How would you handle this?

[BDSC]

If I am thinking about the correct thread, that is in fact what happened.

The thread I was talking about was a couple of years ago.

 

[ski2moro]

Probably ... dive shop owners make their own decisions for their own reasons. But the person who initially suggested that Dylan speak today was one of those dive shop owners ... and that dive shop owner will most certainly welcome Dylan back into his business. I think most will ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

That's good. And Bob, I hope to dive with you someday in Cove 2 to see the GPO and to learn more from you. I'm new to this forum and to diving, but there are just some people who I have respect for from the start. Thanks for all you do.

 

[dmoore19]

I wish I had never posted in this thread. I read the whole thing while it happened. I asked why the OP could not have the thread closed. I think it is important that the members of this mini society have a say it how it evolves. This board is moderated and generally I find the moderation to be fair. Posting here is not a right, the first amendment is not in play. Maybe I should have asked what the deciding factor in the moderators decision to grant the request is instead.

---------- Post Merged at 09:35 PM ---------- Previous Post was at 09:33 PM ----------

If I may, things can go a completely different direction than the OP thought it would, but stay on topic. Sometimes the topic shifts but is still related to the OP's topic. These are not troll fests, but natural progressions of the original posts. If they go to far off topic they can be split and often are. A good example would be to split this discussion off and place it in site support since it is completely off topic. And in many cases the members bring them back to topic. Most of the time when there are requests to close a thread, it is because the OP hasn't liked the responses, but that is the nature of discussion boards. Not everyone will always agree with you.

Thanks for the explanation.

 

[gcarter]

The thread I was talking about was a couple of years ago.

Then I stand corrected as I have no knowledge of the circumstances.

Apologies.

 

[BDSC]

Then I stand corrected as I have no knowledge of the circumstances.

Apologies.

No big deal. I'm sure the situation that you guys described or were thinking about has happened many times as well.

 

[lionfish-eater]

One thing is clear, The octopus that was taken has now become a martyr, whose sacrificed life has become an impetus for change. It deserves recognition as such. We should stop referring to it as "the octopus" and give it a name worthy of it's significance. I suggest we start calling it Bob Dylan.

 

[MaxBottomtime]

I don't know. Maybe Dylan did us all a favor.

 

[Tigerman]

Oh, My, God.. Thats SUCH a good "documentary"

 

[diverdoug1]

I have been trying to read through this lengthy thread, but I am not clear on a couple of things.
1. Is the GPO considered a valid and legaly haverstable food source in the specific location in question?
2. Is there any proof of the diver mentioned breaking any laws?
3. Is harvest of the GPO legal but still considered unethical by many in your local diving community?
4. If the answer to question 3 is yes, would it not be better to concentrate all efforts trying to change the law, and leave a law abiding diver alone?
Thanks

 

[HowardE]

May I ask why? If the thread turned into something far removed from what the OP intended, what is left to be gained by anyone but those who would turn it into a troll fest?

Not to beleaguer this point or to continue this sidebar discussion, but I will add that another factor in determining the need to close or remove a thread, is when it comes to censorship.

When there are several discussions about a particular topic... not just on ScubaBoard, but all over the net. Are we supposed to censor that topic here on SB because people can't behave like adults? If this topic was closed because people can't control themselves and it's a "troll fest" - then what? What about the other threads on the same topic? Do we just shut down everything? Clearly, this topic was going to be discussed, and our obligation to the community was to provide a forum for that discussion. That's what we do.

Bottom line, as mentioned eloquently by Quero and Merxlin... each and every moderator action (when an interpretive decision is required) is discussed among the moderators as a group. Generally several mods, advisors, myself or Pete weigh in on discussions before a decision is reached. Topics like, "should a thread be closed" are generally discussed and debated for some time before action is taken. As stated, while we try to maintain a level of "ownership" of a thread... there is no prescriptive answer for the request. It's simply not, "If A then B".

... more likely not reopened ... staff members can respond to closed threads, although they're not supposed to. But unless they were involved in the decision to close it, sometimes they don't realize it's closed until after they've responded.

Yes. Absolutely correct... Moderators still have a "quick reply" box in a closed thread. If a moderator was in the process of posting, or didn't notice a thread was closed, they could easily post in a closed thread accidentally.