The Ban

[nmoira]

 

We love you Jenny!

Yes we do.

[Elaine]

I have never seen such open hostility towards those with opposite ideas on this board in the eight years I have been here. "Horrible" may be a relative term, but open ugly hostility is not. I hope we never see its like again.

 

I agree with this. My view of this board changed over the course of the summer and the political dis-harmony here.

[Lovedtodeath]

is that people would be so hostile toward Susan herself, and/or her religion but yet use her materials to teach their children. It boggles the mind.

 

I hope not either, and I hope in time the wounds will heal. It is very difficult for me at this point to go back to pretending we all care for and respect each other. I do at this point still believe that the truly hateful ones are a minority even among their "own people".

[newlifemom]

I joined this summer.:sad:

[Lovedtodeath]

I joined this summer.:sad:

 

You aren't alone... I just started looking at the "General" boards recently. I wonder what they used to be like.

[Colleen]

I agree with this. My view of this board changed over the course of the summer and the political dis-harmony here.

 

In light of the fact that "this board" is made up of real live people, are you saying your view of particular individuals has changed? Or that your view of people in general who post on homeschooling boards has changed? Or...what? I don't understand.

[melissel]

just based on reading SWB blog post was that she was getting innundated with demanding, angry emails. I don't think think it was just what was in the threads that caused problems - it was also the emails and probably private messages that then resulted. Just guessing.

 

I don't remember it being all that bad, but I do think SWB is right to think that this forum is attached to her webpage and that she has to use some dicretion in how she's going to let it be used. If people do start getting nasty, she has to use that "delete button" and if that's happening regularly, she has to keep close tabs on what is happening here. I'm sure she's sick of it, and I can't blame her!

 

I was thinking the same thing. And while I'm in the camp that would lift the ban if we could, the bottom line is that it's Susan's board. This isn't a democracy. We don't pay anything to be here. We have no governing board. She hosts us, for free, and she can do as she pleases. Particularly when she and the mods are the ones dealing with all the whiny, complainy, nasty, ugly e-mails and PMs that result from these particular arguments. So if she wants to ban political discussion, I'm happy to oblige because I need this board and probably couldn't survive this HSing journey without all of you!

[lovemyboys]

From SWB's blog post, it sounded like a lot of the problem was all the complaining emails they were getting.

 

That would be my take on it just from the few things that she's said about it. It must've gotten pretty intense behind the scenes.

 

But thinking about this, isn't this board part of their promoting their classical education methods? It probably isn't that good for business to get new people thinking about using their program come to the boards and see all these heated political arguments that they are sure to be offended by one or the other points of views. I found the political threads interesting, but you have to admit they didn't do anything to promote classical education.

 

I found the posts interesting and participated in some, avoided others.

 

For people that are as well-educated and well-informed as folks on this board are, the discussion is bound to be pretty lively. Sometimes it did go beyond the pale, and there were certainly a number of new "faces" that seemed to come on board just to get involved in the political threads. And may in fact have just been here to stir things up.

 

I'm glad that it's moderated so that things don't devolve into ugly; but for the most part, I think the posting was civil.

 

But I'm sure SWB is aware that there are people who would be turned off to this forum if they came into the middle of a political thread firestorm. When I recommended the site to some friends who were considering classical a few years ago, they were aware of it but already turned off by the discord. And that would've been a non-election year. :tongue_smilie:

[melissel]

 

In light of the fact that "this board" is made up of real live people, are you saying your view of particular individuals has changed? Or that your view of people in general who post on homeschooling boards has changed? Or...what? I don't understand.

 

Well, I can say that my view of certain people (on both sides of the political fence) has definitely changed, but I also think we lost a bit of the "We're all in this together!" camaraderie that we had, and that some of us really rely on. Sure, to a degree, it was probably a false camaraderie to begin with. After all, we're thousands of virtual strangers who will never meet face to face. But I think a little bit of the community we imagined we had is gone simply because we're more aware of divisions among us that were less visible before.

[Dawn E]

Well, I can say that my view of certain people (on both sides of the political fence) has definitely changed, but I also think we lost a bit of the "We're all in this together!" camaraderie that we had, and that some of us really rely on. Sure, to a degree, it was probably a false camaraderie to begin with. After all, we're thousands of virtual strangers who will never meet face to face. But I think a little bit of the community we imagined we had is gone simply because we're more aware of divisions among us that were less visible before.

:iagree: Well said.

[Peek a Boo]

After all, we're thousands of virtual strangers who will never meet face to face.

 

HEY! I've met quite a number of gals [and guy :D ] face to face over the last few years.... let us know if you are ever down this-a-way and we can meet up [even if you do support What's-His-Name, lol!].

:grouphug:

[melissel]

HEY! I've met quite a number of gals [and guy :D ] face to face over the last few years.... let us know if you are ever down this-a-way and we can meet up [even if you do support What's-His-Name, lol!].

:grouphug:

 

:lol: I know, I should have said "for the most part," especially considering that I know Anj and Girligirlmom and Ack25 personally! And Peek, you're actually on my list of "If I'm ever down that-a-way..." people to meet. I want to meet Elaine too, especially now that she's local! I think...or at least in-state :D

 

The political thing has been hard, but I don't think it's anything we can't overcome ;)

 

ETA: Peek, I just doublechecked where you are. There's actually a decent chance I'll be there sometime in the first half of next year! We have family in Flower Mound, and they're desperate for us to come visit. (In fact, that area is on our short list of places to beg for if DH's company ever sees fit to transfer him!)

Edited November 13, 2008 by melissel

[Crissy]

My view of this board changed over the course of the summer and the political dis-harmony here.

 

My view of the board and of its people hasn't changed, but I feel as if I have a clear understanding now of what politics can do to folks who are normally quite reasonable and rational.

 

It makes us looney!

[readwithem]

Kate, you are so kind. :grouphug:

[newlifemom]

My view of the board and of its people hasn't changed, but I feel as if I have a clear understanding now of what politics can do to folks who are normally quite reasonable and rational.

 

It makes us looney!

 

Preach it. :iagree:

[readwithem]

I hope not either, and I hope in time the wounds will heal. It is very difficult for me at this point to go back to pretending we all care for and respect each other.

 

:iagree:

[readwithem]

I agree with this. My view of this board changed over the course of the summer and the political dis-harmony here.

 

:iagree:

[readwithem]

I think part of the issue is the social groups happened around the same time the election got heated up. People "found" their group(s) and banded together - strength in numbers and all that. In that regard I think the social groups have been a detriment to the community aspect here.

[Susan Wise Bauer]

That's what SWB considers an amazing tizzy?

 

Yes.

 

SWB

[WTMindy]

I think her response was pretty hysterical myself!:lol:

 

Me too.

[Jackie in AR]

I have never seen such open hostility towards those with opposite ideas on this board in the eight years I have been here. "Horrible" may be a relative term, but open ugly hostility is not. I hope we never see its like again.

 

I agree with you, Kate.

 

I've been here for around 7 1/2 years, and it was the worst I had ever seen. Just downright, intentional ugliness.

 

And I'm with you; I hope that stuff never rears its ugly head around here again.

[msjones]

Well, here I am, finally back to the conversation after a long, busy day.

 

Such interesting replies! I hadn't considered Susan WB's perspective as a 'business owner' of sorts -- that this board reflects on her to a degree. When I consider that, I can certainly see why she'd choose to kick the 'rowdies' out of her party.

 

I enjoy a political discussion. Even with someone who strongly disagrees with me. It helps me understand the other perspective and helps me to refine my own beliefs. (I'm a 'closet Republican' in Seattle, so I have lots of opportunities! Shortly before the election, my son actually asked me, "Mom, do they make McCain signs? I've never seen one..." That's how many Republicans we have around here! ;))

 

That being said, I wasn't in on any of the notorious 'tizzy' discussions on this board. I did see some that were very interesting and helped me see things differently. So, when I came back yesterday, I was sorry to see the politics gone.

 

msjones

[Elaine]

 

In light of the fact that "this board" is made up of real live people, are you saying your view of particular individuals has changed? Or that your view of people in general who post on homeschooling boards has changed? Or...what? I don't understand.

 

I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer.

[WTMindy]

I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer.

 

I've missed you lately, Laney!! :001_smile:

[Colleen]

I hadn't considered Susan WB's perspective as a 'business owner' of sorts -- that this board reflects on her to a degree. When I consider that, I can certainly see why she'd choose to kick the 'rowdies' out of her party.

 

But did she indeed "kick out the rowdies"? Or merely go with the easier, blanket approach of shutting down discussion altogether? (Rhetorical question.) It's her board; she pays the bills (and reaps the benefits, too, I might add); she makes the decisions, yada yada yada. And if she chooses to complain about this space, on her personal blog; to collectively mock and deride , on her blog, people who post here... Well. That's her choice and right and so on and so forth. But I can't say I have a great deal of respect for that.

Edited November 13, 2008 by Colleen

[readwithem]

 

It's her board; she pays the bills

 

Yes it is.

 

yes she does.

 

(ooooh, sounds like a campaign chant! :):)

[Colleen]

(I'm a 'closet Republican' in Seattle, so I have lots of opportunities! Shortly before the election, my son actually asked me, "Mom, do they make McCain signs? I've never seen one..." That's how many Republicans we have around here! ;))

 

Just take him outside Seattle city limits to expand his political horizons.;) It's always interesting to me, the entrenched political pockets. Whatcom County is fascinating in that respect.

[Lovedtodeath]

 

But did she indeed "kick out the rowdies"? Or merely go with the easier, blanket approach of shutting down discussion altogether? (Rhetorical question.) It's her board; she pays the bills (and reaps the benefits, too, I might add); she makes the decisions, yada yada yada. And if she chooses to complain about this space, on her personal blog; to collectively mock and deride , on her blog, people who post here... Well. That's her choice and right and so on and so forth. But I can't say I have a great deal of respect for that.

 

I did not look at it that way. I thought she was providing an explanation, not mocking and deriding. I find it unusual that the actions of members of this board on political discussions did not bother you in the slightest, but Susan's actions on her blog do. :confused:

 

This post makes it all too clear that she did not "kick out the rowdies". :lol:

 

I think that the approach of shutting down political discussion was the better one, because there are some members that I do not have a problem with in other discussions, but once the politics are brought up I cannot stand them. (Yes, I know, that makes me a bad person in some people's minds.)

Edited November 13, 2008 by Lovedtodeath

[Colleen]

Yes it is.

 

yes she does.

 

 

Yep. And no one said otherwise, to the best of my knowledge. Are you just echoing for the sake of hearing your echo?:)

[Colleen]

I find it unusual that the actions of members of this board on political discussions did not bother you in the slightest, but Susan's actions on her blog do. :confused:

 

Neither bothers me to any particular degree. In both cases people are speaking their reality, and that's all good. I'd just rather have SWB come here and be frank, instead of whine on her blog about this place, since both are closely intertwined. But that's me. That's my loose change. The fact that she takes (took) another approach doesn't rock my world. I'm chatting about it because I've spent very, very little time chatting here of late and I feel like doing so now.:)

 

This post makes it all to clear that she did not "kick out the rowdies". :lol:

 

How so?

 

I think that the approach of shutting down political discussion was the better one, because there are some members that I do not have a problem with in other discussions, but once the politics are brought up I cannot stand them. (Yes, I know, that makes me a bad person in some people's minds.)

 

All right. Think about the logic (or lack thereof) in what you've just said. You think the best approach is to disallow everyone from discussing topic "X" because you don't like how some folks sound when discussing that topic. Okay, Whatever you say.:)

Edited November 13, 2008 by Colleen

[Spy Car]

I think it was beyond distressing that adult conversations on a momentous election proved impossible largely because of small number of militants determined to wreck every thread and/or decided to turn WTM into a echo chamber of the smear machines.

 

It was an extremely sad development, as there are many across the political spectrum I enjoyed conversing with and hearing from.

 

But no descent respect was paid by the determined few who insisted on ugliness. I strongly wish they had been "moderated" directly, instead of their being allowed to get thread after thread delated or closed.

 

Those who could not behave like grown-ups and who felt they were on a "mission" wrecked the whole chance at intelligent discourse.

 

If anything speaks badly about the WTM forum, it's that some subject are know "verboten" because a determined few are so immature that civil dialogue could not proceed.

 

I'm pretty disgusted with it and I wish some people would grow up.

 

Bill

[Lovedtodeath]

Well Colleen, I thought I would just reply to say that I already said what I wanted and have nothing to add.

 

I strongly wish they had been "moderated" directly, instead of their being allowed to get thread after thread delated or closed.

 

I do agree with Bill on that one. But I am pretty happy with the way the problems are being handled today, closed threads and all, even the ones that I got closed. :blush:

Edited November 13, 2008 by Lovedtodeath

[Colleen]

Well Colleen, I thought I would just reply to say that I already said what I wanted and have nothing to add.

 

I strongly wish they had been "moderated" directly, instead of their being allowed to get thread after thread delated or closed.

 

I do agree with Bill on that one. But I am pretty happy with the way the problems are being handled today, closed threads and all, even the ones that I got closed. :blush:

 

:D I appreciate your voice.

[Colleen]

I strongly wish they had been "moderated" directly, instead of their being allowed to get thread after thread delated or closed.

 

Yep.

 

If anything speaks badly about the WTM forum, it's that some subject are know "verboten" because a determined few are so immature that civil dialogue could not proceed.

 

Double yep.

 

I'm so original.;)

[melissel]

Neither bothers me to any particular degree. In both cases people are speaking their reality, and that's all good. I'd just rather have SWB come here and be frank, rather than whine on her blog about this place, since both are closely intertwined. But that's me. That's my loose change. The fact that she takes (took) another approach doesn't rock my world. I'm chatting about it because I've spent very, very little time chatting here of late and I feel like doing so now.:)

 

Actually, she was here quite a bit while the problems were cropping up. I can remember many times where she participated in threads, posted to us directly about being civil, asked us what how we felt about discussing politics (there was a poll thread that has since been deleted or unstickied, it seems). She was even here while she was on vacation with her husband because the regular mods had had it with us and she was called in to babysit us. She's expressed to us repeatedly how she's feeling about all of this. If you've spent very little time chatting here lately, maybe you missed a lot of the ugliness that happened? Much of it was deleted quickly because Susan and the mods were pretty much on constant call for awhile there.

 

All right. Think about the logic (or lack thereof) in what you've just said. You think the best approach is to disallow everyone from discussing topic "X" because you don't like how some folks sound when discussing that topic. Okay, Whatever you say.:)

 

Actually, the majority of the regular members here thought the best approach was to disallow politics if it was making life difficult for the people operating the board. And apparently, it was indeed making their lives difficult. Who wants to babysit a bunch of grown-ups who can't control themselves all day and night for weeks at a time? (And yes, I count myself in that group. I participated more than I should have, and certainly more than I would have in real life.)

[Colleen]

Actually, the majority of the regular members here thought the best approach was to disallow politics if it was making life difficult for the people operating the board.

 

I'm well aware of the past discussions you're referencing. The majority ~ by a slight margin ~ preferred to allow political discussions. It's a matter of opinion as to who qualifies as a "regular" poster. But it's neither here nor there, since this board justifiably doesn't operate based on poll results. In fact, taking such polls is a mistake, imo.

 

Any-hoo, don't pay me no heed. I'm waitin' to see if the river crests high enough to overtake the dike. Passin' time and rambling.:D

[5kidsforME]

 

Neither bothers me to any particular degree. In both cases people are speaking their reality, and that's all good. I'd just rather have SWB come here and be frank, instead of whine on her blog about this place, since both are closely intertwined. But that's me. That's my loose change. The fact that she takes (took) another approach doesn't rock my world. I'm chatting about it because I've spent very, very little time chatting here of late and I feel like doing so now.:)

 

 

 

How so?

 

 

 

All right. Think about the logic (or lack thereof) in what you've just said. You think the best approach is to disallow everyone from discussing topic "X" because you don't like how some folks sound when discussing that topic. Okay, Whatever you say.:)

 

Wow Colleen.

 

You seem to be having a bad night. Surely you realize that you come across condescending....on the other hand I guess you do not care.

[Lovedtodeath]

Wow Colleen.

 

You seem to be having a bad night. Surely you realize that you come across condescending....on the other hand I guess you do not care.

 

I really did not see any reason for Colleen's continued discussion other than being disagreeable, but she is making me laugh, not bothering me.

Edited November 13, 2008 by Lovedtodeath

[emeraldjoy]

I thought I read a poll where the majority supported politics being allowed?? I could be wrong though???

 

I firmly believe that one thing that is so beautiful about ALL of creation is the diversity. I do not want to live in a cookie cutter world, I really could not imagine it...truly. Sometimes though, with that diversity come the uglies...sort of the facts of life.

However....In spite of it all, I still am strongly in favor (and awe) of diversity, even if I have to endure the not so admirable or beautiful parts of it. With the loss of flavor comes a loss of meaning. I, for one, am unwilling to compromise that meaning, even if I get hurt in the process.

 

emerald

[Colleen]

Wow Colleen.

 

You seem to be having a bad night. Surely you realize that you come across condescending....on the other hand I guess you do not care.

 

A bad night? Not at all. On the contrary, for the first time in I don't know how long, I have some time to myself. I'm so sorry my posts are bothering you. I wonder, then, why you're reading them? I am posting here for virtually the first time in weeks. I've been actively involved in very few discussions of late since my life has been exceedingly busy. In the midst of reading how various people are doing, and what's on people's minds, I'm chatting about this topic since it's of interest to me. Sorry my measly two cents don't sit well with you. C'est la vie.:)

Edited November 13, 2008 by Colleen

[5kidsforME]

 

A bad night? Not at all. On the contrary, for the first time in I don't know how long, I have some time to myself. I'm so sorry my posts are bothering you. I wonder why, then, why you're reading them? I am posting here for virtually the first time in weeks. I've been actively involved in very few discussions of late since my life has been exceedingly busy. In the midst of reading how various people are doing, and what's on people's minds, I'm chatting about this topic since it's of interest to me. Sorry my measly two cents don't sit well with you. C'est la vie.:)

 

First of all I never said they were bothering me. :) As this is a public forum I am free to read and respond to what I want. :) I just happened to notice how you are coming across like a wounded bear, and a bull in a china shop. :)

 

Carry on! :)

[melissel]

 

I'm well aware of the past discussions you're referencing. The majority ~ by a slight margin ~ preferred to allow political discussions. It's a matter of opinion as to who qualifies as a "regular" poster. But it's neither here nor there, since this board justifiably doesn't operate based on poll results. In fact, taking such polls is a mistake, imo.

 

So if you take issue with poll results regarding the issue, and you take issue with how the board is being run by Susan and the mods...what does that leave?

 

I thought I read a poll where the majority supported politics being allowed?? I could be wrong though???

 

I firmly believe that one thing that is so beautiful about ALL of creation is the diversity. I do not want to live in a cookie cutter world, I really could not imagine it...truly. Sometimes though, with that diversity come the uglies...sort of the facts of life.

However....In spite of it all, I still am strongly in favor (and awe) of diversity, even if I have to endure the not so admirable or beautiful parts of it. With the loss of flavor comes a loss of meaning. I, for one, am unwilling to compromise that meaning, even if I get hurt in the process.

 

emerald

 

Ah-ha! I finally thought of a way to search for the thread I was thinking of.

 

http://www.welltrainedmind.com/forums/showthread.php?t=63160

 

Certainly not as scientific a poll as it might be, but it was the one that stuck in my head.

 

Emeraldjoy, I agree with you. I'd even be fine with allowing politics on the board. I certainly participated in my share of those conversations, and I did learn a lot. But I simply can't imagine what Susan and the mods must have been dealing with behind the scenes over it all, and if they say it was too much, I believe them. For me, that's the bottom line. They're my hosts. I can go elsewhere to argue politics if I want. I can't go elsewhere for this particular community. Good heavens, where else would I find out how to cook fish in the dishwasher? And I just don't see the point in beating this particular horse. We were given our chance to be adults and we blew it by running to mommy too many times. The toy has been put in time out. There it is. Beyond that? Who really cares?

 

And now, I must go post a report for work. But first I have to tackle this nightmare PowerPoint deck that I've been procrastinating on. Darn it :glare:

[tibbyl]

I thought I read a poll where the majority supported politics being allowed?? I could be wrong though???

 

I firmly believe that one thing that is so beautiful about ALL of creation is the diversity. I do not want to live in a cookie cutter world, I really could not imagine it...truly. Sometimes though, with that diversity come the uglies...sort of the facts of life.

However....In spite of it all, I still am strongly in favor (and awe) of diversity, even if I have to endure the not so admirable or beautiful parts of it. With the loss of flavor comes a loss of meaning. I, for one, am unwilling to compromise that meaning, even if I get hurt in the process.

emerald

 

Agreed. If one cannot tolerate the roving Cookie Monsters gobbling threads, do an Oscar by hunkering down in one's trash can with lid closed for awhile.

[dangermom]

Moderation of individual posts might indeed be nice, but that takes more work. Our mods, AFAIK, have day jobs; if we want mods who will do more intensive policing, we might have to figure out some way to pay for it, such as advertising or pay-to-post. Since SWB runs this on the side as a courtesy, and isn't in the MB business, it might not be very practical or desirable to do anything like that. And meanwhile, if people can't behave themselves, the mods we have don't have time to do that kind of work.

[nmoira]

I strongly wish they had been "moderated" directly, instead of their being allowed to get thread after thread delated or closed.

Maybe the standard for for introducing facts into political discussion should be: Would you permit your children to use this as a source in a research paper on the topic outlined in the original post? Or, better yet, would SWB?

 

:D

[dawn of ns]

 

But no descent respect was paid by the determined few who insisted on ugliness. I strongly wish they had been "moderated" directly, instead of their being allowed to get thread after thread delated or closed.

 

It's sort of affected how the board is run generally now. I was in a pleasant dicussion about creationism with some conservative ladies. We were all enjoying the thread. We had a few bumps but nothing we couldn't handle by remaining polite. We were all feeling pretty good about how we were handling it. Woke up a few days ago and it was locked without warning. None of us knows why. One of us was feeling very guilty because hers was the last post and she thinks it was because of her. But there was no reason and of course, board rules say not to ask (and of course I did but got no response).

 

I understand this is a lot of work for the mods but at the same time it eats away at the sense of community when discussions are arbitrarily ended with no explanation. What duty have we got to an unresponsive admin to stay or to behave? Yes we're guests but that relationship creates responsibilities for the mods as well as us.

 

I can understand a lot of this from the mods' perspective but there's got to be some middle ground the mods could work towards.

Edited November 13, 2008 by dawn of ns

[Christy B]

I don't much like moderated boards, period. OK, some moderation for spam and maybe p0rn or language, but anything else- hands off. One person's "personal attack" is anothers "pointing out hypocrisy", you know?

 

And by my standards, the board never got very heated.

 

But I guess I'm alone there.

 

If the problem is too many heated threads for the mods, I think a solution would be a non-moderated (save the really bad stuff mentioned above) board. And a no-whining clause you have to sign to access it, LOL. It could be the "big girl panties" board, and any who wanted could ignore it at will (including SWB!).

 

Maybe we'll get one for Christmas??:D

 

I support your platform. I would vote for your proposal! :iagree:

 

(Wait, is that political?)

[Elaine]

.

Edited November 13, 2008 by Elaine
It's not worth the fight.

[Peela]

C

Am I violating the ban by asking about it? How bad did things get? How bad CAN they get on an internet message board where adult participants can just skip what they don't wish to read? Or ignore those participants who post disrespectfully?

I just find it surprising on The Well-Trained Mind forum...I thought the book was (at least to some extent) about critical thinking.

What is the goal of the ban? Have bans like this 'worked' in the past? I find this interesting and a bit bizarre. But, then, like I said, I'm new to this sort of thing.

 

 

It can get pretty mean and nasty. And I don't know if people even realise how mean and nasty they are being, half the time, or abrasive, or belligerent, or lacking in graciousness or tolerance for others' points of view. They just want the right to speak their truth without consequences.

 

It's scary how apparently courteous, kind humans can become so caught up in the righteousness of our beliefs, that we forget that every single one of us has a unique and different perspective on life, we werent all born joined at the brain and that's ultimately a good thing if we can rise above our pettiness. We sink so low, so easily, and this board is no exception (most of us do not have the benefit of a classical education, even if that were to provide some insurance against the mentality).

 

I am personally glad that even if I dont always agree with the decisions, we have some moderators who stop it turning into a complete catfight at times, because I don't think I would like the overall tone if some people were allowed to dominate and destroy otherwise friendly and respectable threads- there is such a wide range of people here. I find the moderators generally fairly "moderate" and commonsensical.

[Blessedfamily]

It's sort of affected how the board is run generally now. I was in a pleasant dicussion about creationism with some conservative ladies. We were all enjoying the thread. We had a few bumps but nothing we couldn't handle by remaining polite. We were all feeling pretty good about how we were handling it. Woke up a few days ago and it was locked without warning. None of us knows why. One of us was feeling very guilty because hers was the last post and she thinks it was because of her. But there was no reason and of course, board rules say not to ask (and of course I did but got no response).

 

I understand this is a lot of work for the mods but at the same time it eats away at the sense of community when discussions are arbitrarily ended with no explanation. What duty have we got to an unresponsive admin to stay or to behave? Yes we're guests but that relationship creates responsibilities for the mods as well as us.

 

I can understand a lot of this from the mods' perspective but there's got to be some middle ground the mods could work towards.

 

I can't comment on the political threads because I don't even open them.

 

I just wanted to respond about the creation thread you mentioned. I thought that particular thread was going well. When it was locked, someone did ask for a general explanation within minutes. She didn't mention the creation thread by name, but I think it was obvious to what she was referring because it all happened so quickly. SWB explained the policy here:

 

http://www.welltrainedmind.com/forums/showthread.php?t=66346

 

(I know I'm not addressing most of your post.)