I Diasagree With the Moderator's Decision

[exspy]

Mike,

I was reading the thread on the recent Iranian arrest of 15 British Naval personnel and was surprised to see that it had been locked by a moderator.  The discussion being conducted was civil, respectful, well presented by the participants with little to no ranting and no one had used any profanity.  The moderator said he was shutting it down because he felt it was wandering into the area of speculation therefore no further discussion could take place until further facts were made known.  I have to say that I strongly disagree with this moderator's actions with regard to what was being discussed on that thread.

Respectfully I do not feel that the moderator's action should have been undertaken based merely on the reason he gave.  I think any regular reader could point out threads on these forums where the topic had strayed and gone into speculation yet was not curtailed.  I don't agree that the discussion had strayed beyond the cited topic or had become speculative (my opinion as a non-moderator).  I believed, and maybe I'm wrong (and yes I have read the required threads to make myself fully aware of this site's rules) that a discussion such as was taking place was what was encouraged here within the normal bounds of civility and respect.  I have to say that I fully believe this moderator made his decision solely on what he felt subjectively to be his right and without any objective reasoning behind him.

I, for one, would like to see the thread discussing the Iranian arrest of 15 British Naval personnel reopened for further discussion.  As one of the most current and relevant news events of the past week I do not see how this forum can restrict it from being discussed here.  At worst, it could be moved to 'Radio Chatter'.

On a personal note I enjoy this site tremendously and visit it daily.  While I have made less than a dozen postings please don't think that this means I am indifferent to the opinions expressed.  I do read many of the separate forums and threads and this takes up almost all of my site time.  I do notice however, that there seems to be many threads locked for reasons that seem wholly at the subjective whim of the moderator involved and not for any outright violation of the forum's posted rules.  I know that when others have made these broad accusations like I am they are challenged to produce their evidence.  Please take this last point as merely a general observation and not as a condemnation.  Army.ca with quick trigger finger moderators is still better than no Army.ca at all.

Dan.

 

[Mike Bobbitt]

Dan,

Points well taken, the thread has been re-opened for discussion. Thanks for taking the time to lay out the issue.


Cheers
Mike

 

[eerickso]

This is perhaps a perfect example of why face to face communications is important:

While I really admire some of your great threads like,  "Was Winston Churchill anti semitic?" I do have an issue with being called NAZI just because I have a personal dislike for burqas.

I totally understand why someone whats to keep the debates mild, so you can complete your task by shutting down the Churchill thread.

 

[aesop081]

This is perhaps a perfect example of why face to face communications is important:

While I really admire some of your great threads like,  "Was Winston Churchill anti semitic?" I do have an issue with being called NAZI just because I have a personal dislike for burqas.

I totally understand why someone whats to keep the debates mild, so you can complete your task by shutting down the Churchill thread.

What the heck are you talking about ?

 

[Gimpy]

This is perhaps a perfect example of why face to face communications is important:

While I really admire some of your great threads like,  "Was Winston Churchill anti semitic?" I do have an issue with being called NAZI just because I have a personal dislike for burqas.

I totally understand why someone whats to keep the debates mild, so you can complete your task by shutting down the Churchill thread.

First of all you weren't called a Nazi, and second of all with comments like this

"It is irrelevant whether moslem women choose to wear the burqa or not. To me, this issue is very simple, in my culture (Canadian culture), people expose their faces when communicating to other people. If you are unwilling to participate in Canadian society, go back to your country of origin.

I hope that Canadians eventually realize they have the right to determine their future. Finally, Europe is starting to realize this."

It doesn't seem like you are anti-burqa but more anti-immigrant in general. From what I can gather from you're comments you feel like when someone immigrates to Canada they should take on every aspect of our culture and throw away everything that they believed in before. Thats why you were called what you were called (and it wasn't a Nazi).

Quite honestly, you might not like this, but there is no definitive Canadian culture, thats what makes Canada great in my opinion. The majority of us are open and embracing of other peoples cultures.

 

[muskrat89]

Anyway, I'm locking this. The original poster made some comments, which the owner considered and acted upon. There is no reason for the thread to continue.

eerickso - I can't tell whether you were complaining or what. Complaints should be directed to Mr. Bobbitt.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Just so everyone is aware, he is refering to my comment here,
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/59100/post-547991.html#msg547991

So if my wife decides to wear one she must go back to........Canada??.........and if I approve I must go back to...Canada??...................easy there blackshirt.