Overzealous moderation

[Andres]

Exactly what rule was broken here? Because i'm struggling to see it.

Am I not allowed to express my disinterest, disagreement or dislike of another member even if done so civilly?

Please, call me a jerk in a civilised way that doesn't break the rules

Allthough I agree with you that no rules have been broken, I can understand the FR staff's decision to close that particular thread.

Maybe a firm "this can go on, but we're watching" would have been better, but I don't see the locking of that particular thread as an awful decision.

Any thread is an open invitation for "rules" violations... threads should not be closed just because a mod has a hunch that rules will be broken... sorry but that's just absurd. Wait for rule breaches first then close. Why shelter and protect them from themselves...?

When confronted with this particular thread, most moderators would feel more than just a hunch that it had the potential to become nasty.

I see your point, but this thread seems like the worst possible example to defend it.

There is no evidence that personal attacks were in the pipeline - how long can any thread remain civil? Try moderating the backroom - I'm sure you'd close every thread... a moderator's job is not to play "social worker", lawyer or predict the outcome of a thread.

Disagree on the "social worker" part. Sometimes you have to.

Is it your job to assess what every post "appears" to be? The post may be just a joke... anyway it was warman sticking his neck out with that thread... why not leave it and let him face the consequences of his own actions, instead of jumping in and locking down at the slightest provocation?

Now, this is an interesting statement. What's your suggestion then? If Warman opens a thread to have himself flamed, then let it happen? He asks for personal attacks, so let there be personal attacks?