C:-) MODERATOR INTERVENTION C:-)
Ladies and gentlemen, pay attention.
(Note the lack of a question-mark or the word ‘please’. I am not asking.)
The Moderators on this forum are its police, and collectively we are also its judges. Speaking for myself, I would much prefer to spend my days here as Deputy Barney Fife, but if people here want to force me to be Judge Joseph Dredd, so be it. :beatdown:
The Moderation of this forum has well-established protocols; one of them is you are not John Wayne, so don’t go riding in with guns blazing. If a thread-lock is needed to prevent a discussion from flaring into an outright flame-war, it’ll be put in place (as was done in the “can you tell me” thread), but that is purely an interim measure. Anything beyond that requires discussion amongst the Moderators to reach consensus on the proper course of action. That takes time, especially since the Mods are scattered all over the world — I’m posting from New Zealand, for instance — and time-zones and work-schedules can play a significant factor in themselves.
The thread-lock is meant to stop a discussion from continuing, and possibly exploding, while we formulate a proper, measured response. It’s supposed to be a not-so-subtle hint that behaviour in the thread was riding the borderline (or worse) and should not be continued, either in that thread or elsewhere, until the Mods issued a ruling; continued behaviour in that fashion could bring even more Mod action.
Just pointing out that since the previous thread was cut short by the mods maybe it would be a good idea to run the option of a continuation with them.
Kinda why I'm not writing the continuation right now. I don't know what caused the lock, and until they tell me what the problem is? I'm pretty much stuck at 'hands off' for that storyline.
My bet is that the lock was caused by the heat with which some of us were discussing Liz's actions rather than by anything in the story, so I appologise for my part in that.
And for that reason I'm going to bite my metaphorical tongue and not respond to Sir Chaos & nomad_345. I don't know if it's best to drop the discussion completely, or take it to another thread, but I don't want our discussions to interfere with Cannonshop's storytelling or get this thread locked too!
Here, we see three posters wise enough to take the correct message from a thread-lock, and I thank them for posting in a restrained, responsible manner. Unfortunately, some others have not been so astute. I guess it’s like one of my own characters is fond of saying: “subtlety is overrated.”
So, I will be blunt. When a thread is locked “pending Moderator review”, the Mod staff are saying “This line of discussion is closed until further notice. We may choose to let it re-open, but if so, it will be at our discretion. Do not attempt to do it yourself, or we may well take action against you as well. What’s going on here may be grounds for Warnings and Bans, and we’re talking about whether to hit someone(s), who, and why. Do not test our patience.”
Cannonshop is quite right that the discussion in, and stemming from, the “can you tell me” thread is fascinating, informed, often incisive, and for the most part has been blessedly free of real-world political comparisons that could or would oblige action under Rule #4. He is also right that the two sides were emotionally invested not only the story, but also in their positions, and were beginning to argue past each other. The lock was meant to prevent things from exploding into personal attacks and an outright flame-war while we consulted on possible action.
It’s Moderator protocol that if a post is deemed a Rules infraction, it is removed from public view so it won’t provoke further incidents. It is also protocol not to discuss who may or may not have been infracted, when, or over what, with any third party, much less the forum populace as a whole; it’s no-one else’s business. ‘Calling people out’ is considered bad form. As I noted at the start of this post, another protocol discourages unilateral action, since things done in the heat of the moment are not always well-thought-out.
To sort this out here and now, I’m going to breach all three of those protocols. If my fellow Mods choose to censure me, or overrule me on review, I accept that.
I will not quarantine the posts that prompted the lock of the “can you tell me” thread, nor the related ones in this thread, as they are insightful, on-topic, informative, and worthy of being read; however, they will not be open to further comment where they are. By order of a Moderator, the open-forum debate over the morals, ethics, or legalities of Elizabeth Ngo’s use of ‘precision’ KKV bombardment in “can you tell me” ends here and now. The discussion is now over; attempting to publically continue or re-open it, here or elsewhere, would be unwise. [«— THIS IS A ‘SUBTLE’ HINT.]
However, if the participants wish to continue the discussion in a mass-PM, they are more than welcome to do so. Indeed, I would ask them to include me in that discussion; I’d like to take off the Mod hat and keep reading such a highly engaging conversation.
Similarly, I eagerly invite Cannonshop to continue the “Tribunals” thread, being a fic based on the in-universe legal and political fallout of the Kowloonese tendency towards... impolitic wartime behaviours, though I do ask all posters to be mindful of the Rules when posting responses.
I would also remind certain posters in this thread — Sir Chaos in particular — of Rule #3:
3. Don’t start trouble
Posts the Moderators consider overly confrontational will not be tolerated. This includes, but is not limited to, trolling and ignoring in thread requests from moderators.
Additionally, this rule covers actions that span more than a few posts. This includes deliberate, conscious and continued antisocial behaviours like thread crapping. If you have a problem with the basic premise of a discussion such that you wish it weren’t taking place at all, just ignore it. Blotching the thread with confrontational posts that don’t add anything to the discussion will infringe rule 3.
(Added emphasis is mine. A thread-lock is a ‘request’ to stop talking about the current topic.)
Much like a sitting Judge in the USA can cite people in his court for ‘acting in contempt of authority’, posters on this forum can be, in the past have been, and in the future (sadly) will be, issued Warnings and/or attendant Bans under Rule #3 for flouting or attempting to circumvent Moderator rulings. This includes behaviours like, for instance, continuing a line of discussion after it has been locked and declared subject to Moderator review.
Ladies and gentlemen, I love reading Cannonshop’s story-threads, just as much as any of you. Please, don’t make me come into them as a Mod.