violation
Are you kidding? This is just another prime example of completely illogical misapplication of rules. This statement makes zero sense. None, Grapeshot. Not even a lick.

Since9's objects[correction: objections] are 100% valid. As has been thoroughly noted, OCDO continues to destroy the value of this forum under their control. Appealing to authority as site owner isn't going to help your forum continuing to lose value.

"There are rules listed as a courtesy to the posters as an indication of why your posts/threads might be edited or deleted. But it is a courtesy.
You may be edited on a whim such as disagreeing with a moderator or a friend of a moderator."
Internet forums are common, and there are norms, cultures, even standards that are expected by and from forum-goers. It would actually be better, per internet norms and standards, if Grapeshot made his arbitrary decisions as arbitrary, unjustified decisions, rather than obviously erroneously justifying them using terrible logic; inconsistently applying rules; misapplying rules; reinventing, unreasonably interpreting or ridiculously interpreting rules; etc. It would harm the value of the forum to make arbitrary moderation decisions, but at least they'd be properly acknowledged as such, which is more acceptable to most internet cultures than when a bad decision is made and then it is claimed that the decision is in any way logical or reasonable.

FYI Grapeshot and admins, members regularly discuss and acknowledge the ridiculous moderation decisions being made so far as thread closures and other decisions. IMO - you need additional moderators and a process by which numerous moderators may collaborate on decisions. For example, a moderation pending forum, only visible to moderators where threads may be moved, pending a decision to remove or restore made by consensus. Someone with experience as an internet forum moderator would also be significantly beneficial, even if they don't know jack about open carry or firearms.
 
Last edited:

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
7,054
Location
here nc
stealth, again anytime a business treats you unfairly, real or perceived, you can take your business elsewhere...therefore:

goodbye-tears-smiley-emoticon.jpg


ipse

here's how one forum i frequent moderates under their norms and standards:
moderator public quote:
You are correct.

You left the forum awhile ago under less than stellar conditions and asked that your profile be removed. We declined and informed you to simply stop posting. You returned and asked the moderators to be allowed to post again on the forums. We allowed this but with the warning that you needed to curb your toxic attitude. You have reverted to your old ways.

Your membership is now revoked permanently.

unquote

i'll take grape's modality
 
Last edited:

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,347
Location
Valhalla
Are you kidding? This is just another prime example of completely illogical misapplication of rules. This statement makes zero sense. None, Grapeshot. Not even a lick.

Since9's objects[correction: objections] are 100% valid. As has been thoroughly noted, OCDO continues to destroy the value of this forum under their control. Appealing to authority as site owner isn't going to help your forum continuing to lose value.

"There are rules listed as a courtesy to the posters as an indication of why your posts/threads might be edited or deleted. But it is a courtesy.
You may be edited on a whim such as disagreeing with a moderator or a friend of a moderator."
Internet forums are common, and there are norms, cultures, even standards that are expected by and from forum-goers. It would actually be better, per internet norms and standards, if Grapeshot made his arbitrary decisions as arbitrary, unjustified decisions, rather than obviously erroneously justifying them using terrible logic; inconsistently applying rules; misapplying rules; reinventing, unreasonably interpreting or ridiculously interpreting rules; etc. It would harm the value of the forum to make arbitrary moderation decisions, but at least they'd be properly acknowledged as such, which is more acceptable to most internet cultures than when a bad decision is made and then it is claimed that the decision is in any way logical or reasonable.

FYI Grapeshot and admins, members regularly discuss and acknowledge the ridiculous moderation decisions being made so far as thread closures and other decisions. IMO - you need additional moderators and a process by which numerous moderators may collaborate on decisions. For example, a moderation pending forum, only visible to moderators where threads may be moved, pending a decision to remove or restore made by consensus. Someone with experience as an internet forum moderator would also be significantly beneficial, even if they don't know jack about open carry or firearms.
"We reserve the ABSOLUTE right to contact our members via PM or email regarding moderation issues. Contact for non-moderation activities is governed by forum rules." In other words, moderation issues are not covered by forum rules, but rather are called decisions based on extensive conversations over the years with our Administrator.
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/misc.php?do=showrules

(17) OWNERSHIP OF POSTS: By posting on the OpenCarry.org forum, you do not surrender your ownership rights to the material you post. However, by posting any material which you possess ownership rights to on the forum, you grant an irrevocable, transferable license to the forum owners to display, edit, delete and reproduce the material as they see fit.

(18) PRIVATE MESSAGES: The content of private messages are NOT completely private in that they may be reported to the administrator should the private messaging function be used to harass or spam another user. However, the content of private messages should not be posted publicly on the forum in an attempt to embarrass or discredit another member.

Our Administrator has the right and ability to override, change/modify any function of a Moderator at any time.
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,829
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
Many posts violated the OPs request and my admonition to honor that restriction. The thread could have been deleted. It was not - it was left available to be read, just not accepting more replies, therefore no one was harmed.
I have no doubt that some of the posts were inappropriate. The comment that "therefore no one was harmed," however, is ludicrous. Of course we're harmed. In the message forum environment, deprivation is harm. We don't come here just to read threads. We come here to discuss things.

It's considered extremely bad form for moderators to nuke a legitimate thread just because a few people (or even many) break the rules. It's like nuking an entire city just to take out one terrorist. Would you ground your entire family if just one child stole money out of your wallet and you knew which one did it? Of course not! You'd ground the offending child, not your whole family.

Good form: Target those who violate the rules instead of punishing everyone. Don't pussyfoot around with a mere "admonition." If they fail to a PM (effective and difficult to ignore) or an in-thread warning (ineffective, as they're difficult to see -- most people don't review every post in a thread, particularly a long thread), then give them three days off. If they return with an attitude, give them a week.

But for God's sake, Grapeshot, please stop punishing the entire community! This ain't boot camp and we're not raw recruits. We're adults. Please start treating us like it. Focus your efforts against the offenders, not the community as a whole.

Thanks.
 
Top