HealingWell
Search Close Search
☰

Locked Threads

Support Forums
>
Prostate Cancer
✚ New Topic ✚ Reply
12
❬ ❬ Previous Thread |Next Thread ❭ ❭
Posted 6/26/2013 5:12 PM (GMT 0)
Wow, now a thread gets locks because it fouls the morning of a mod.

May I sugest that there is a certain commonality of the recent locked threads.   A poster (recently Casey but it could have been TallAllen or Tony or others) makes comments which are unpopular with some other posters.  Some of those other posters (easy for most of us to identify) make ad hominem comments, things get nasty and the thread gets locked.  Actually I suspect that some of the nasty comments are made for the express purpose of getting the thread locked because of dislike of the subject matter -- but, hey, that's just my personal opinion.

One of our long time members had another suggestion for the mods rather than locking threads and that was to warn and then "suspend" members who persisted in making rule breaking posts.  That was deemed impossible because of the forum software.  I have another suggestion:  Since the mods are obviously reading these nasty posts anyway, why not just delete any post that violate the rules.  This should obviously include posts like the recent ones that refer to another posters comments as "bullcrap", "horsecrap", etc.  If the toxic posts continue for an extended period, then kick the offender out of the fourm.

But, at least to me, this repeated cycle that leads to locked threads is getting a bit old.

That's my editorial of the day.

Jim

Posted 6/26/2013 5:15 PM (GMT 0)
 

Tudpock18 said...
Actually I suspect that some of the nasty comments are made for the express purpose of getting the thread locked because of dislike of the subject matter...

I had that same hunch, Jim.  Cuz the arguements were absent of substance, and filled with vigorous stammering and attack.  A lot of good threads went down the tubes that way...

Posted 6/26/2013 5:19 PM (GMT 0)
Are you volunteering, Jim? We have an opening. I seem to remember that you and I occasionally argue here on the forum but we can generally come to a compromise in one-on-one discussions. We could easily work together.
Posted 6/26/2013 5:29 PM (GMT 0)
Another good point you made, Jim: Tudpock18 said... why not just delete any post that violate the rules...  The moderators should refresh themselves on an understanding of the 8 site rules HERE .   Then the “flames” should simply be deleted.   I confess to being sucked into throwing a flame or two in the past, but have previously re-committed to not being drawn down to that level..  
Posted 6/26/2013 5:37 PM (GMT 0)
"stir it up" wasn't only a great Wailers song :)
Posted 6/26/2013 6:03 PM (GMT 0)
Since Casey seems intent on taking on the mods, let me lay out my case quickly before this thread needs to be locked too.

The forum rules page has eight rules, eleven guidelines and a bit of extra extraneous text.

Guideline 9 reads "Be respectful of moderators in both the forums and any private communications."

A question for the lawyerly among you: is Casey's rather snide and annoying suggestion that the moderators should brush up on the rules consistent with that guideline? Should I have deleted that comment? Replaced it with a note explaining that members should generally try to avoid being a**holes in their comments?

There's also guideline about compassion and staying on topic. What are the mod to make of someone who barges into a thread started by another member who he knows he annoys, sets up his soapbox, gets out his megaphone and begins again to grind, grind, grind at the same old topic that he always pushes?

Technically, I suppose I am violating a rule here. I just implied that Casey can be an a**hole at times. So, who started it? Was it Casey when he made the deliberately annoying suggestion that I brush up on the rules? Was it me for making an ad hominem attack?

Casey is an advocate. As such he craves attention. I have repeatedly watched people trying to ignore him. He simply ratchets up the irritation until someone responds and then demands that they debate him on his preferred topic.

* * *

Sorry, rant over. I feel better now. Sorry I had to put you through that.
Posted 6/26/2013 6:15 PM (GMT 0)
Peter, thanks for the offer -- it's tempting.

Re your (most likely) rhethorical questions, I personally don't think Casey's suggestion that the mods refresh themselves on Rule 8 met the criteria for a rule violation.  Was it annoying?  Certainly?  Was it nasty?  No.  Especially in light of the fact that one of the mods recently referred to one of Casey's ideas as "insane". 

Now did your response about Casey being an ***hole cross the line?  Probably.  But in the instructive sense that you meant it I don't think it's a thread locking offense.

OK...off to the dentist now.  I'll check back in later to see if this one gets locked...

Jim

Posted 6/26/2013 6:22 PM (GMT 0)
My weigh in FWIW - I would be significantly more heavy handed than the Mods are here in some cases.

Let me preface that with I believe in general the Mods do a great job - are they perfect, no - but somebody please stand up if you think YOU are. And remember, they are always looking for Mods so I say give it a shot if anyone thinks they can do better.

Back to my point - I've been a director of operations for my career, and to be brutally honest whenever I have run across a problem employee I address it with them - one on one with facts - remind them of the rules and that if they can't abide then they are free to leave. However if they choose to stay and also continue to choose to ignore the rules than in essence THEY have made the decision to have me show them the door. Period.

Now perhaps on a similar but different level - in my past both professionally and personally if I take exception to something someone has done or said - let's use professionally for example, with a peer - I take it to them, one on one - let them know how I feel and let them reply. I try to do this in a respectful manner and I have found that usually works - simply man up and discuss this.

One of the fundamental problems I see here is that instead of addressing the individual one on one, there are instead pissing contests engaged, hidden behind a key board. Reminds me of a time when I was driving along an interstate system in the Midwest; I have a C.B. radio in my truck and use it while on road trips. I was listening to two guys going at it back and forth, and as one guy was saying "well I'm right here south-bound on the I at mile marker 100, so let's pull over and discuss this face to face" - as he was actually heading north-bound a few miles away. Classic.

My points in summary then - if you don't like what the Mods are doing discuss it with them one on one; if you don't like what you hear then you always have choices - respectfully disagree and let it go, or leave the site/thread/whatever - or, become a Mod and do it yourself.

If you have a problem with a brother (let's try to keep that one in mind BTW) then contact them and work it out. Maybe it's just me and/or the way I was raised, but this constant bickering back and forth is actually laughable. Grow up, man up, or shut up. What aggravates me the most as I have stated numerous times before is this is done in front of newbies who are still scared $#!tless and have to listen to this adolescent junk.

MAN, did that feel good!
Posted 6/26/2013 6:27 PM (GMT 0)
Peter, We're all guilty from time to time, and that includes me as well as you and a dozen others I could quickly name if I chose to, but speaking as someone who has been trying to avoid argumentation here on HW, my sense lately is that Casey is being unfairly singled out.  Yes, perhaps his message is grating to some, but so are the messages that many of the rest of us repeat in thread after thread.

If we happen to agree with those messages, they're judged acceptable and beneficial.  If they rub us the wrong way, then we jump on the person who posted them.

Maybe you can explain to me how recent posts by guys like TallAllen, Tony in Las Vegas, or yours, or mine, are so very different from Casey's in that regard?  We all believe what we believe, have our pet theories, fall back on the same platitudes with noticeable frequency.

Agree with him or not, Casey's approach to dealing with prostate cancer is more thoroughly researched and shows a greater knowledge of the subject matter than the great majority who post here on HW, and I certainly include myself as one of the not-all-that-well informed. 

I never thought I'd find myself feeling compelled to speak up for Casey, and he may not like my doing so, but having met him on several occasions, and recently having seen him donating his free time building a Habitat for Humanity dwelling, I hope that folks here who think they know what makes the guy tick will step back and back off.

In case no one has noticed, there are a whole lot of folks who are really getting tired of the personal attacks and in-fighting that has become way too common here on HW.

 

Posted 6/26/2013 6:55 PM (GMT 0)
Why would anyone, on a public posting, call someone an "a**hole" or accuse them of being "malicious" for expressing their opinion, or refer to them as a caricature, or refer to a posting with reference to some sort of animal feces? What possible benefit does that have, for anyone (other than, perhaps, a cathartic benefit for the writer)? Whatever happened to "I respectfully disagree with the views expressed by ...." or "I have a different perspective"? I think a lot of people here value civility. But maybe they are sort of the silent majority. (I find it especially perplexing that some of the most knowledgeable people -- those who tend to back up their assertions with science -- tend to take the most abuse. I am, however, encouraged that these same people tend, by and large, to respond in a civil manner, rather than taking the bait).
Posted 6/26/2013 7:07 PM (GMT 0)
I completely agree with Clock and Jim.  Casey has been singled out more than anyone else.  I think it is more about  message, that irritates most.  If you remember, Tall Allen was the victim a few weeks ago.  We even had people claiming he was Casey.  Tall Allen has never come across as condescending, rude or unprofessional.  But, he was "crucified" by the same group that disagrees with Casey.

I do not want to be a Mod and I truly respect all that perform that function here.  However, in my opinion, your personal biases are showing.

Paul

Posted 6/26/2013 7:22 PM (GMT 0)
Nobody but me said anything to Allen.

My problem with Allen was that I thought:

1 - His messages unwittingly judged the choices of many here.
2 - I thought, perhaps incorrectly, that he was on the same advocacy kicks and nothing else and I don't like the idea of this being an advocacy site for one issue.

That has absolutely nothing to do with Casey and the issues many have with him.

I think good advice was given here about taking it offline.

As for the mods, I think they do an exceptional job and you all should be circulating an email about getting some gift certificates for their voluntary work the way we do with the coaches of kids.

This is a pattern, someone advocates something in a manner that is alarming to many here. Some here decide not to ignore it and to engage. Half a dozen people have engaged Casey today alone and he has history with a ton of folks here. It is not the message, it is the delivery and the tactic. To fall back on the point that it is the message is intellectually dishonest in my opinion.

Things get a little heated, not too much really. A lot of you guys have been through WW2 and Vietnam and Cancer so I'd assume this is nothing. The mods step in as they see fit (most of us have been scolded from time to time)

Then someone decides to stir things up and start another 2-3 threads and some polls (because they actually crave the heat) and then the few people who agree or need to believe in the advocacy that starts the turmoil chime in.

It's the same pattern over and over.

I don't think that the best way to break the pattern is to allow for bully pulpits and 100% redundant and repetitive advocacy, sorry, I don't.

Nothing is black and white. I'd suggest that those of you who see this as a black and white issue look at little closer at the gray areas in these locked threads. By the way, it's my threads that get locked and it's typically because Casey steps in with the same propaganda which in turn always ruffles feathers (see today) and leads to a locked thread. In my "paranoid" view, by design.
Posted 6/26/2013 7:30 PM (GMT 0)

Paul said...
If you remember, Tall Allen was the victim a few weeks ago. We even had people claiming he was Casey. Tall Allen has never come across as condescending, rude or unprofessional. But, he was "crucified" by the same group that disagrees with Casey.

Quite right. They were mistaken about Tall Allen. I've privately asked most of them to reconsider and, I think, they are coming around.
Posted 6/26/2013 7:51 PM (GMT 0)

Purgatory said...


Casey said in the locked thread:

"There is somewhere between 100,000 and 200,000 men PER YEAR who feel strongly that their doctor saved them from a certain and miserable PC death."

I and some others, simply believe this is a made up number to prove his point. I have asked 3 times in a row for proof of this stat, and no reply still. Why not? If it's true, then cite it like any other fact, if not, then either admit is was made up or retract the statement. We are not stupid here, most if not all know the difference.

david


www.prostateoncology.com/education/fundamentals_of_treatment/undiagnosed
Posted 6/26/2013 8:55 PM (GMT 0)
Purgatory,

You are right that he made up the number -- or maybe he found it somewhere and they made it up -- it doesn't matter. Onthefence's link suggests the numbers came from the estimated statistic of one million biopsies annually resulting in 200k diagnoses of prostate cancer of which over 100k are indolent and will never cause any trouble, even if left untreated. It's a bit of a stretch to assume that all of those men who were diagnosed with indolent prostate cancer are certain that their doctor prevented their demise, but again the number doesn't matter.

The correct number (as I happen to know being a smart guy myself) is "a lot" as in "A lot of men feel strongly (but wrongly) that their lives were saved by their treatment when in fact their operation has impacted their quality of life without adding one second to their lifespan." That is a true statement, demonstrable by statistics but unknowable on a case by case basis. Casey's right that such men exist in huge numbers. But there is no way to know who they are, either before or after their treatment or non-treatment.
Posted 6/26/2013 9:17 PM (GMT 0)
As a general rule, I don't believe in censorship. I do appreciate that this is not my clubhouse and not my rules or guidelines. I'll probably never have to be scolded or reminded.
Having said that, I would like to see the locking of threads be reserved for much more egregious violations that I have currently seen. And while I greatly respect Peter's moderation and advice he has given me in the past, I think he went WAY out of line in his references to Casey.
Posted 6/26/2013 9:36 PM (GMT 0)
PeterDisAbelard,

If a member telling you that you should refresh your understanding of the rules provokes your reaction, then I propose that you are a bit too thin skinned for being a moderator. And more importantly, if you think that Casey's suggestion warrants being called an a--hole, then I suggest you brush up on the rules of civilized discourse.

To follow your line of "lawyerly" analysis, to the extent that a moderator is acting as a judge of whether conduct violates the rules, it is quite appropriate for a member to question the logic of the judge's interpretation and understanding of the rules. Questioning such understanding is not disrespectful.

Anyway, it's pretty clear that you owe Casey an apology.
Posted 6/26/2013 9:42 PM (GMT 0)
I think Casey owes the board an apology. I'll be happy to join in with him.

Peter was summarizing a series of events that transpired over the last 24 hours, not to mention the last few years. Furthermore, this is not a court of law. This is a group of peers in a peer-to-peer support site.
Posted 6/26/2013 9:45 PM (GMT 0)
I vote we drop all the discussion of who owes whom an apology and move on.  This personality-driven stuff is really spoiling the environment here. 

 

Posted 6/26/2013 9:59 PM (GMT 0)
Peter is the one that raised the lawyer analogy. Was your comment directed to him?
Posted 6/26/2013 10:09 PM (GMT 0)
I cannot imagine how Casey could possibly owe this board, or anyone on it, an apology. He has given thoughtful and well-informed advice freely and generously. Where appropriate, he has cited to authority to support his positions. And he has maintained a civil and respectful tone.

At the same time, he has been maligned and insulted by a moderator and others (though, a small minority, thankfully). A lesser man would have lashed out, in response. But Casey (who I have never met) is apparently too much of a gentleman to do that.

So, Casey, you do not owe an apology. If anything, you are owed an apology. And, even if I might occasionally disagree with something you say, you have my great respect.

Post Edited (medved) : 6/26/2013 4:43:27 PM (GMT-6)

Posted 6/26/2013 10:38 PM (GMT 0)
From the sidelines....
I see some egos at play.
I see that it is not just one person.
I see people who have had issues with a person in the past, enjoying watching that person get reprimanded.
I see people who can't let something go.
I see people who want to be right.
I see people who refuse to budge.
I see moderators being overtaxed for their non-paying efforts.

I see skies of blue..... clouds of white
Bright blessed days....dark sacred nights
And I think to myself .....what a wonderful world.

The colors of a rainbow.....so pretty ..in the sky
Are also on the faces.....of people ..going by
I see friends shaking hands.....sayin.. how do you do
They're really sayin......
Posted 6/26/2013 10:53 PM (GMT 0)

medved said...
I cannot imagine how Casey could possibly owe this board, or anyone one it, an apology. He has given thoughtful and well-informed advice freely and generously. Where appropriate, he has cited to authority to support his positions. And he has maintained a civil and respectful tone.

At the same time, he has been maligned and insulted by a moderator and others (though, a small minority, thankfully). A lesser man would have lashed out, in response. But Casey (who I have never met) is apparently too much of a gentleman to do that.

So, Casey, you do not owe an apology. If anything, you are owed an apology. And, even if I might occasionally disagree with something you say, you have my great respect.

Medved, you jest of course. Having been a member here since February of 2008 (that confers no special privileges sad) and over that time I have seen a good number of members come and go (and sadly a few pass away)and others stay. Among them were men such as TC-LasVegas, JohnT and Tall allen ------ men with excellent knowlege and information about Pca and for whom I have the greatest respect. They manage to convey this information with dignity and manage to discuss differences rationally with members who question their standpoints or information. Then there are the odd ones out ---- those who will brook no dissention. I once wrote a ditty about one, which included the lines:

"but he's not here to help, support's not his aim,
"Tis rather to show you how clever's his brain"

I still stand by those words. One (who shall remain unnamed) in particular sees this forum as nothing other than a vehicle to demonstate his (self judged) intellectual superiority over the mere mortals here. Any value in his message is obscured in the way it is delivered. Like any ego-manic, he resents dissent and employs cheap shallow sarcasm to denigrate those he judges to be "anti-supporters" of his opinions. Very sad really for it has caused some division here.
Bill

Post Edited (BillyMac) : 6/26/2013 5:13:18 PM (GMT-6)

Posted 6/26/2013 11:12 PM (GMT 0)
No, Bill, I was not jesting. I agree with you that JohnT and Tall Allen are very well-informed and valuable members of this community. I put Casey very much in the same category (along with Ralph, Yooper, Tudpock, and others -- no intention to leave anyone out -- just some who come to mind because I often learn things when I read their posts).

But even if I did not, I find the degrading way that Casey has been treated by a very small number of people on this board -- similar to the way TA was treated by a very small number of people a few weeks ago -- to be unfortunate. When someone engages in name calling, I believe it says more about the "name caller" than about the victim.

Post Edited (medved) : 6/26/2013 5:15:38 PM (GMT-6)

Posted 6/26/2013 11:25 PM (GMT 0)
For those of you wanting an apology, here it is: www.healingwell.com/community/default.aspx?f=35&m=2776038&g=2776038#m2776038.
✚ New Topic ✚ Reply
12