Yes, and I agree with you entirely.
Ed Zotti’s new “rule” is not meant to address a common problem. He says himself that otherwise worthwhile threads turning into flame fests that could be rescued with an NPR are rare.
The other thing he wants to avoid is discussions of mod action that get out of hand, or start trending to be ‘un-civil’. AFAICT, this means a discussion of mod actions that is too obviously indefensible, and that ignoring hasn’t caused to go away.
I mean, really - Ed locks the thread discussing Euthanasiast’s suspension (once the suspension is up), because he want to keep the discussion focused (cite). But the new thread he starts does not address the points raised at all. And the ideas in his OP about NPR won’t address it either.
And we get this kind of thing
at the start of the thread. Then a couple of posters display a less-than-worshipful attitude towards him, and we get this –
Apparently he has the time and energy to cop an attitude when someone reminds him who is the client. But when it comes to discussion where he or the other mods might have to admit a mistake, they make up a rule to shift the blame onto the poster.
The mods are always right. When the mods are wrong, circle the wagons and tell everyone who doesn’t like it to go away.
Regards,
Shodan