Unacceptable standard of discussion

fefster · 07/04/15 - 21:07

Does anyone know what this means? I cannot say I have ever seen this before. One of the Amanda Knox threads has been closed but not the other for the reason in the subject line, both seem to have a similar standard of discussion.

How does one know what is and what is not acceptable?

I've been a member for quite a long time now and this is the first time I have seen this.

Sky_Guy · 07/04/15 - 21:08

It appears the discussion was in bad taste, forum rules forbid this.

AnnieBaker · 07/04/15 - 21:13

I wonder who complained?

fefster · 07/04/15 - 21:13

Sky_Guy wrote: »

It appears the discussion was in bad taste, forum rules forbid this.

Bad taste?

Have you read some of the stuff on here?

AnnieBaker · 07/04/15 - 21:15

It is a shame for the OP and those interested in a polite and appropriate discussion. I would have thought a warning would have sorted the situation out.

Phoenix Lazarus · 07/04/15 - 21:15

Sky_Guy wrote: »

It appears the discussion was in bad taste, forum rules forbid this.

Also if things just deteriorate into 'That's crap!', 'Not!', 'Is!', 'You're a twit!', 'It takes one to know one-so nerr!', etc.

Sky_Guy · 07/04/15 - 21:15

fefster wrote: »

Bad taste? Have you read some of the stuff on here?

I guess it depends who the moderator is that reads it.

fefster · 07/04/15 - 21:17

AnnieBaker wrote: »

It is a shame for the OP and those interested in a polite and appropriate discussion. I would have thought a warning would have sorted the situation out.

I find this quite strange tbh. I appreciate that there was quite a considerable attempt at thread derailment and that is not conducive to a good discussion, but it's not the first time I have ever seen this.

It is the first time I have seen a thread locked for this reason though.

I wonder if DS Support might comment on here?

fefster · 07/04/15 - 21:19

Phoenix Lazarus wrote: »

Also if things just deteriorate into 'That's crap!', 'Not!', 'Is!', 'You're a twit!', 'It takes one to know one-so nerr!', etc.

The other Amanda Knox thread is far, far worse on that score. It should be closed if that is the reason.

[Deleted User] · 07/04/15 - 21:24

It would perhaps be nice to have a sub-forum where posters could express their views on matters in a more forthright manner. The Knox thread drew some harsh opinions, some deserved, some not, but we're all adults, surely?

fefster · 07/04/15 - 21:29

kaybee15 wrote: »

It would perhaps be nice to have a sub-forum where posters could express their views on matters in a more forthright manner. The Knox thread drew some harsh opinions, some deserved, some not, but we're all adults, surely?

Being forthright has never been a problem on here before, why now? Harsh and forthright opinions are part of forum life surely?

I can't see that a sub-forum should be necessary. When has DS ever been the kind of place that needed that.

It's really important that you feel able to discuss opinions freely without censorship on a forum as long as you stay within the boundaries of the law and of respect for others. Once that privilege starts to go, what is the point?

annette kurten · 07/04/15 - 21:39

it`s very annoying that the guilty/innocent crowd jumped in and derailed the donation thread, the biggest irony is them wittering on about other people being rude whilst they were doing it.

stoatie · 07/04/15 - 21:39

fefster wrote: »

It is the first time I have seen a thread locked for this reason though.

SRSLY?

Addisonian · 07/04/15 - 21:40

The thread was derailed. Just the usual for an Amanda Knox thread though - filled with posters practically frothing at the mouth because they can't handle the fact that not everyone is convinced of her innocence.

Still, at least the mods had the decency to put a message explaining why they locked it instead of doing their usual and just deleting the whole flipping thing with no warning.

fefster · 07/04/15 - 21:45

Addisonian wrote: »

The thread was derailed. Just the usual for an Amanda Knox thread though - filled with posters practically frothing at the mouth because they can't handle the fact that not everyone is convinced of her innocence.

Still, at least the mods had the decency to put a message explaining why they locked it instead of doing their usual and just deleting the whole flipping thing with no warning.

Effectively then, my thread got derailed by others, so it got locked. Doesn't seem very fair. It was a reasonable topic, why weren't the derailers banned and the thread kept open?

Addisonian · 07/04/15 - 21:47

fefster wrote: »

Effectively then, my thread got derailed by others, so it got locked. Doesn't seem very fair. It was a reasonable topic, why weren't the derailers banned and the thread kept open?

I agree with you. The mods, in my opinion, should maybe have made a post reminding everyone to try and stay on topic rather than just jumping straight to locking it.
You should contact them and ask them to re-open it.

James_May · 07/04/15 - 21:47

It would appear that there are not enough child minders to keep the topic viable for discussion.

jesaya · 07/04/15 - 21:48

fefster wrote: »

Effectively then, my thread got derailed by others, so it got locked. Doesn't seem very fair. It was a reasonable topic, why weren't the derailers banned and the thread kept open?

Perhaps the mods thought it had just become an argument and that it was easier to close it than try to weed the posts. You can always start another one.

davelovesleeds · 07/04/15 - 21:48

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2dhD9zR6hk

to you know what.

Aftershow · 07/04/15 - 21:58

I expect the moderators cottoned on to what the real intention behind the creation of the thread was.

fefster · 07/04/15 - 22:03

Edited because I was going to answer the further attempts at derailment, however I have just sent an alert instead.

postit · 07/04/15 - 22:07

fefster wrote: »

Effectively then, my thread got derailed by others, so it got locked. Doesn't seem very fair. It was a reasonable topic, why weren't the derailers banned and the thread kept open?

I think that perhaps they effectively 'ganged up' and over-rode everyone else.

fefster · 07/04/15 - 22:10

postit wrote: »

I think that perhaps they effectively 'ganged up' and over-rode everyone else.

The forum cannot thrive if this is allowed to continue. When a gang of posters can derail and destroy a thread and that behaviour is allowed to continue, then it's not good for the health of the forum in my opinion.

AnnieBaker · 07/04/15 - 22:11

postit wrote: »

I think that perhaps they effectively 'ganged up' and over-rode everyone else.

It reminded me of a pack of hungry wolves.

fefster · 07/04/15 - 22:13

AnnieBaker wrote: »

It reminded me of a pack of hungry wolves.

Yes, I agree and I do think it is worse on the other thread, but that is allowed to continue. I had to leave that discussion because of the behaviour of some posters on there and I know others also did.

d'@ve · 07/04/15 - 22:14

fefster wrote: »

Does anyone know what this means? I cannot say I have ever seen this before. One of the Amanda Knox threads has been closed but not the other for the reason in the subject line, both seem to have a similar standard of discussion.

How does one know what is and what is not acceptable?

I've been a member for quite a long time now and this is the first time I have seen this.

Relentless bickering is probably against the forum rules, or if it isn't, it should be. And that's what the thread descended into.

Hey there!

Quick Links

Unacceptable standard of discussion

Comments