Hi John,

PMFJI, and I don't want to "pile on" -- but Garrett and others have made a good point regarding this action.

Do we, as an open forum (technical forum, admittedly, but still open), REALLY desire to stifle open "water cooler" conversations (I'm borrowing the phrase from another post -- credit goes to that person for the term) that have content one of the forum's advisors deems inappropriate? Regardless of the correctness of such an action, the *appearance* of censorship does more to harm the "greater good" than the taking of no action would harm the forum.

I am certain, knowing you, that this decision did not come lightly. It *might*, however, have made sense for you, AS A SYSOP, to 1) talk this over with another SysOp before acting (you may have done this, I don't know) or 2) present the proposed action to the members of the forum before acting.

That said...and FWIW...

I do *NOT* think that you should resign your SysOp tasks over this action, right or wrong. You took an action, using your best judgment AT THAT MOMENT, in good faith and after (I imagine) some thought about the action. Judges don't resign the bench because one of their cases gets overturned on appeal...neither should you, regardless of the outcome of this situation.


John Koziol wrote:
>You are right about frequent violations to a strict interpretations of the rules. I am one of the violators of the "no joke" rule on a frequent basis. But there is a difference here and I'll attempt to explain that.
>
>First off, Jim's "water-cooler" analogy has been bugging me but I couldn't pinpoint why until now. Where it falls short is that BSing around a water-cooler is generally done when you know everybody there or at least have some idea that what you are saying is not going to insult anyone. Most people don't discuss strong, personal, and controversial ethical issues at the water-cooler.
>
>In this case, we have a news item that suddenly starts to look like it's going to be a springboard into a discussion on religion and prayer in school, not to mention gun control. These are areas where a profound difference in opinions is likely. There was already one response to the thread calling it inappropriate.
>
>So I froze the thread and I stick by that decision. It is the first thread I have ever even considered freezing.
>
>If Michel or any of the other sysops disagrees with that decision it will be (I'm sure) unfrozen. If a majority of the other sysops or Michel strongly believe that I made the wrong call, I will be glad to resign my sysop status.