Yet another post in "Civil Aviation" was locked with the reason given that it was taking too much moderation. The last message given was words to the effect of "if you want to continue this discussion then open a new thread in non-av" even though the topic was 100% civil aviation and the posts (which were not deleted) were on-topic. The thread was open for less than 24 hours and the posts (remaining) totaled less than 1 page.

I'm not doubting or questioning for one moment the mod's abilities or right to lock a thread. Mentioning the specific thread is irrelevant because this is not an isolated case, it happens rather frequently and the threads are often about the treatment of passengers by airline staff.

If people who don't want to read such threads are too damned lazy to skip them (like the rest of us have to do for posts that do not interest us), then a new forum is needed. Suggesting that the thread should be re-opened in non-av is (IMHO of course) just a cop out. Why the heck should someone have to open a civil aviation thread in the non-av forum? That would suggest that the whole site has become not fit for purpose.

Why cannot individual users be banned, or barred from posting in certain threads if they cause so much hassle that an on-topic thread needs to be locked? Why curtail the discussion for others?

Again, IMHO it makes the whole concept of entering into a discussion here a total waste of time.

Virtual737 wrote:

Yet another post in "Civil Aviation" was locked with the reason given that it was taking too much moderation. The last message given was words to the effect of "if you want to continue this discussion then open a new thread in non-av" even though the topic was 100% civil aviation and the posts (which were not deleted) were on-topic. The thread was open for less than 24 hours and the posts (remaining) totaled less than 1 page.

The moderator who locked the thread never said it was taking too much moderation. The moderator also clearly stated that the topic became political and about race, not about aviation hence why the thread was locked and it was suggested that a new thread be started in non-aviation. The thread was not 100% on civil aviation and while you don't see the deleted posts, we do and on the basis of that an informed decision was made to lock the thread. You also seem to have conveniently missed out the matter on politics and race as stated by the moderator to prosecute an argument, in future please include all the facts not just some of them

I'm not doubting or questioning for one moment the mod's abilities or right to lock a thread. Mentioning the specific thread is irrelevant because this is not an isolated case, it happens rather frequently and the threads are often about the treatment of passengers by airline staff.

In most cases those threads end one way and that is badly. These topics usually have some sort of victim and some users can not put emotions aside causing things such as race, politics and personal attacks to take place and the topic of aviation goes off track quickly

If people who don't want to read such threads are too damned lazy to skip them (like the rest of us have to do for posts that do not interest us), then a new forum is needed. Suggesting that the thread should be re-opened in non-av is (IMHO of course) just a cop out. Why the heck should someone have to open a civil aviation thread in the non-av forum? That would suggest that the whole site has become not fit for purpose.

No its not a cop out. The moderator who locked the thread provided a legitimate reason for locking it.

Why cannot individual users be banned, or barred from posting in certain threads if they cause so much hassle that an on-topic thread needs to be locked? Why curtail the discussion for others?

When we ban users we need to show cause. We need to have evidence behind us to support the ban. Not all violating posts in the thread you are referring to were deleted. I noticed that there was inappropriate language from yourself, should we ban you too? We do not ban users for the sake of it. Users can not be barred from posting in certain threads, some would consider that as censorship. In any case warnings are handed out in most cases before we even consider a ban

Thanks for the reply.

qf789 wrote:

The moderator who locked the thread never said it was taking too much moderation. The moderator also clearly stated that the topic became political and about race, not about aviation hence why the thread was locked and it was suggested that a new thread be started in non-aviation. The thread was not 100% on civil aviation and while you don't see the deleted posts, we do and on the basis of that an informed decision was made to lock the thread. You also seem to have conveniently missed out the matter on politics and race as stated by the moderator to prosecute an argument, in future please include all the facts not just some of them

Yes he? did. In a PM to me. I didn't think it appropriate to include details of the PM. I'm really not into "spin" and there was no intentional spin on my part in my original post.

qf789 wrote:

In most cases those threads end one way and that is badly. These topics usually have some sort of victim and some users can not put emotions aside causing things such as race, politics and personal attacks to take place and the topic of aviation goes off track quickly

Agreed and I guess that's what moderation is for.

qf789 wrote:

No its not a cop out. The moderator who locked the thread provided a legitimate reason for locking it.

The cop out (perhaps that is too strong a term) is that the moderation was stopped because it involved moderation. In real terms, how much time was spent moderating that thread? 1 hour maximum? Probably not even that long. If it takes longer than 30 seconds to delete a post, then the tools are not fit for purpose. Were there really 120 or more posts deleted? How many individual users were involved in the posts that were deleted?

qf789 wrote:

When we ban users we need to show cause. We need to have evidence behind us to support the ban. Not all violating posts in the thread you are referring to were deleted. I noticed that there was inappropriate language from yourself, should we ban you too? We do not ban users for the sake of it. Users can not be barred from posting in certain threads, some would consider that as censorship. In any case warnings are handed out in most cases before we even consider a ban

Surely the need to continually delete posts is cause enough? Racism is illegal in pretty much every country I've visited, and such laws would supersede any site specific laws. If someone is going to query why they were banned for being clearly racist then they are going to query anything.

If my posts are inappropriate then of course warn me and or ban me - and also please accept my apology. If I deserve it I deserve it. Not 100% sure exactly what posts you're referencing but I'm not doubting you. If my memory hasn't failed me I didn't include any personal attack (even after potentially receiving such) nor use bad language, but I'm certainly no angel. Language evolves and views differ. I was once given 6 hours cleaning punishment for using the phrase "oh god". I'm sure the site rules are not that restrictive but regardless I should follow them.

In terms of things being seen as "censorship" by certain users..., wouldn't such people also deem individual post deletion as the same? Locking the whole thread is the very height of censorship - rather than saying that "offenders" cannot post, you are saying that nobody can post. Effectively you're tarring everybody with the same brush.

My main point is, if you have to lock an entire thread because you cannot stop repeat offenders from posting comments that need to be deleted, the tools available to you are not fit for purpose, which was the title of this thread.