Lets be more cautious before we make proclamations like "my fears are realized" and jump to strong conclusions. I closed one thread, a first was bound to happen at some point, and it happened to be yours (as well as being a topic that was explicitly mentioned in the policy as problematic). I have very clear and considered reasons for closing the thread (as well as backing by forum policy), and the decision was not made in anger, dogmatic spirit, or anything of the sort.
Also, there is no need for emotions to flare as one can always pm me or the other mods with their concerns, and/or post them here. Please keep in mind that locks, and many other mod decisions, are not permanent. As stated in the policy, a lock can be a simple "hold" to keep threads from snowballing, or to inform posters of problems without taking drastic measures of deletion.
Concerning Norsemaiden's locked thread:
It is titled "Democrat Congressman calls for reinstating the draft", which is a headline. Very little was done with this, and the topic was not developed beyond a few speculative sentences. What Norsemaiden did was post a headline, source NBC and a socialist website, and post a few sentences that are limited to the topic itself in a very narrow way. What is philosophical about this? What is the purpose of the thread? What exactly is too be discussed? How does the announcement of a political event have anything to do with "practical" or "applied philosophy" when nothing practical or applied is being suggested, but merely a statement of fact? What would the forum look like if we all found a headline of interest and posted it? It would be a blog.
This forum is not for the endless debating of "current events". That does not mean current events cannot be discussed, referenced, used as a springboard, etc., but that the discussion must go beyond statements of fact (headlines), sensationalism, and hollow speculative games. Its the difference between Plato's Republic and CNN's Crossfire (the difference between philosophy and mere talk)- quite clearly they treat the "political" radically different, so please dont plays games with this and feign confusion when its clear what the policy is restricting, and what its striving for.
Furthermore, many of the responses to the original post were not driving the topic into more thoughtful realms, but were simply glib reactions to the topic- "That's all we need, illegal American immigrants coming Canada.", "Aren't college students exempt from the draft? I hope so. If not, and if this passes, I'm going to Mexico.", "No chance in hell this would pass. It's just not going to happen.", etc. This is exactly the type of thing the policy is designed to prevent, thus, the lock.
I will not reopen this thread for a variety of reasons. However, if Norsemaiden wishes to re-approach the issue from a more developed angle then I think it could spur a very engaging and worthwhile discussion.