Genuinely confused

So I start a thread about a strictly matter (which I won't mention again) - three people comment that this is already a matter that has been debated in other threads that have been closed down ... And then my thread gets closed. I didn't think I said anything controversial. Just linked to a story in the national press about strictly. My questions therefore are (and they are genuine ones)

1. How am i supposed to know there have already been threads abouts something if they are closed/removed?

2. Why do threads talking about a matter in the national press and on the news section of this website get closed/removed.

Comments

  • MonaoggMonaogg Posts: 19,990
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    So I start a thread about a strictly matter (which I won't mention again) - three people comment that this is already a matter that has been debated in other threads that have been closed down ... And then my thread gets closed. I didn't think I said anything controversial. Just linked to a story in the national press about strictly. My questions therefore are (and they are genuine ones)

    1. How am i supposed to know there have already been threads abouts something if they are closed/removed?

    2. Why do threads talking about a matter in the national press and on the news section of this website get closed/removed.
    The whole thing is done and dusted by the parties involved. Continually discussing this is not constructive nor does it allow those involved to move on.
  • littletaffygirllittletaffygirl Posts: 156
    Forum Member
    That's fine if its your opinion. A lot of things discussed on this board are done to death. As i said, i didn't know it had already been discussed on here. Just wondering what I specifically did against the rules to actually have my post shut down.
  • LurchergirlsLurchergirls Posts: 230
    Forum Member
    I'm new here so not sure about no1 but if question no2 is what I think:

    It will have been removed because there were two other threads that it cause very heated debates that started to get out of hand with different sides supporting their favourite. As you can imagine it started to get rather personal so the threads were removed and I guess the moderators don't want it happening again.
  • jwren12002jwren12002 Posts: 294
    Forum Member
    Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and as such you are entitled to ask questions or comment in this forum, if people don't want to read your posts they don't actually have to, or need to comment. (and when they do, take it with a pinch of salt). It's hard to know if something has already been talked about, it's not practical to search the forum all the time to see.
  • tsarinatsarina Posts: 529
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I'm not sure that answers Taffygirls question though Mona :)

    I have no idea what the thread was but can hazard guess though and I am not sure why the mods seem quick to close some threads and not others :confused:

    I guess we just have to concentrate on other things :)
  • Bouzouki BoyBouzouki Boy Posts: 1,053
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    How about it was offensive tittle tattle? Just surmising.
  • jinx2jinx2 Posts: 441
    Forum Member
    If you want to read all about it, the daily mail website is carrying several rehashed articles about it.
  • jwren12002jwren12002 Posts: 294
    Forum Member
    Some people are a little quick to click on the alert tag on the left hand side too, so that could be why your post was removed.
  • madetomeasuremadetomeasure Posts: 8,271
    Forum Member
    You didn't do anything wrong Taffy, your post was of a controversial nature which is the only reason why it's been locked.
  • Pet MonkeyPet Monkey Posts: 11,923
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    jinx2 wrote: »
    If you want to read all about it, the daily mail website is carrying several rehashed articles about it.

    The perfect explanation of what's wrong with the subject ;)
  • littletaffygirllittletaffygirl Posts: 156
    Forum Member
    Controversial? I guess I did say that I thought it was nonsense but there could be some truth in it. I shall tone it down in future!
    :rolleyes:

    So how does it work then? Someone takes offence, presses alert and then the post is closed? Or do moderators just look out for duplicate posts (figure it can't be that though, as there are hundreds on whether Bruce should retire!)
  • littletaffygirllittletaffygirl Posts: 156
    Forum Member
    jwren12002 wrote: »
    Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and as such you are entitled to ask questions or comment in this forum, if people don't want to read your posts they don't actually have to, or need to comment. (and when they do, take it with a pinch of salt). It's hard to know if something has already been talked about, it's not practical to search the forum all the time to see.

    Thank you jwren.
  • littletaffygirllittletaffygirl Posts: 156
    Forum Member
    Pet Monkey wrote: »
    The perfect explanation of what's wrong with the subject ;)

    I genuinely didn't know I was rehashing. The story only blipped on my radar today as I'd missed it. I came here to see if there was any truth to it as I don't believe anything in the daily mail. Found nothing. Looked at the dancers twitter instead. Made the mistake of commenting. Severely and instantly rebuked! Whoops! Just wanted to clarify whether I broken any actual rules or just annoyed some users who are on here enough to see all stories before they are deleted.
  • Bouzouki BoyBouzouki Boy Posts: 1,053
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Would you like us to speculate on your private life?

    What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

    Where it matters is where someone who sets themselves up to be an example is then found wanting.
  • jtnorthjtnorth Posts: 5,081
    Forum Member
    As other threads on this subject have been closed too, I would assume that the mods think this discussion could become libellous in some way. A previous discussion got very heated. Just a guess. I don't think it means anyone complained about you or what you said as such.
  • Bouzouki BoyBouzouki Boy Posts: 1,053
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Pet Monkey wrote: »
    The perfect explanation of what's wrong with the subject ;)

    The Daily Mail. A great example of journalistic integrity and objectivity. :eek:
  • CravenHavenCravenHaven Posts: 13,953
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    "constructive" zzz lamerzzz.......
    "lawyerzzz" sounds so much better
  • coppertop1coppertop1 Posts: 4,557
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    jtnorth wrote: »
    As other threads on this subject have been closed too, I would assume that the mods think this discussion could become libellous in some way. A previous discussion got very heated. Just a guess. I don't think it means anyone complained about you or what you said as such.

    This is my guess as well, since the mods are pulling threads on this topic, I think they are worried about the possibility of legal action. It was all discussed but apparently can't be discussed any more and as such I am reporting my own post so no one else gets in trouble over it.
  • Pet MonkeyPet Monkey Posts: 11,923
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I genuinely didn't know I was rehashing. The story only blipped on my radar today as I'd missed it. I came here to see if there was any truth to it as I don't believe anything in the daily mail. Found nothing. Looked at the dancers twitter instead. Made the mistake of commenting. Severely and instantly rebuked! Whoops! Just wanted to clarify whether I broken any actual rules or just annoyed some users who are on here enough to see all stories before they are deleted.

    Maaate! No rebuke here. It's just there's history. We're all Too Badly Behaved to talk about things sensibly. :p
  • edy10edy10 Posts: 18,399
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Personally, I am glad that those threads were closed. Things were getting really, really out of hand !
This discussion has been closed.