See this thread:

http://www.dvdtalk.com/forum/showthr...hreadid=110533

A comment was made by a specific user that resulted in a suspension. Here is why closing it was unnecessary:

1. Other than that one comment, there was no other heated discussion contained in the thread.

2. Once the offending user was suspended, there was no risk that there would be any additional heated comments made in the thread.

3. The original poster's question was not yet answered to anyone's satisfaction.

4. No explanation was offered as to why the thread was closed. Nor did any specific mod take credit for closing the thread, removing the possibility for me to express my concerns to that mod directly.

Personally, I don't think #4 should happen ever.

So which part of "quit questioning everything the mods do" from Geoff, did you not understand?

I think the mod did just fine here. The thread was a mix of answering the question and empire state playing games. It's not unreasonable for the poster to open a new thread and give it another try.

The work load lately in the Other forum has 'for some reason' really peaked and the mods are doing the best they can. Not all closed threads will get an explination, and the mods do often post explinations when they can.

Fair enough. However, I have seen posted at least a dozen times that we should email the mods if we have concerns about a thread closure/suspensions, etc. Bushdog said this very thing just yesterday in a thread in this forum.

How can we do this if the mod does not identify him/herself?

1. I have never started a "question a mod" thread in the year I have been here. In fact, I actually supported Bushdog's Javajive suspension in the other, recently closed thread.

2. The Javajive thread, which was an open question of moderator action, was left open for 20 hours. Furthermore, it was not closed until 90 minutes after I opened this thread. If questioning the mods in this forum is taboo, that thread would have been closed much earlier.

3. Geoff's exact comments in that thread were:

How exactly does that equate with:

I like you Randy, and I think you do a fine job as a mod on the whole. I also share your predilection for melons (although not quite to the same level of sexual enthusiasm). I also apologize for being persistant about this, but your comments in this thread were both combative and counter-productive.

If a thread gets too hot and is closed, then simply open another one flame free. Then cut and paste good comments if you have too..

No big whup.

Justins, this is what I was referring to:

http://www.dvdtalk.com/forum/showthr...hreadid=101832

I think this explains what I meant. I was not referring to Geoff's other comment. And yes, it's not just you or this thread in particular, it is more that Geoff requested that posters quit taking the mods to task for every decision, and I still see a lot of it happening. I think some of it is a good thing...but this was an example of one I did not agree with for these reasons:

I take issue with your thread title here, and your first statement that the original question was unanswered. It was replied to a number of times (correctly) that a Piano is considered a stringed instrument. The final posts were more related to the Empire State post. I closed the thread based on my decision that the question WAS answered....more than once. But the main reason I closed it, before I suspended Empire State, is because it's the only way I can be sure that a thread is NOT deleted by a poster, and posts to that thread are not further edited by the posters. That is important in matters of banning or suspensions. However, after closing the thread, I had to deal with my own business issues involving my clients. That left me very little time to deal with forum matters...and I did not have time to explain all of this.

I apologize for seeming testy...but it does seem that anytime a mod does anything, he gets questioned if it was the right thing, was it done perfectly, etc. The thing is, everyone sees things a little differently, so never are we going to have everyone agreeing that a mod action was 100% the right thing to do. Even among the mods, trust me. And as mods, we also make compromises and tread gray areas and make difficult judgement calls.

As far as contacting the mods, frankly it would seem easy to email the three of them. The links are provided. Sure it's a little more trouble, but not that big of a deal.

Yeah, it's still happening a LOT. :( Seems like more than 50% of the time the mods do anything, someone has to question it.

- David Stein

I never read that thread. I don't really read this forum regularly.

Fair enough, and thanks for the followup. I know which mod closed it and I have an explanation. I still do not agree but that doesn't really matter. The issue is closed from my end.

I can't wait for this thread to finally be closed. I'm in the mood for a dose of irony. :D

I can't believe a guy who plays the piano could get so riled up! :eek:

I always thought he was a pianist.

Ok, am i the only one confused? He said he
didn't say that?!

I haven't ever seen empirestate say anything
like that! :confused:

I hereby give my word -- whatever it's worth -- that empire state (or someone who logged in as him) typed what is attributed to him in the aformentioned thread. I saw it with my own eyes, before he edited his post.

Mmm. Maybe he got pissed, wrote it, and then changed his mind? At least he realized he was out of line then...

If you look at the time that Empire State's post was "edited by..." then it's just after two people quoted him, and one minute before he deined all knowledge of ever having posted it. Pretty stupid trying to claim that you didn;t post something when two people have already quoted you on it. Especially since Caustic and CK both quoted the exact same thing within a minute of each other, and it's pretty doubtful that they'd both "humourously" misquote the same person in the exact same way.

If you're gonna go ballistic because someone doesn;t believe what you're saying, that's bad enough. Going ballistic and attacking someone, then editing out your post and calling other members liars for claiming you said what you did is just not acceptable.

Jim, I agree completely. I was
just hoping empire had a bad morning
or something. I feel it was out
of character, that's all.

You know, I am surprised that you think it was so out of character for him. I have seen him do that kind of thing several times before, and I know that the Mods have too. Now, personally, I don't take any offense at what he said, in fact I don't know whether it was directed at me. I even posted that if it was, I could laugh about it. Rather than fess up and say "Hey, something came over me, I was just being a dork, sorry" which I would have shrugged off, he denied it (and I have a sense that the denial was part of the joke- it wasn't meant to be taken seriously). On the other hand, even though it slides off my back, I think it was a post that absolutely warranted a suspension. And having read randyc's explanation for the closing, I support that as well. The amazing thing is, you would think that if someone was iin a trollish mood and wanted to mess up my thread, they would have used the obvious target: it's silly sounding title. Maybe he thought of that, but felt that the joke was too old...

I could be wrong, but I thought he was just trying to be funny.

Well, this is questionable. I agree that he most likely was not serious. On the other hand, where is the humor? When you call a stranger a pu$$y, what do you expect to happen? If you and he were riding in the subway and he leaned over and said, "Dude, watch this, it'll be so funny. I am gonna go up to that guy over there and start screaming at him that he is a pu$$y", what would you say? Sure, it would be real funny. Right. People also are "trying to be funny" when they trip kids in the hallways at school and make their books go flying. Haha! I love it when that happens! One time I "tried to be funny" when I was 7 years old, and my single mother left me in the apartment alone for 15 minutes while she went to the supermarket. She came back after what must have been a harrowing errand to find the lights out and no sign of me. She frantically searched the house, but I was hiding from her. Hilarious! Then in her frenzied state she opened the closet in the hallway. I jumped out with a pair of pantyhose over my head and yelled "Booga-Looga-Looga!". She about shat her pants. Now, that may be a funny story to tell, in fact she and I have shared laughs about it (17 years later). But it wasn't funny at the time. And I felt terrible about it for years. Look, I said in my post above that regardless of empire state's intentions (joking or serious), if I knew that his comment was directed at me I could laugh it off. On the other hand, "laughing it off" doesn't mean that he is a comedic genius. It means my feelings aren't guarded by paper-thin armor. And believe me, comedy or not, what he said was way beyond the boundaries of what our guidelines are. What can you possibly come up with to defend him?

Attempt at humor or not, 100% unwelcome in this forum.

I agree with the two above posts. I wasn't making an excuse for him or condoning what was said, I was just speculating as to his motivation.

Oh, probably the case. And if we're guessing motivation I'd suggest that is why Randy decided on the suspension, not the ban.

shame on you! Did your mother ban you?! :)

No, but she prolly shoulda. I think I learned my lesson though. I didn't try it again for a year or so. j/k