I read the thread this morning, and I don't see the issue.
Well, I do. The thread was summarily closed for no apparent reason - the 'troublemaker' had been banned, and yet for some inexplicable reason all he had said was important enough to be allowed and thus committed to history.. But right then it had to suddenly be closed to anyone else, because.... Well, we don't know. There's no reason given on thread, not even a message saying that moderators had closed it because of discussions held in the back room.. It just suddenly got locked up.
The lack of a specific posted reason for the lock is a small ommission. Usually/often/sometimes such closures are explained. I forget the context of this one, but in any case fail to see the big deal.
Sure, every thing the HB said was committed to history (CQ doesn't delete HB posts just because they are HB posts) but that thread is full of rebuttal - such as Dwights posts; and all that rebuttal is committed to history too. I really do think you care too much about
getting in the last word.
The poster who made the claims is clearly an angry HB - who is now clearly marked as "banned", so his writings wouldn't be taken too seriously.
Well, nobody takes anything seriously on the Internet, nobody ever uses old 'data' to back their new claims, and no new HB would ever quote an old angry HB.. Sheesh - if this is meant to be justification for the thread closure, it could surely be used to suggest that the entire thread be wiped...
Not really sure what you're getting at here. I'm not "using it" as justification for thread closure, I'm "using it" as justification for not getting bent out of shape over the content being there. Besides, even if the thread hadn't been closed, there'd be nothing stopping another HB selectively quoting what they wanted to quote. Wipe the whole thread? There's that "something wrong on the internet" thing again.
Conversely, Dwights' posts are clear, sane, and full of data.
Which makes the refusal to reopen it even more puzzling / daft. As for the silly suggestion that he should instead start a new thread to refer back to that one.. Yeah, that's how to run a forum and keep things easy to find and on-topic and coherent! 
Not sure why that makes the refusal to re-open the thread daft. What he'd already said (and said very well) seems "enough". Why the need to get in the last word?
I
agree with your sarcasm about "on-topic and coherent", but in the context of the policy not to re-open threads for "last words" the "start a new thread" idea is just a simple compromise. A simple compromise is all that's needed to defuse most of these disagreements.
Anyone reading the thread would know which way the facts lie.
Yeah, anyone who wasn't an HB. And such a person would never misquote Moonfunk's final words like:
Dw... you are mistaken... Dw... and I have come to an agreement... Links to a website our esteemed member Dw... helped create have been posted and explained.
No, no-one could possibly mis/quote/read that stuff as if Dwight was supporting Moonfunk. Everyone on the Internet plays fair and reasonable at all times....
I don't see how reopening the thread would have made any of that better. Those dastardly HB's could still selectively quote what they wanted. If a "last word" had been added, who's to say an HB would still link to earlier bogus claims? Who's to say an HB would read through to the end to see that "last word"?
And there are several other references that Moonfunk made on that thread that were not able to be challenged because of the unexplained closure. And I'm struggling to see any 'unkind' comments from all the other respondents, so the closure remains a mystery to me. Indeed, it is clear that closure happened within hours of the banning - so anyone like me on the far side of the planet wouldn't have had any possible way to respond to anything...
When I was a mod, I was on the same side of the planet as you, so any threads I closed were closed in your time zone - and should people on the other side of the World complain about that?
Sometimes HB threads do get left open for a while after the HB has been banned. Those threads mostly just turn into a bunch of people piling on with the same stuff. I don't see that as particularly useful. Also, in those cases, sometimes an HB will come along and kick-start the thread again with further claims; which doesn't help the stuff you were being sarcastic about earlier (that I agreed with) and generate mod work in splitting and such.
So, HB gets banned, threads generally get closed; people need to accept that "something is wrong on the internet". I can see why people want such threads left open for continued rebuttal, but having been a mod over there and had to deal with the day to day effort of keeping it in good running order, I think the policy is fine.
Allowing a "last word", for whatever reason, simply opens up the moderators of that forum to fielding many further such requests, and the hassle of having to justify decisions that don't go the way of the requester.
Rubbish - the mod's can completely ignore future requests if they wish, or gee whiz, maybe they could just look at each case on its merits... Many, many threads are left open for additions and corrections after the thread originator has been banned, and imnsho, that sort of thread should only really be closed if:
- the topic and all related issues/claims are comprehensively dealt with
- it degenerates into silly jokes or bashing of the now banned person.
A request
was made in this case to re-open the thread. So we did what you asked us to do ("look at each case on its merits").
We just didn't give the answer you'd have liked.
AFAICS, and correct me if I'm wrong, Moonfunk was the only problem poster on that entire thread. Sorta ironic that the person he impugned was the one prevented from responding, on the supposed basis that lots of other requests for re-opening had been made and the imaginary floodgates mustn't be opened.
"supposed basis" - the mods of that forum know what goes on or not. Are you saying they lie?
As I said, I've read through that thread and I don't really see that Dwight was impugned particularly badly, nor in a way that
needed a "last word". Someone is either going to read the thread properly and understand all posts, or not. A "last word" won't change that.
I'm not at all surprised the decision in this case was "no".
Neither am I - that's just one small aspect of why the-forum-formerly-known-as-BAUT-and-now-horribly-named-Cosmoquest has lost its way.
I hate the new name, too. The merger was part of why I took a break (permanent?) from being a mod there. Still, it's the same old thing from me - no one forum will work for all participants. I don't think there is one perfect form and style that will suit everyone.
So, some of the people who leave the forum will be good, intelligent, nice people with lots of knowledge, like Dwight. But all those good attributes don't necessarily mean that their departure is something that must be prevented at all costs, or that the reasons for their deperture are by definition things that need to be changed.
It was quite some time ago. Time enough to get over it.
On the Internet, everything old is new again..
Um, OK?
Mega's quote was on the money:
This is one of the things that bothers me most about BAUT/CQ - any complaint at all, and you're in the same category as people who are building perpetual motion machines in their basements.
Pzkpfw, you..
It's the sort of thread flouncy ATM posters make when they see they can't push their non-science.
and Swift..
You will be lost among the 160,000+ members
and Henrik..
a very large proportion of the goodbye posts is a cry for a chorus of posts telling the poster to stay
and Jim..
there have been Members in the past who made the "..I'm leaving.." post and started posting again shortly after.
and Moose..
don't rub our noses in 'your' ego(s) and expect kind words
..are all doing precisely that - demeaning posters as flouncing egotistical tinfoilhatters. And there are current and former moderators in that list.. It's not a good look. BTW, if you would like to see how it *should* have been handled, then I think Strange's post was the sort of BE NICE post that you guys keep saying is the only basic rule that needs to be remembered...
Meh. You are expecting perfection from people that you don't expect for yourself. Most of those replies came after the issue was pushed, and really, were invited. They may not have been 100% polite, but I think they were all well within bounds. Some of them I don't even know why you point them out. Dwight himself called his leaving a "flounce".
I'm very disappointed with the way this was handled. And still waiting for Moose to explain what was egotistical in my post.. Indeed, Pzkpfw, would you like to point at where I or Dwight have pushed non-science? Do you believe we will flounce back?
Or was that .. just possibly .. an unwarranted generalisation? Or just a little harmless tease, like all those other examples?
I don't recall enough of your posts to know one way or the other. I don't recall Dwight ever pushing non-science. Why do you ask? How's that relevant? I must have missed something.
