Thread Closing

[arttworks]

Personally I find closing a thread to be the most despicable violation of a "human right" that can take place on a message board. You can't win the argument so you'll just pretend it doesn't exist and that it never happened. You've stolen a piece of my life (time I wasted investing in conversation on your message board) with the clearly deceptive promise that you respect free-speech. There really is no other word, you are despicable cowards.

http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/forum/showthread.php?t=483

Please terminate my "membership" as I won't waste any more words in this stepford community.

[dannysullivan]

The thread wasn't closed because anyone was trying to "win" a particular argument. It was closed because the discussion was devolving into personal attacks.

In particular, I'll note these posts:

You don't do a good job of that by telling everyone else that they (or their businesses) are full of crap.

I never said you were "full of crap" ... but if the smell fits
Good points in the thread had been made, then unfortunately name calling had begun. A warning was posted to stop being personal and stick to the issue at hand. Then a post came in that went right back to the personal issue, albeit in an apologetic manner. Nevertheless, the moderator decided it made sense to close the thread lest that start another round.

We didn't pretend the argument didn't exist. If that was the intent, then the thread (http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/forum/showthread.php?t=483) would have been pulled entirely. We have no intention of doing that -- there were some good points made there, and we're happy for everyone to share the discussion.

I'm sorry you feel a part of your life was "stolen." From what I can see, you got to express your viewpoint there plus spread the news of your own SEO contest here (http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/forum/showthread.php?p=4576). I don't think you've wasted anything.

On the flip-side, I and several of the moderators have spent a lot of our own time listening to your concerns over the signature policy (http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/forum/showthread.php?t=135) (which was in place before you registered) and trying to respond to answer your questions, as well as help you understand that there is indeed no problem with you linking out.

Because we cut what was perceived to be a signature line, you've called us:

control freak censors
rude police
If humans still had tails no doubt you people would be chasing yours.


And because we closed a thread in part to protect you, we're now "despicable cowards"

I know that none of my responses to you have resorted to such name-calling. I've treated you with all the respect that I would treat anyone with, and I've tried to understand your concerns and respond to them as best I can. I believe many of the moderators have done this as well. If you've felt a lack of respect from any of us, I offer my apologies.

As you've requested, your membership will be deactivated. Should you reconsider, you can contact me or Elisabeth (http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/forum/member.php?u=4). You are welcomed to take part in the forum.

[Nick W]

Oh boy, public moderation is just so much fun....

Nick

[rcjordan]

"This Is The Internet, So I Have the Right of Free Speech" always a great topic, eh?

SEW, do yourself a favor, write a strong TOS and enforce a zero-tolerance position. You'll save wear & tear on your keyboard and do your (worthwhile) members a great service in the long run.

[Ron Carnell]

I had an acquaintance in California who I always thought was a little weird. Virtually all the floors in his house were either Italian marble or this fluffy, almost incandescent white carpeting. Not only were you asked to remove your shoes before entering the house, but he provided and expected you to wear little booties as well.

I never felt real comfortable in his home, and I suspect I visited less often than I otherwise might have, but it honestly never occurred to me to complain. His house, his rules. Seems like pretty simple stuff when you think about it.

:)

[David Wallace]

My sentiments exactly, Ron. Great example!

[Marcia]

>>visited less often than I otherwise might have

That's if the comfort level is diminished, and that can certainly be the case. By that analogy, I've had people come to my home and take their shoes off to make themselves more comfortable while kicking back on the sofa having coffee and enjoying conversation simply because they did feel so comfortable. But they will use ashtrays and not dump ashes or put cigarettes out on the furniture, they will_not confuse the bathroom with the living room floor, they won't grab food off other people's plates, they won't insult or offend others or myself, and they will_not spit watermelon pits on the floor.

There are two factors at play: hospitality and friendliness on one hand, and appropriate, considerate behavior on the other.

"This Is The Internet, So I Have the Right of Free Speech" always a great topic, eh?

SEW, do yourself a favor, write a strong TOS and enforce a zero-tolerance position. You'll save wear & tear on your keyboard and do your (worthwhile) members a great service in the long run.

I couldn't agree more. Contrary to what some people might think, running a tight ship can actually make people more comfortable and more inclined to visit - if it's used to eliminate the kinds of things that would otherwise cause discomfort or harm to visitors. AND if it's done in an appropriate, courteous and considerate manner.

From my pov, I've been around a number of communties for 6 years and seen all ends of the spectrum, ranging from all smiles and anything goes all the way to downright oppressive. They key lies in a clear TOS and maintaining it consistingly and courteously. And communicating - with H1 tags around that last one.

Members should be courteous to each other and respectful of the TOS and the moderators, and management should be communicative and supportive toward the moderators. It's as simple as that - really it is.

[Marcia]

That said, to address the specific issue:

There is no guarantee of "free speech" except the constitutional provision that Congress can't pass laws restricting the exercise of free speech. Private entities can most certainly restrict speech by properly executed editorial judgment - and should. What can be expected from private entities, or their representatives, is that they themselves abide by the standards of proper behavior expected of others by the policies they've set.

Personally I find closing a thread to be the most despicable violation of a "human right" that can take place on a message board.

No one has the "human right" to go on with bad behavior for as long as they want. Simply because other people have "human rights" also and bad behavior violates the rights of others. There are no intrinsic human rights involved where certain things are concerned. However:

You can't win the argument so you'll just pretend it doesn't exist and that it never happened.

It certainly can at times be to pretend it doesn't exist, or to push it out of view. Or to put a stop to an objectionable or offensive discussion or argument - all of which can at times be in violation of the TOS or clear policy or "tradition". There are times though, when none of any valid possible reasons exist and neither is there any argument or conflict.

In such cases, it can be construed as either rude at best, if the poster isn't properly notified or a suitable notation left when it's closed, or indeed it can most certainly be a despicable violation of courteous human behavior, indeed a violation of TOS, if in the Terms of Service courtesy is one of the things mentioned.

It is extremely rare, and when it does happen inappropriately it can be construed as showing a total lack of regard for human dignity and complete disregard for the feelings of the poster by the party closing without appropriate notification. Not to mention the fact that if there is absolutely nothing in the discussion to indicate any reason whatsoever, it just plain looks bad to onlookers and reflects poorly on whoever closed it, in which cases the party will usually choose to remain anonymous. Which of course won't show for long, once it disappears into obscurity.

That certainly isn't so in this case, not even the barest hint of it. There's clearly been enough to invoke a three strikes ruling.

Consistently posting disruptively and rebelliously DOES constitute valid reason IMHO; it becomes very evident to all onlookers very quickly, as in this case for example, and if the type of discussions being addressed here are closed, it should be easily self-evident to the poster involved why, since it certainly is to everyone else.

Everything that's done should be done decently and in good order. I've yet to see one single thing here that hasn't been decent and courteous, even when posters were blatantly out of order - well beyond the all of duty. IMHO, of course.

[Elisabeth]

thanks marcia:)

Yes, we're still working on our exact TOS and expanding the FAQs, but we purposely wanted to start out the forums with liberal policies, assuming most of our core audience are seasoned and mature professionals who can carry on thoughtful, articulated arguments, without getting offensive or obnoxious to other users. For the most part, that has held true in the early stages. We have done our best to fairly (and privately) explain any of our moderating action in several cases (not just this one), which has proved to be a successful method when members are receptive to our comments, all to be positive feedback, not censorship in any way.

We're well aware that allowing direct links in posts, whenever relevant to the discussion at hand, will walk a fine line sometimes, but in the end, they will add to the overall quality of discussion here.

Just as an FYI, I wanted to remind everyone that when they registered to post in the SEW Forums, they agreed to these basic rules, with the last line being most important above all:

Forum Rules

Registration to this forum is free! We do insist that you abide by the rules and policies detailed below. If you agree to the terms, please check the 'I agree' checkbox and press the 'Register' button below. If you would like to cancel the registration, click here to return to the forums index.

Although the administrators and moderators of SearchEngineWatch Forums will attempt to keep all objectionable messages off this forum, it is impossible for us to review all messages. All messages express the views of the author, and neither the owners of SearchEngineWatch Forums, nor Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (developers of vBulletin) will be held responsible for the content of any message.

By agreeing to these rules, you warrant that you will not post any messages that are obscene, vulgar, sexually-orientated, hateful, threatening, or otherwise violative of any laws.

The owners of SearchEngineWatch Forums reserve the right to remove, edit, move or close any thread for any reason.