Husker_x's latest post in this topic:
I mean this with all respect for you. The problem with the bold up there is that's exactly what limiting free speech is, and that's usually how it happens. Someone thinks it would be better for everyone if this or that wasn't discussed until this or that happens. In my opinion, that's not the place of a moderator to decide. You are certainly under no obligation to discuss or read the speculation, but closing down a forum in which everyone was consistently differentiating between rumor and fact seems needless. I understand it's a tough call. But by the time you locked it the rumor had already begun. This is what I meant up above about life in the internet age. We might as well not kid ourselves.
I can sort of agree with this, actually. Is this (locking a thread like that) a call that we can make? I mean sure we have the power to. Sure we might feel it's the best thing to do. But should we?
I am thinking that in the future, leave the threads but post a short reminder about the dangers of speculating about injuries. And then lock it if things start to spiral out of hand - and not before, based on worry.
There's a lot of stuff I feel is better off left off of message boards, but there's also an element of 'let's be realistic' to it. And creating a stifling environment is not the goal either. I think we can accomplish mostly the same things without a pre-emptive lock in the future...I feel the lock was a nice gesture, and well-intentioned, but still not necessarily correct. It does feel a bit needless and I can see why people would question that.
