Please Help Me Understand Something (Pt 2)

A Former User

So you shut down a thread because "your" question was answered? That's a weird approach for even this site.
So once our questions are answered to "our" satisfaction, we have the same ability to shut down a thread? We should be seen as "above reproach" right?
Sad

Kehaulani

Isn't it that the thread had run it's course?

administrator

@Kehaulani said in Please Help Me Understand Something (Pt 2):

Isn't it that the thread had run it's course?

This, and the thread was starting to get contentious and discussing sexual content which wasn't my purpose.

A Former User

@Kehaulani said in Please Help Me Understand Something (Pt 2):

Isn't it that the thread had run it's course?

When did that become a prerequisite for shutting down a thread? No such behavior has been exhibited in the past.

Kehaulani

Making a statement of fact is not the same as justifying it.

A Former User

@administrator said in Please Help Me Understand Something (Pt 2):

This, and the thread was starting to get contentious and discussing sexual content which wasn't my purpose.

The thread was not becoming any more than what was reported in the news "unspecified sexual misconduct". The real reason from my perspective is you're a right to work kind of guy who's fairly young and feel that you have the skills to move from business to business due to your skill level or expertise. It probably stung when I said (and I'm paraphrasing) "why would I hire you, a 51 year old worker who has a higher probability of heart disease, osteoarthritis, HBP, diabetes, etc.? In addition when I brought it to your attention that it was the New York Philharmonic v. two men and the reason for their dismissal was unspecified sexual misconduct, you seemed a little unnerved. You are the one that suggested that we should strive to be beyond reproach. Isn't shutting down the thread just another example of an organization, company, or owner of something doing whatever they wish? Yep, if there was a Union here, you'd have to go through a process and you couldn't do whatever you wished. If all were above reproach, there would be no locks on threads. Kinda hits a nerve huh.
Lastly, you're the one that brought up the topic in the first place and at the heart of the employee's dismissal was UNSPECIFIED SEXUAL MISCONDUCT.
Did you think for a moment that people would not investigate "why" they were dismissed? Please, the only person that was getting miffed (contentious) is you when you tried to defend your points about labor law for which you have no background and was quickly put in your place. For the future, don't ask questions about situations that involve sex or labor law if you don't want it discussed.

tmd

@Dr-Mark said in Please Help Me Understand Something (Pt 2):

So you shut down a thread because "your" question was answered? That's a weird approach for even this site.
So once our questions are answered to "our" satisfaction, we have the same ability to shut down a thread? We should be seen as "above reproach" right?
Sad

I didn't read the first thread, or a similar thread on TrumpetHerald about this topic. I assumed they would contain inflexible comments from people with preconceived biases, and there would be very little in the way of a constructive discussion. And while this may be an important topic, and while there may be valid opinions, it's just difficult to discuss these topics online in a constructive way.

I just looked at the first thread. My assumption turned out to be true. The admin was right to close the thread. Maybe the rest of us should let it go, too.

Mike

Kehaulani

Good grief. What does a lot of this stuff have to do with music or trumpet playing?

Kujo20

@Kehaulani said in Please Help Me Understand Something (Pt 2):

Good grief. What does a lot of this stuff have to do with music or trumpet playing?

My thoughts exactly. Only a matter of time that this thread gets out of hand and is locked...

Shifty

@Dr-Mark said in Please Help Me Understand Something (Pt 2):

Did you think for a moment that people would not investigate "why" they were dismissed?

There's a big difference between "investigation" and "speculation." In the locked thread you wrote:

@Dr-Mark said in Please Help Me Understand Something:

Like I said in a previous post, these guys could have easily been doing things that were acceptable in the privacy of their homes but not on the top of a timpani or in the back row of symphony hall. My guess? the two were caught being a little too intimate in the wrong setting. They wouldn't be the first pair to grab an afternoon delight at work and certainly not the first couple (if that is the case) to get called on the carpet by management for being a little to amorous at work. A lot of people (unfortunately) have a problem with homosexuality. For all we know, principal oboist, Liang Wang, and associate principal trumpet, Matthew Muckey are a couple.

Thereafter, Administrator politely asked that we please not speculate on the nature of what happened, but you continued to do so. He was right in locking the thread for that reason alone, and doesn't deserve your further "speculation" as to his motive.

A Former User

I could never understand why members here call for censorship and call for the moderators to delete or close threads or posts. On TH that has come to a scale that almost every dispute with more content than America is great, OMG and "amazing, amazing" has been brought to an end. Often the call for intervention from above is done by new or relatively new members who seek obviously protection under the wings of someone stronger than themselves. Therefor a warning: the call for intervention is counterproductive for the forum, the members of it and for the discussions in general and will limit yours and others possibilities for discussing and learning. Of course there must be SOME control to get rid of the garbage but now there arises a climate of complaining and wailing which then leads to a "sorry, sorry" intervention of the moderators. And IF posts deserve to be deleted, it are IMO the posts in which people ask to stop or to remove posts or threads. They are insulting, condescending, cowardly and more of this. It's a way to put down people via an indirect way and shirk the responsibility of your own misconduct to a moderator. If you don't like a post or a thread there is not any obligation to read them. If you feel personally attacked there are two ways: give the right answer or complain privately to the moderators, personal insults are indeed not allowed.

ROWUK

I personally never agree with the "lowest common denominator" type of decisions. Something currently very relevant to society in general happened at the New York Philharmonic. It was clear that a thread like this would draw a great variety of responses.

If a member gets out of line (for instance sexually explicit, lies, politics), I would expect a PM from a moderator to that person, perhaps even a short vacation for those not willing to be part of the family, but not locking the whole thread down unless there was a reason. I looked at the thread, do not see anything requiring it to be locked down. If someone has trouble with topics like this, just don't go there. I never really got into TH for this very reason: snipers and trigger happy moderators. I was accused of this at TrumpetMaster, but seldom got any decent feedback when I offered my perspective (even by PM). I basically came to the realization that many were not even interested in learning. They are only looking for a venue and some others to agree.

I think that this is an area where Trumpetboards.com can and should grow. If we can't discuss difficult things, what is the justification for another forum like the rest?

I officially disagree with the decision to lock down the thread. I consider shutting something down because "my question was answered" also to be a very "weak" comment and probably not completely true. It is obvious to me that the question was only partly answered and the admin simply did not want to see the rest on line.

The issue is a big deal (2 premiere players were "fired" because of it) and the thread is a big deal as we know enough to discuss the legalities, how decisions are made and what type of recourse someone charged has. In this case, both players were reinstated, happy end? I think not. We will see if they decide to stay or not.

Dr GO

@ROWUK said in Please Help Me Understand Something (Pt 2):

...In this case, both players were reinstated, happy end? I think not. We will see if they decide to stay or not.

This is so true. It is highly advised in these situations that individuals move on, for there own mental health sake. For the 5% that remain in this environment, life is stressful. The one thing in their favor is remediation with the court magistrate singing the agreement means the employer must provide a non-threatening environment for them.

A Former User

@tmd said in Please Help Me Understand Something (Pt 2):

it's just difficult to discuss these topics online in a constructive way.

To this, I agree. Its easy to jump to conclusions, get stupid and vulgar, or name call. All in all, everyone has behaved, even me! It makes no sense to lock down something just because you can

The admin was right to close the thread.

That's the point Mike. We were talking about management/Labor issues and the Administrator is an advocate of Right-To-Work which says (basically says) you the employee can quit any time and in exchange management can terminate you at any time for cause or no cause.
I see this as "management (the administrator)" closing the thread for no real cause. Why? Because he can". He can ban or lock whatever and whenever he wants and we an either agree, be ignored or banned. The action of locking by the administrator is an example of "its my shop and I can do as I wish" or "At -Will-Participation." All in all, it was to make a point and correlation that in the world of work, the little guy has no chance against Management if there isn't a strong intermediary (a Union) to help the little guy (participant).
In a Employment -at- Will environment, its far more economical for me to put all my 50+ year old employees in one department to serve as "advisors" to the younger workers while in the meantime, I've already either purchased training videos that applies to the work or having videos made (off site) to be purchased later. Once purchased, I dissolve the department and terminate the employees in that department . That will decrease labor cost and possibly increase stockholder wealth.
That's why Unions and "shared" responsibility of the work floor is so important. Those guys in the symphony would have never gotten their jobs back if it were not for the Union.
One of the most important things I ever learned about statistics and especially Managerial Economics is, "When a person works a problem, the answer isn't what the numbers tell you. It just shows that the person has a deeper understanding of the issue. The paper & pencil answer is NOT the answer. Given that deeper understanding, the person needs to make a decision about the company.
"Do I stuff all the old people in one department and dissolve the department because I now have training software (and circumnavigate age discrimination), or, do I do my best to retain these people because it's their lives I have in my hands?
One such example of the numbers making the decisions (the tail wagging the dog) can best be illustrated starting with Galton (a scientist and cousin of Darwin) who came up with the pseudoscience of making the human race better via "science" which eventually ended up in America as The Eugenics Program which many states embraced. Hitler was so impressed with Eugenics, he adopted the program and used measuring devices to determine who would and wouldn't be sterilized. The German program eventually turned into the T4-program which involved euthanizing undesirables and I think we know how that eventually turned out for a whole race of people. Mass genocide.
Without an intermediary (The Union) management can commit employment murder for cause or no cause. They can forego thinking about humanity and let the numbers decide the fate of things. I can't speak for all the membership but in America, we are what we do.

Kehaulani

Could I make a reminder, and that is being an administrator of a site can mean a lot of thankless work. So many want to bitch but expect someone else to do all the work. It's a work in progress. Give the guy a chance.

p.s. Does anybody else want to do all the work. And for free?

administrator

It's fine, I'll keep this thread open and let people talk. I, personally, had found the answers I needed and was not super happy with the direction of the other thread. I check this site maybe twice a day, so I can't really "police" it, even if it appears that I do.

tmd

@Kehaulani said in Please Help Me Understand Something (Pt 2):

Could I make a reminder, and that is being an administrator of a site can mean a lot of thankless work. So many want to bitch but expect someone else to do all the work. It's a work in progress. Give the guy a chance.

p.s. Does anybody else want to do all the work. And for free?

Worth repeating. Thanks Kehaulani. I don't always agree with edits by the moderators (here and on TH). But I agree that they are trying to do the right thing, and are doing the best they can.

Yes, this may be an important topic. But there's lots of venting here, and very little constructive conversation. I agree with @ROWUK , that some "are only looking for a venue and some others to agree". But I would disagree with @Dr-Mark that "everyone has behaved". The passive-aggression is so thick in this thread, you can cut it with a knife.

Mike

A Former User

@Kehaulani said in Please Help Me Understand Something (Pt 2):

Could I make a reminder, and that is being an administrator of a site can mean a lot of thankless work.

Zuckerberg never complained

A Former User

@tmd said in Please Help Me Understand Something (Pt 2):

But there's lots of venting here, and very little constructive conversation.
So teaching people (women and men) how to deal with harassment on the shop floor in a legal way as destructive an not helpful at all?

I agree with @ROWUK , that some "are only looking for a venue and some others to agree".

No doubt and I agree with Rowuk's statement you isolated. That's the major rule of network theory. Some flock here, others flock there. Birds of a feather, flock together

But I would disagree with @Dr-Mark that "everyone has behaved". The passive-aggression is so thick in this thread, you can cut it with a knife

I would say the sentences directly above could be seen as an examples of passive aggressive behavior.
(Google) Examples of passive-aggressive behavior might include;
Avoiding direct or clear communication
Evading problems
Fear of intimacy or competition,
Making excuses
Blaming others
Obstructionism
Playing the victim
Feigning compliance with requests
Sarcasm
Backhanded compliments
Hiding anger.

Can't we all be found guilty of at least one of these variables when a post stirs someone's fundamental belief in something?

Kehaulani

@tmd said in Please Help Me Understand Something (Pt 2).
The passive-aggression is so thick in this thread, you can cut it with a knife.

Ditto.
Also, I don't see the point in presumptuous and judgmental.