I object

[Tammy Hope]

this might not be the right place for this, but I'm not sure what is so "ARRGHH" sums it up as well as anything.

My complaint is this:

There's a thread, could be any thread, rolling right along. Maybe there's a bit of heat in the disagreement but for the most part good points are being made and information and opinion is flowing back and forth just fine.

Then someone says something which someone else takes offense to - the offended party responds with a "how dare you?" post and what follows may or may not be a tangent on the point made in the "offensive" post.

As soon as this comes to the attention of the Admin - BAM! out comes the padlock.

WHY???

Was no one having ANY sort of productive discussion in the thread? Are there no more civil valid responses which might be offered on either the main topic or the tangent? Doesn't matter - just shut everyone down.

It's surgery with a chain saw.

I suggest it's FAAAAAR better to delete the offending posts and let the non-offending posts carry on, and all the more particularly when the offending discussion is a tangent on an entirely different discussion.


I don't mean to be a squeaky wheel here but I don't get it. I understand if the thread was offensive from the OP, but I don't get it when an otherwise perfectly reasonable thread is locked over 2 or 3 rule-challenging posts.

[tekla]

I'd start to look for a reason in the area of the internet bringing two groups together who perhaps should not mix (and prior to the net, never did).  And that is on one hand highly social people with excellent interpersonal skills who have lived their lives in a very social setting - often in areas like law, academics and art where everyone has two, if not three opinions on everything and they have learned to deal with that (if not celebrate and and worship it). and on the other, people who have little to no social skills, who don't really understand other people very well, and have no real understanding of conversation and/or conviction and can not tolerate any dissent.  You're bound to have problems.

[mimpi]

Personally I think the mods do a decent job in the circumstances. Locking the thread has the purpose of giving an indication of how posting should not be done and what will be tolerated or not. If someone wants to restart the discussion under another another title nothing is stopping them. Deleting posts would remove the indications of what went wrong.

[Tammy Hope]

and can not tolerate any dissent.  You're bound to have problems.

True. but true of any forum on the net, and not all of them handle the challenge in this fashion.

Personally I think the mods do a decent job in the circumstances. Locking the thread has the purpose of giving an indication of how posting should not be done and what will be tolerated or not. If someone wants to restart the discussion under another another title nothing is stopping them. Deleting posts would remove the indications of what went wrong.

I'm not saying the staff is doing a poor job at what they have been assigned to do, I'm questioning the assignment.

Deleting the post does not avoid the lesson - the person who offended gets the message, because their content is gone. Those who did not offend then carry on in peace. THEY are not the ones who needed the lesson anyway, and if they did see the offending post and then see it removed, then they get the idea as well. that and a note from the admin such as:

"Three posts made in this thread violate out terms of service have been deleted and the posters have been instructed that such comments are not allowed. Please remain civil and continue the original discussion."

or some such.

That just as effectively, nay moreso, instructs on the expected standard and practices than a thread lock. That's simply surgery with a chain saw instead of a scalpel.

And it does not place the onus on the non-offending posters to go around the detour to continue on the discussion.

[Michelle.]

I nominate Tammy Hope for a mod. position.

maybe she can keep some of the kiddies from ->-bleeped-<-tin in the sand box.

[Tammy Hope]

well, to be fair - I don't entirely concur with the "forbidden topic" policy, although I absolutely agree with the "no personal attacks" idea (and support a companion rule which says "don't take it personally if it was not personally addressed"). But my own personal opinion is that forbidding discussion of "The" subject does not lead to any greater understanding. It just leaves it as the elephant in the room.

BUT

If that's the board policy, I'm willing to accept that. Any site has a right to set it's own standards.  I'm fine with that.

I'm simply posing the suggestion that there might be a little more finely targeted method for dealing with it.

That said, no, frankly, in a public forum there will ALWAYS be a degree of "crappin in the sandbox" - no matter what method you use to enforce the rules. It's the nature of the beast.

[tekla]

It's almost always the same topic (or any topic discussion that leads to the point) that gets shut-down, and that is those that end up in some sort of 'more trannier than thou' debate.

[mimpi]

It's almost always the same topic (or any topic discussion that leads to the point) that gets shut-down, and that is those that end up in some sort of 'more trannier than thou' debate.

Pretty much so although it's usually 'more woman than thou' from what I've noticed. Have yet to see any problem ever involve FTMs or Adrogynes.

Just love the irony of those complaining about not being transgender or transexual when the site header is "Susan's Place, Transgender Resources"...

[Crypt]

...I suggest it's FAAAAAR better to delete the offending posts and let the non-offending posts carry on, and all the more particularly when the offending discussion is a tangent on an entirely different discussion...

I can't think of any topics I've seen it in off the top of my head but during my browsing here I have seen that take place where an argument broke out, mods stepped in and deleted the offending posts and allowed everyone else to continue on how they were before as if nothing had happened.

[Dane]

I think that just deleting offending posts is a good idea. But, I think I would rather be involved in a strict forum, than one that lets everyone flame everyone. Locking the entire thread sends out a "this will not be tolerated" message, but nothing is keeping anyone from remaking the thread, unless it was specifically stated by a mod that the thread shouldn't be remade.

You could always copy paste quotes from the locked thread, and continue in another thread in a more civilized manner. :3

[mimpi]

I think that just deleting offending posts is a good idea. But, I think I would rather be involved in a strict forum, than one that lets everyone flame everyone. Locking the entire thread sends out a "this will not be tolerated" message, but nothing is keeping anyone from remaking the thread, unless it was specifically stated by a mod that the thread shouldn't be remade.

Agreed, well said.