HealingWell
Search Close Search
☰

What rule?

Support Forums
>
Prostate Cancer
✚ New Topic ✚ Reply
❬ ❬ Previous Thread |Next Thread ❭ ❭
Posted 12/19/2013 6:38 PM (GMT 0)
I thought threads were usually locked because of a rule violation, not because someone fears a rule MIGHT be violated by posts not yet in existence.  I've read Sephie's short thread and Tony's longer thread and can't find anything but good comments, yet they're both locked. 

Mods, feel free to delete or lock this one, too, but my goodness, a bit of soul-searching about what we maybe shouldn't be doing to our members doesn't seem to deserve a lock on the thead. 

Oh, and Tony, HW will be a poorer place without your presence.

Posted 12/19/2013 6:59 PM (GMT 0)
Clock, I just sent you an email.

Jim
Posted 12/19/2013 7:21 PM (GMT 0)
Can you share the answer to clock's question with the rest of us?
Posted 12/19/2013 7:47 PM (GMT 0)
Good grief. I am shocked. I guess I am late to the party (been busy and now catching up on HW stuff).

I had not read any controversial stuff, but it appears it has now gone to personal email.

That is terribly wrong. 

I hope Tony reconsiders. I have met him personally and he is a stand-up, knowledgeable guy.

I know we on HW sometimes have heated disagreements/differences. That is to be expected.

But that stuff should stay on HW and the  moderators have been quite judicious in locking threads that get out of hand. Sometimes we do disagree with such a lock, but I guess that goes with the territory and the huge moderator pay checks.

I won't say any more.

Mel

Posted 12/19/2013 9:56 PM (GMT 0)
For reference, and directly to clocknut's question:  https://www.healingwell.com/community/default.aspx?f=35&m=2010520
Posted 12/19/2013 11:29 PM (GMT 0)
Point of clarification: The thread to which Casey links is a discussion of the informal rule that new members are discouraged from making posts whose only purpose is to praise or criticize a doctor or medical organization during their first 10 posts. This is intended to prevent organizations from creating questionable "memberships" in an effort to adjust their online reputation, or that of a competitor. That rule has come into play today, but not for either of the two threads about which clocknut inquired.
Posted 12/20/2013 2:31 AM (GMT 0)
It became known as "the Spamadi Rule."

Casey, will you please give it a rest?

-- your pal, PeterDA

Post Edited By Moderator (PeterDisAbelard.) : 12/19/2013 10:36:13 PM (GMT-7)

Posted 12/20/2013 2:57 AM (GMT 0)
checkout threads should always be locked immediately because they are usually an attempt to sew further discord and garner sympathy. if you have to leave let your absence serve notice. soon enough folks will notice you aren't around anymore and if someone wants they can email you.

look at all the bad will and threads popping up from a checkout thread that should have been locked immediately, and it's not like we haven't been down this road before.

ed
Posted 12/20/2013 7:56 AM (GMT 0)
The first thread was locked with the consensus of all of the moderators. Rule 3 was a dominant consideration.

Sephie's thread was locked because it reopened the discussion of a thread already locked, as I noted in my post, when I locked it. I am surprised that there is question. I said:

The previous thread was locked to close this discussion for now. It isn't appropriate to open yet another to circumvent the lock.

I think that was clear.
Posted 12/20/2013 2:43 PM (GMT 0)
142 - very clear, very obvious, and very appropriate.

if a thread get's locked for whatever reason, and someone opens a new one, basically, continuing the content and context of the locked thread, kind of defeated the purpose of locking the first one.

unless I am missing something here.

david
Posted 12/20/2013 5:24 PM (GMT 0)
I'd like to clarify my position on my own thread: I did not open it to circumvent a locked thread nor to continue a discussion that was deemed going nowhere...it was to state my own personal feelings about a situation that upset and disappointed me greatly.

I have no problem with my thread being locked but wish there was a way that members could voice their displeasure publicly on this forum. But, the rules are the rules and we have to abide by them...so it is written, so let it be done.
Posted 12/21/2013 12:12 AM (GMT 0)
These days, "Rules" are allowed to flexible, apparently on a moderator's whim.

www.healingwell.com/community/default.aspx?f=35&m=2939904

The first preemptive locking of a thread I can remember. A pity. The guy (and anyone who might have wanted to respond) was just blown off by the moderator. Check back in a few weeks!

What rule was broken in this fellow's post?
Posted 12/21/2013 2:40 AM (GMT 0)
Paralleli, email me if you want details. There was more to that than what you can see now.
Posted 12/21/2013 3:36 AM (GMT 0)
142,

No, I will not email you privately. This forum should not be a moderator's private playground. I'll contact the owner concerning your ability as a moderator to have "details" that the general user can not see but that you are willing to make known in private.

This forum needs to be moderated in a more serious manner.
Posted 12/21/2013 3:40 AM (GMT 0)
PARALLEL:

C'mon, these modereators have a hard job, for no pay.

Yes, I disagree with them at times, but I don't think I can do a better job

Mel

Posted 12/21/2013 4:25 AM (GMT 0)
Mel,

I agree with you about the hard job. It is not something I would choose to do, or have the time to do. That said, the "rules" should be observed. If they aren't, an explanation should be provided to the forum, not on a who asks about it basis.

That said, maybe I should just chill out myself.........

Best
Posted 12/21/2013 8:06 AM (GMT 0)
The post in question was one of several that were considered spam in favor of a specific physician, as the first posts from a new member. The first was a rule 3 violation against a current member's choice of surgeon.

For any further discussion email me.

Post Edited (142) : 12/21/2013 10:13:22 PM (GMT-7)

✚ New Topic ✚ Reply