I might point out the statement about the approaching LEO was a logical fallacy of ad ignorantiam (appeal to ignorance), the implication that no one can disprove the presumption of an approaching LEO's hostile intent, therefore the LEO must have a malicious motive. The argument ignores the possibility of other explanations, such as the LEO is friendly... or perhaps seeking applications for their next paid camp host. The absence of proof of correct conduct does not in and of itself prove misconduct. Personally, I'd be more creeped out by some guy who came up to my rig wearing a leather mask and carrying a chain saw... A uniformed LEO approaching with tools still on the belt and not in hand... Meh! Not a problem... just be friendly and respectful and talk with them.
I enjoy lively discussion too, as long as people can remain civil, respectful, and polite in tone. We can agree to disagree or hold different opinions without attacking each other. Though it does seem like some people experience problems with that simple construct. Some folks even think it's acceptable to perform physical violence on someone if they disagree with a strongly held belief. I used to referee those kind of fights all the time... Fortunately, no one here is going to become violent over the internet. The obstacle we have here in the forums is that printed words and written discussion may not accurately convey tone or emotion. Subtle aspects of communication are lost because we can't see facial expression and body language, or hear inflection of speech. A strongly held position or statement can easily be misinterpreted as impolite or disrespectful. Emojis can help, as does labeling the intention (i.e. labeling a sarcastic statement as facetious). I should point out that facetious statement when taken in context of the entirety of the post was a logical fallacy of slippery slope; I see that and I get the humor.
OP's post made me think what exactly should we consider out-of-bounds, and when should a moderator should step in? I wholly agree with squashing ad hominem attacks. Targeting or demeaning the individual rather than focusing on aspects of a topic is an unfair debate tactic. However, I'm not so sure about closing threads under the blanket term of arguments. I know the intention is to quell conflict, but there are two kinds of conflict, productive and unproductive. I would suggest unproductive conflict a better terminology than argument. Productive conflict is healthy discourse and should be embraced, even if somewhat uncomfortable at the moment. Learning from each other and embracing diversity is how we grow personally and as a community, and this most often happens through productive conflict. People need to recognize and be tolerant of productive conflict.
However, some people are hyper-sensitive and have a super thin skin or a hair trigger when it comes to being offended. That itself is an unfair debate tactic; playing the role of a victim is a veiled form of an ad hominem attack because it carries a presumption the other party is an oppressor. I am highly suspect of situations where people act like professional victims, easily offended by every little thing including nuances of language, then scream foul and claim to be a victim. After all, a forum participant's actions of signing-in and reading posts on a private forum are wholly voluntary. If a thread or post makes someone uncomfortable, I say don't read it, don't respond, move on to the next thread, and just be happy.
I recently read a thread to the effect that nomadic life should be legalized... That was a logical fallacy of false dilemma, and I thought it somewhat humorous to presume nomads are illegal, so I chuckled and moved on. Several others in our community responded by educating the OP and pointing out the errors in logic and facts. The dialogue of the replies was polite yet direct. It may have been uncomfortable for the OP in the moment, and they could have easily cried foul and played the role of a victim. That type of situation tends to be self-correcting and no moderator involvement was necessary. Polite discourse, and diverse or opposing opinions are not an attack. Had a Mod stepped in immediately and labeled it as fear mongering or interpreted the replies as an attack on the OP, the natural consequence and community correction would have not been allowed to occur.
I think our moderators already do a pretty good job of keeping a lid on unproductive conflict. If moderators intervened on every little thing, they'd just be overworked, stressed-out, and playing whack-a-mole all day long. I wholly agree a moderator should give a plainly worded reason for closing a thread, and they usually do... Explaining the reasons helps participants to understand the expectations for decorum. However, consider if one were to disagree with a moderator's actions and label them a facist or 'hitler mod' is that not an ad hominem attack? What about characterization as a censor?
Notwithstanding, I do see a few posts with regard to addressing the trend in homeless/van dweller laws, that in my humble opinion have been prematurely closed. Perhaps because they took a wrong turn toward a dark direction. I know, I know... it's a red hot-button topic but it's something I've always thought needs to be openly discussed (productive conflict). Someone who knows my work history recently asked me for input on how van dwellers might address unfair local laws, pointing out that too often van dwellers get lumped in with all the unacceptable behaviors of transients, panhandlers, and malingerers. Although it might be stressful, I suggested that we need to discuss things like shared identity, brand differentiation, common terminology, acceptable van-dweller behaviors, code of conduct, etc. Affected communities with such laws need to be educated to see van dwellers as separate from those whose objectionable behaviors cause all the problems. Just my thoughts... plus $2.95 will buy you a cup of coffee, as long as you don't forget your $2.95...
