Has anyone else noticed this or is it just me?
It seems like every time a thread really gets interesting, the mods lock the thread and/or prohibit future discussion of the interesting topic. Usually it occurs when someone gets called out on their shit as a user. Admittedly, sometimes these “discussions” become heated and offensive, and thus they should be locked. But sometimes they are peaceful, accurate and can actually benefit the community. I'll give you two examples of when mods often disrupt interesting discussions: (1) when a discussion gets off-topc, and (2) when a discussion gets very emotional.
When a discussion gets off-topic
One time, I called out a guy for being disingenuous behavior and hypocritical. Of course he denied it. Thus, a reasonable debate ensued. Eventually, I caught him in a trap and I provided irrefutable evidence to confirm my assertions. My opponent was in a deep hole and there would be no way for him to escape. He would either have to admit his bad behavior, or he would have to leave the thread to avoid shame. Both of these would be good things for the community, but as soon as I caught him in a corner, a mod came in to save his ass by claiming the discussion was off-topic. The user was saved; he ended the debate without admitting defeat.
I understand that off-topic discussions are usually bad. However, that doesn’t mean the mods should automatically stop every single off-topic discussion. Sure, they are against the rules, but, as we all know, rules are patently flawed in certain scenarios. The moderators shouldn’t just go around enforcing rules without considering the context. A moderator’s fundamental duty should always be to help the overall community and to discourage things that harm the overall community. That’s really all that needs to be said.
Following this line of thinking, sometimes certain actions will improve the overall health of the community, even if they break some more minor rules. For example, if an active and aggressive user is being deliberately disingenuous and hypocritical (which obviously harms the overall community), then it makes sense that mods would allow the community to peacefully confront this user whenever he exercises the behavior. Sure, this would cause an off-topic discussion, which is a bit harmful. But think about the overall picture: after effectively confronting this user, you decrease the chances of him continuing his harmful behavior, since he knows he will be called out whenever he does it. And I think it’s fair to say that constant, aggressive, hypocritical behavior is much worse than off-topic discussions. Therefore, it makes sense to eliminate the former, even if it means allowing the latter.
When a discussion gets emotional
Mods also tend to lock threads or give out moderations when a user gets too passionate. Let's take Ned for example. Sometimes Ned gets too emotional with his debates, to the point that he breaks a few rules. In most cases I would agree that Ned should be moderated or the thread should be locked; such as when Ned obviously isn't serious/honest and just wants to troll, or when the person he's debating with is obviously offended. But sometimes Ned gets in a debate and gets owned repeatedly and repeatedly, while the other guy isn't offended at all . In these cases, I don’t think the discussion should be disrupted at all, even if Ned breaks a few rules.
Why? Because getting owned in a debate can oftentimes be a bigger punishment that any moderation. Oftentimes, when someone is obviously losing a debate, they will subconciously try to get themselves banned to avoid admitting defeat, only to return days/weeks after the debate with the same attitude they left with. Had Ned not be banned, and he's an honest & serious debater, then he would dig himself a deeper and deeper hole; and would eventually have to admit he was wrong, or abandon the thread (which is sort of like admitting defeat too). Both of these are willful actions and it means Ned acknowledges that he was wrong. This is unlike being banned where Ned is forced to leave against his will. In this case, he may still feel he won the debate, even if he knew he broke the rules. Clearly, if Ned acknowledges that he lost a debate, he would be more likely to reform his behavior/arguments to prevent it from happening again. This is good. (Remember, this is if Ned is an honest & serious debater. If not, then band him immediately).
TL:DR
Mods need to base their actions on the overall health of the forum. Everything they do should be to improve the community, while deterring things which harm the community. Don’t blindly enforce every single rule without considering the context, because sometimes doing so will harm the community more than it helps. This doesn’t seem to be an unreasonable request, and is one that I think everyone would agree on. It’s impossible to create an absolutely perfect set of rules, so it makes no sense to treat them as if they are perfect. Realize that in some contexts, the rules are simply wrong.
