MOD 161 needs to go

Mod1 thx for commenting. Problem with 161 is he is biased. He'll delete a start to a thread or wipe out/lock threads that should be left for discussion. He took out a PUBLIC discussion having to do with JK because he didn't want to hurt PCSO feelings yet has let that devisive SCU thread go on - because he was never SCU material.

He'll let that go, let names be posted, but is johhny on the spot if a subject doesn't suit him. He is costing you posts, debates and 1st am w/o profanity. He is a bigger nutjob then most of us who post here within the TOU and deletes.

Screw him. Sick of his lame excuses etc...he is hurting your site for personal vendetta's. Put him on the sideline so his addicition to the only power he has can turn into just another poster. Let our LEO's express our thoughts.

[Mod 161]

"NOT BUYING IT", I'll take the time to respond to your concerns once again. Yes, I'll delete posts and sometimes threads using mere discretion. I'm sure there are some that could have stayed and others that should have gone. Over the years there's been more leniency for some and less for others. The world of opinion is never entirely correct or wrong. The fact is this is a private message board owned and operated by Leoaffairs.com. There are several levels of moderation with oversight and the ability for public input through abusive post functions. There is also a private message system which you can use to send me or any other moderator a direct private message to air your concerns.

As for your comparison of the SCU vs JK threads; neither are similar. The bantering back and forth on the SCU thread has been going on for quite some time. In fact its probably the longest running and most commented topic since the start. Its also had the most deletions. This is where the fine line lies. The posting and discussion of "named" individuals is in and of itself not unacceptable. Its when the discussion turns to slams and attacks that changes things. Considering that I don't even know who most of these people are or who the initials stand for, knowing what is a "slam" or not isn't always clear. Exactly where does that line cross? Its a matter of opinion. This is where the use of the feature to report an abusive post is useful. Every reported post is reviewed either by me or another mod. Just give some explanation that can be used to help us decide.

The JK post raises another concern. In and of itself the public record aspect of what occurred is perfectly fine to discuss. What it evolved into was an attempt to start an ongoing dispute between two departments. That already occurs enough without additional unnecessary fuel. Controlling those arguments has nothing to do with the "feelings of the PCSO" it was about maintaining a professional working relationship and not stirring the pot without reason. I'm sure you and many others have strong feelings regarding the arrest of JK. The facts of that case are not cause to wage war against your fellow Leo's. We have a hard enough job to do without causing undo problems amongst ourselves.

Enough explanation. As I've said many times, I'll continue to moderate this board as best as I can along with the other mods who also monitor this board. Nothing is perfect but you have to start somewhere. My suggestion is you play your part and report abusive posts. If you want more credibility sign in with a screen name or better yet use your real name.

Since this statement meant to be a response to your concerns and not up for discussion, I'll be using my moderator discretion to lock the topic and we can move on.