Why did you lock the USS Liberty thread Tomndebb?

[Nametag]

Jeez, I miss Manhattan.

[Sapo]

@DSYoungEsq

tom, I’ve said this before, I’ll say it again. You do yourself zero credit as a Moderator in engaging in back and forth snark. If you really don’t think the poster in question has anything valuable he/she is contributing, my suggestion is to simply drop the conversation.

And it has nothing to do with “taking advantage” in a bad sense. It’s simply the fact that you are taking advantage of the situation to get in the last word. Last wordism is a serious disease around here; many posters here succumb to it regularly (I’m included in that group). It should be fought when one feels one is falling into the trap. For a Moderator to get in the last word, and then to ensure it’s the last word by locking the thread, you are obtaining an advantage that will cause others to feel aggrieved, regardless of whether or not you intend by that combination to get in a “shot” that won’t be responded to.

A Moderator is like a referee. When I was the administrator of a referee program for the Bay Area for a well-known youth soccer organization, I advised the referees I trained/spoke to/came in contact with that they had to avoid trying to have the last word. Simply blow the whistle as need be, indicate the penalty, and move on. It forstalls bad feelings and the appearance of unfairness, because the referee won’t be visibly chided for any failings he/she may have, or bad acts they may engage in.

And think of it this way: you were closing the thread down in large part because you felt that the potential for positive contribution was significantly outweighed by the potential for continued jerkiness. Yet, you appear to assert that your own contribution as a poster was important enough to ensure it was posted, rather than simply forgoing the chance of doing so. It seems to me that, either the content of the post you made was an important contribution, in which case the potential for important contribution existed, mitigating the need for shutting the thread down, or the content of your post was of secondary nature, in which case simply swallowing what you had to say and shutting the thread down would hardly have caused you any great unhappiness.

I assert again: if for no other reason than to avoid the appearance of unfairness, and to keep from looking as if you are taking advantage of the situation, you should not post as a poster iimmediately before locking a thread. Either post and warn, or don’t post and close. It’s an easy rule to follow, won’t cause people to get bent out of shape, and certainly doesn’t infringe significantly on your ability to contribute here.

Hear hear. Cute and clever are not good attributes on a moderator. Terse and laconic work much better.

[tomndebb]

@DSYoungEsq

[And think of it this way: you were closing the thread down in large part because you felt that the potential for positive contribution was significantly outweighed by the potential for continued jerkiness. Yet, you appear to assert that your own contribution as a poster was important enough to ensure it was posted, rather than simply forgoing the chance of doing so. It seems to me that, either the content of the post you made was an important contribution, in which case the potential for important contribution existed, mitigating the need for shutting the thread down, or the content of your post was of secondary nature, in which case simply swallowing what you had to say and shutting the thread down would hardly have caused you any great unhappiness.

I was closing the thread to break the cycle of bickering. I did not post that no one could open a new thread on the same topic. Regarding the actual discussion, “positive contribution” was always possible in the next thread. Whether the participants would decide that there was sufficient information and interest to open a new thread, I had no way of knowing.

I sort of see what you are saying, except that you seem to be investing a lot more weight to the actual event than I could imagine it getting, (were I not being challenged on it).

I am curious as to the question I already asked: had I posted an hour earlier with no intervening posts before the closing, was it incumbent on me to go back and delete my last post? In other words, if I had simply posted the ship information without caring that it might have been duplicate and then gone back and finished reading the end of the thread so that my decision had occurred 40 minutes to an hour later–the length of time my ship post sat written but unsubmitted as I read the other posts, following a number of the links and discovering increasing sniping among the posters–is it your opinion that I would have had an obligation to go back and delete that post, since it was the last post in the thread?

At any rate, thread closings are pretty rare and it is even more rare that I bother to post some relevant neutral information before closing a thread, so I am not sure that the situation will even arise again.

[ashman165]

@tomndebb

I sort of see what you are saying, except that you seem to be investing a lot more weight to the actual event than I could imagine it getting, (were I not being challenged on it).

Yes, it’s good that you’re reasonable enough to see that clearly some people disagree with your otherwise imagined unassailable conduct.

I am curious as to the question I already asked: had I posted an hour earlier with no intervening posts before the closing, was it incumbent on me to go back and delete my last post?

I’m not sure. It’s hard to know since you closed it less than a minute after you posted your reply. That’s a pretty slim duration of time for people to say anything. Also, I think the time of day would have mattered. An hour late at night, versus an hour in a peak posting time would make a difference. But let’s stick with what you actually did: make your comment and immediately prevent all people in the universe who aren’t you from having a chance to say anything.

At any rate, thread closings are pretty rare and it is even more rare that I bother to post some relevant neutral information before closing a thread, so I am not sure that the situation will even arise again.

You keep harping this neutrality bullshit as though it’s relevant. The issue, again, isn’t what you said in your capacity as a poster; it’s that you said something in your capacity as a poster and then immediately switched to your capacity as moderator to prevent any other mere poster from having an equal chance to say, well, anything. Your capacity as moderator ensured that your capacity as a poster was given a station greater than all other people in the universe who aren’t you. I’m still surprised that you’re surprised (and yet completely incapable of understanding) why this came up at all.

[TubaDiva]

ashman165, it is obvious that you are not going to listen to anything said in this thread that does not coincide with your worldview.

You may not agree with what was said and done but we’re not going to explain it to you any further and we’re not going to argue about it with you. It’s over.