Moderation Requests

Bob Kuczewski · Post by **Bob Kuczewski** » Mon Aug 24, 2015 9:36 pm

I have two requests of the moderators.

1. Please combine (merge) the two Dockweiler topics since they both cover the same material. Brad Hall started a separate topic for some unknown reason, and it's just confusing for people to have to read both topics and try to figure out who wrote what first.

2. Please unlock the resulting combined topic. The discussion has not run its course because people still have more to say ... otherwise they wouldn't be still posting.

Thanks.

Bob Kuczewski · Post by **Bob Kuczewski** » Mon Aug 24, 2015 9:51 pm

P.S. I'm not opposed to either topic (hopefully combined) being put in the "Politics of Flying" subforum. I didn't start them in the General section (Joe and Brad did).

The fact that you've got a "Politics of Flying" subforum indicates that such discussions should be allowed there. Please unlock the combined topic so this important topic can be discussed.

The future of hang gliding may depend on USHPA not screwing up our insurance. Having discussions about that problem can't hurt as much as turning our backs on it. USHPA has already proved that by turning their backs on the problems at Torrey and we're seeing the consequences.

Thanks.

Post by **Chip** » Tue Aug 25, 2015 7:12 pm

Moderation requests are just that, "requests"

Please respect that we are free to honor them or not.

Bob Kuczewski · Post by **Bob Kuczewski** » Wed Aug 26, 2015 6:32 pm

Chip wrote:Moderation requests are just that, "requests".

That's why I titled my topic as "Moderation Request" rather than "Moderation Demand".

I don't quote Tad very often, but he does make a good point on this topic at:

http://www.kitestrings.org/topic33-690.html#p8278

Tad Eareckson wrote:
Mike Moacanin wrote:Locking the topic. The conversation has run its course.
I'm a bit confused here, Mike, possibly/probably because I lack the degree of wisdom which is a prerequisite for all mainstream hang gliding Site Administrators. But if the conversations had run their courses wouldn't people just stop talking to each other? Why would it be necessary to lock the topics? What would be the point? Wouldn't your talents be better employed locking topics in which the conversations HADN'T run their courses?

"This horse is dead. Therefore I'm shooting it."

Tad goes on to be a bit more graphic in his criticism, but I think you get the idea.

So is my request to merge, move, and unlock the topics officially denied?[/quote]

Bob Kuczewski · Post by **Bob Kuczewski** » Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:33 am

I've been having an ongoing discussion with the moderation team about my request to merge the two Dockweiler topics and unlock them.

As a review, Joe Greblo started a Dockweiler topic and his opening post started a discussion with a number of responses. For some reason, Brad Hall decided to start a second Dockweiler topic - on the same subject. The forum moderators decided to lock Joe's topic and leave it in the "General" forum while moving Brad's topic to the "politics" section. This split the history of the discussion which I believe was Brad's original intent by starting a new topic (he obviously knew there was an existing topic since he referred to it in his new topic).

My concern is that allowing people to start "new" topics on the same subject can create a proliferation of topics. Whenever a discussion doesn't go the way you like, just create a new one ... again and again. That has at least two ill effects. First, it clogs up the forum. Second (and more importantly), it makes it hard for readers to follow the discussion and arrive at their own conclusions. That second effect is probably the reason that people like Brad start alternate topics, and that "tactic" should not be rewarded.

Here are a couple of my PM requests to the moderators:

Bob wrote:Tue Aug 25, 2015 9:46 am

Hi ___________,

Thanks for the response.

How about merging both topics, putting them in the politics section, and unlocking them?

That solves all of your concerns. You may be right that neither of the core groups will change their positions. But a forum is also about informing and persuading those in the middle. By combining the topics you make it easier for people to follow the discussion, and by unlocking it, you give them a chance to participate. And by moving it to Politics you take it out of the eyes of those who are annoyed by it.

Also, I've had enough experience on forums to know that people don't like to see a lot of topics on the same subject. It starts to look like spam. Brad Hall (intentionally?) contributed to this by starting a second topic. If the two topics remain locked and a third is created this will also start to look like spam.

I think it's fair and reasonable to have one topic in the politics forum where this can be hashed out without affecting the rest of the forum.

A forum is about informing and persuading, and sometimes that's just messy business. Thanks for you efforts in facilitating that process.

Bob Kuczewski

Bob wrote:Thu Aug 27, 2015 8:58 pm

Thanks _______.

Is there a reason not to merge the other topic with this one so folks can find it all in one place?

We're using a newer version of PHPBB on the US Hawks (ushawks.org), and in that version, we can merge topics and then move them to a new location leaving a "shadow" topic in the original location. The "shadow" topic doesn't move to the top when new posts are added so it sinks out of sight even while the topic it refers to is being updated. That's pretty much what will happen to the other locked Dockweiler topic anyway, so I don't see too much down side to merging them and leaving a shadow topic in the general forum. The advantage is that it will all be together which makes it much more understandable.

Lastly, by leaving the two topics unmerged, you're somewhat encouraging people to start new topics (about the same subject) when they don't like the direction the other one is going. In politically charged subjects (like this one) you could get a proliferation of "alternative universe" topics started by people (like Brad Hall) who only want their own spin to be seen. I was tempted to do that myself when I saw Brad doing it, but I thought it would be far better for the forum to keep it down to a single topic. By merging them, you're basically making the statement that starting multiple topics on the same subject won't be rewarded. That's a big part of why I'm asking.

Thanks for your moderation efforts. I know it seems like a thankless job, but I do thank you.

Bob

It's not the end of the world if the two topics aren't merged, but I do feel that the consequences will be more people wanting to start duplicate topics to steer discussions away from what's already been said.

dhmartens · Post by **dhmartens** » Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:44 pm

I think one topic was started during marshal law and the other was started after marshal law was relaxed. SHGA is only 10 miles away from SAG Screen Actors Guild to alter any scripts would disrespect the Los Angeles entertainment industry.