At what point do you think an entire thread should be removed?

[CGP]

I have to concede that it frustrates me to have to remove threads because, for one reason or another, Person A or Person B doesn't like the discussion. To keep the peace I (and the mods before me) have often removed threads because Person A or Person B was offended about what was being discussed. Unfortunately, some otherwise interesting and heated debates/threads are banished to the graveyard never to be read again.

Do you think there are any circumstances under which an entire thread should be removed from the forum?

[SoCal4Hillary]

Perhaps when a thread starts out being factual, but then veers off into anger over its content, the people who are off-topic should be told to stay on-topic or not post in that thread. That way the people who are interested in discussing the facts presented can do so, without the thread degrading into a big mess of angry people. :eek: Hence, no need to remove threads.

[CGP]

Perhaps when a thread starts out being factual, but then veers off into anger over its content, the people who are off-topic should be told to stay on-topic or not post in that thread. That way the people who are interested in discussing the facts presented can do so, without the thread degrading into a big mess of angry people. :eek: Hence, no need to remove threads.

But even if/when a thread goes off-topic and becomes heated for other reasons, isn't that in itself interesting to observe? A political forum will ALWAYS have discussions which become heated for one reason or another. They shouldn't have to be removed just because some people are upset by the discussion.

[Palinfan]

well - this is your forum afterall, so it's your call.

My personal opinion is that a heated discussion can still be informative as long as it doesn't resort to personal attacks/name calling.

Once people start calling each other names or comparing the other to Hitler, then the discussion is useless.

[Jobu86]

I think that any thread which is discussing facts has a place here. It's when opinions are presented as facts that things tend to get out of hand. And, assuming the thread I'm thinking of is the reason for this thread, then there seems to be a big disagreement over what is pure opinion and what is fact.

[CGP]

I think that any thread which is discussing facts has a place here. It's when opinions are presented as facts that things tend to get out of hand. And, assuming the thread I'm thinking of is the reason for this thread, then there seems to be a big disagreement over what is pure opinion and what is fact.

This current thread is about MANY threads which have been removed over time, not just one.

When a topic is heated, there will always be disagreement over what is "fact" and what is "opinion".

[Laura Cereta]

Never. I think there are individual posts that can be so discriminatory that they have to be removed, but I'm not really in favor of that for the most part.

Threads like the one last night are learning experiences. Strong emotions are not a bad thing; it means people are emotionally invested in some aspect of the topic.

I abhor censorship. This is verbal (or written) art and should be left as is: the good, the bad, and the ugly. If one takes a step back, a heated thread provides an excellent window into various individuals' thinking processes.

[CGP]

If one takes a step back, a heated thread provides an excellent window into various individuals' thinking processes.

I agree. Some of the most interesting threads are those which are the most heated.

[LadyLazarus]

Threads like the one last night are learning experiences.

Well said. While the posts last night veered into the terrain of hysteria, I still think that people come to forums like this one with a purpose to debate, not simply to agree with each other or preach to the proverbial choir. For my part, I think a strong forum encourages differences of opinions and we should celebrate those differences.

[CGP]

I still think that people come to forums like this one with a purpose to debate, not simply to agree with each other or preach to the proverbial choir. For my part, I think a strong forum encourages differences of opinions and we should celebrate those difference.

Agree on all counts.

[Aria]

The problem is that sometimes the "heat" overrides the point of the discussion and it becomes another point altogether - particularly when people come at it with their own agenda and do not really listen to what was actually said. I think that we need to practice more careful listening and not be so quick to attack, especially based on assumptions too quickly made. We are not necessarily here only for purposes of debate - which tends to mean argument and the need to be right - both of which are apt to promote heated discussion. And not that healthy debate is undesirable or not useful - but just that there are many ways and reasons to converse, some of it may include seeking common ground (remember that phrase?!) or simply seeking validation of our thoughts. At any rate, I see this forum as dedicated to freedom of thought, expressed respectfully.

And to answer your specific question, Murray - I'd rather not see an entire thread removed "in the heat of the moment," but if the ground rules for the forum are infringed upon to your dissatisfaction or to that of many members, then maybe there should be a "time-out" for the offending person, or whatever you see as appropriate.

[Jake501]

I think threads should only be removed if the discussion gets racial, or discriminatory or blantatly insulting toward one person or group.

But I hope that never happens...

[Suzan]

I'd rather not see threads removed unless they're clearly discriminatory, designed to provoke retaliation rather than stimulate thinking and contain nothing with discussion value.

Perhaps if people start attacking each other and name calling, then they should be warned before the thread is removed. I can remember lots of that back in the old days, i.e., warning posts, but it would probably put more pressure on our already overworked administrator!

[DeLana]

I would prefer that a thread be closed to posts rather than removed; surely, not all posts in such a thread are bad (if I'm wrong, correct me). Perhaps individual posts could be removed if they're clearly in violation of terms and the writer, having been warned, refuses to apologize.

DeLana

[CGP]

I would prefer that a thread be closed to posts rather than removed; surely, not all posts in such a thread are bad (if I'm wrong, correct me). Perhaps individual posts could be removed if they're clearly in violation of terms and the writer, having been warned, refuses to apologize.

DeLana

Yes, this compromise approach is often employed as an alternative to complete removal.

[Meg]

I really don't like completely removing threads. I think if it's just a few posts that are completely over the top and provide nothing to the the thread, you could just delete those comments.

If the thread itself though, comes across as racists, sexist, homophobic or anything else that isn't tolerated here, then it should be removed.

But overall if the thread is slightly heated, just leave it. Heated discussions are what politics is all about. If there's no passion there's obviously no interest.;)

[CGP]

Well, I just removed another thread...:rolleyes:

[Meg]

Well, I just removed another thread...:rolleyes:

Really? Which one... I completely missed it.:confused:

[Nichelle]

Apparently I've missed a lot of excitement around here. That's what I get for not logging on for a bit.

My opinion? I'd rather not see threads removed. Deleting particular posts or locking the thread would seem like reasonable alternatives.

[Meg]

Apparently I've missed a lot of excitement around here. That's what I get for not logging on for a bit.

My opinion? I'd rather not see threads removed. Deleting particular posts or locking the thread would seem like reasonable alternatives.

I forgot about locking threads! *facepalm* DUH! That's definitely a go one too, keeps the good part of the thread around for further reading.:cool:

[Kaylin]

I posted earlier in the Nancy Pelosi/Pope thread and notice the thread is gone. I hope it wasn't something I said, but yanno, to post in a thread and then come back and find it poofed is annoying.

I think I've been pretty supportive of every incarnation of this forum--I've tried to be, but this is annoying.

[CGP]

I posted earlier in the Nancy Pelosi/Pope thread and notice the thread is gone. I hope it wasn't something I said, but yanno, to post in a thread and then come back and find it poofed is annoying.

I think I've been pretty supportive of every incarnation of this forum--I've tried to be, but this is annoying.

It is annoying for me to have to remove threads. But sometimes they get so out of control, or I get so tired of people complaining about this/that, I take the path of least resistance which is to remove.

[Kaylin]

It is annoying for me to have to remove threads. But sometimes they get so out of control, or I get so tired of people complaining about this/that, I take the path of least resistance which is to remove.

well, did I say something that upset someone? I mean, how do we know and how can we repair any damage if the thread is poofed the minute somebody complains about it?

[VotingHillary]

It is annoying for me to have to remove threads. But sometimes they get so out of control, or I get so tired of people complaining about this/that, I take the path of least resistance which is to remove.

I think...and this is just me...when a thread becomes so obviously personal rather than reasoned political...it is time to "lock" the thread. Removal of a thread however is a whole other matter. To me, removal, which is very different from locked, would require extreme prejudice or personal attacks. Because if the thread has been reduced to that, I have to wonder how valid was the thread to begin with. Antagonism for its own sake should be done away with for the sake of the preservation of this board.

Who makes that determination should be you...and you alone since this is your board.

[CGP]

well, did I say something that upset someone? I mean, how do we know and how can we repair any damage if the thread is poofed the minute somebody complains about it?

No, you didn't post anything problematic at all. You never do - your posts are always fair & balanced in my opinion! ;)

Rarely does a heated thread get nixed in an instant. Usually the offending posts will be removed to keep the thread alive. When that doesn't work, and I continue to receive complaints about the thread, I consider removing it altogether.

It's also the case that now I am the only admin/mod, the capacity for reveiwing posted material is significantly reduced. To some extent I have to rely on the feedback I receive from people and complaints made within threads in order to make a decision about whether to keep/remove a thread.

[CGP]

I think...and this is just me...when a thread becomes so obviously personal rather than reasoned political...it is time to "lock" the thread. Removal of a thread however is a whole other matter. To me, removal, which is very different from locked, would require extreme prejudice or personal attacks. Because if the thread has been reduced to that, I have to wonder how valid was the thread to begin with. Antagonism for its own sake should be done away with for the sake of the preservation of this board.



Locking is preferable to removal, as at least those who have contributed to the thread have their posts preserved. But even sometimes when I do that people will complain that I am somehow supportive of the content if I allow the thread to stay viewable - a notion which is completely ridiculous. If I removed everything in this forum I didn't agree with, there wouldn't be much left to read!!!

[VotingHillary]

Locking is preferable to removal, as at least those who have contributed to the thread have their posts preserved. But even sometimes when I do that people will complain that I am somehow supportive of the content if I allow the thread to stay viewable - a notion which is completely ridiculous. If I removed everything in this forum I didn't agree with, there wouldn't be much left to read!!!

That is how I felt about last night's thread. It needed to be locked....but, removing...well, you are on a political board by your own choice. Reality is some just aren't going to agree and those that want threads removed are trying to assert dominance by ommission on this board. I think locking is the best way to go in most instances.

[CGP]

That is how I felt about last night's thread. It needed to be locked....but, removing...well, you are on a political board by your own choice. Reality is some just aren't going to agree and those that want threads removed are trying to assert dominance by ommission on this board. I think locking is the best way to go in most instances.

Locking is definitely a more moderate approach and I am going to start doing that more, rather than removing threads.

[VotingHillary]

Locking is definitely a more moderate approach and I am going to start doing that more, rather than removing threads.

I think that the most pragmatic approach to take.

[Kaylin]

No, you didn't post anything problematic at all. You never do - your posts are always fair & balanced in my opinion! ;)

Rarely does a heated thread get nixed in an instant. Usually the offending posts will be removed to keep the thread alive. When that doesn't work, and I continue to receive complaints about the thread, I consider removing it altogether.

It's also the case that now I am the only admin/mod, the capacity for reveiwing posted material is significantly reduced. To some extent I have to rely on the feedback I receive from people and complaints made within threads in order to make a decision about whether to keep/remove a thread.

okay, I feel better now. I just don't like the feeling that I might have upset someone without knowing it.

I agree with the locking option. this would allow paranoid people like myself to see what happened :)

[shenanigans]

Never. A thread should continue on. We are all adults and can figure things out for ourselves. I don't want a babysitter.

[Folamix]

Personally I see removal of the thread as censorship, in a passive-aggressive way. Let it stand but terminate the discussion.

This is your forum. If a thread is going in a direction that you feel is counter-productive, at any point, I think it should be closed rather than removed. I would hope that, if you enforce this policy strictly, people will get the message and police themselves. If not, you have the final control.

[Brooke]

Perhaps when a thread starts out being factual, but then veers off into anger over its content, the people who are off-topic should be told to stay on-topic or not post in that thread. That way the people who are interested in discussing the facts presented can do so, without the thread degrading into a big mess of angry people. :eek: Hence, no need to remove threads.

Sure, blame the rest of us. Don't take responsibility for inciting that anger. Typical.

[Meg]

Sure, blame the rest of us. Don't take responsibility for inciting that anger. Typical.

Ssshhh!! You're going to make Murray remove this thread too! :p

[Brooke]

Ssshhh!! You're going to make Murray remove this thread too! :p

I don't care. I won't sit by and allow anger, hatred and incitement to ruin this forum and cause Murray to close it yet again.

[joeysky18]

If threads/posts don't confirm with posting rules, lock at first sight. No question ask. Explanation given at the last post.

No thread removed.

[CGP]

Forums operate by a very simple model - post to a thread and it remains active or don't post to a thread and it eventually dies. If there are topics/threads which people don't like or are offended by, one of the best responses is silence. Inflammatory topics/threads are kept alive by the back/forth arguments which they generally inspire. One course of action is to stand back and not be associated with the discussion and let it takes its natural course - which will be to come to end when everyone gives up on or loses interest in it. As the saying goes, "it takes two to tango". Apart from the very rare occasion when one person will continously post the same material & needs no encouragement to do so, most of the heated threads involve people from both sides of the argument actively participating in the ongoing drama.

I would rather see threads naturally rise/fall based on people's interest in them, rather than me artificially controlling the popularity of threads by locking or removing certain threads. But obviously if things get really out of hand, locking/removal remain viable options.

[hillary4change]

Locking the thread is best I think. Rather than deleting an entire thread. Removal takes away the informative and interesting content. Otherwise I think deleting posts works best, rather than threads.

[joeysky18]

Forums operate by a very simple model - post to a thread and it remains active or don't post to a thread and it eventually dies. If there are topics/threads which people don't like or are offended by, one of the best responses is silence. Inflammatory topics/threads are kept alive by the back/forth arguments which they generally inspire. One course of action is to stand back and not be associated with the discussion and let it takes its natural course - which will be to come to end when everyone gives up on or loses interest in it. As the saying goes, "it takes two to tango". Apart from the very rare occasion when one person will continously post the same material & needs no encouragement to do so, most of the heated threads involve people from both sides of the argument actively participating in the ongoing drama.

I would rather see threads naturally rise/fall based on people's interest in them, rather than me artificially controlling the popularity of threads by locking or removing certain threads. But obviously if things get really out of hand, locking/removal remain viable options.

The problem with this approach is silence also means acceptance. In a political forum, we voice our opinions: agree or disagree, it will be heard.

The best way to solve the problem is to abide by the posting rules.

[CGP]

The problem with this approach is silence also means acceptance. In a political forum, we voice our opinions: agree or disagree, it will be heard.

Partially. It can also mean complete disinterest.

But it's true that in a political forum it's unrealistic to expect people to not pass comment on something they disagree with.

Clear posting guidelines, and consistent/regular moderation, are key. Unfortunately with only one mod (moi) my resources are fairly limited in regards to enforcing the guidelines and doing a fair job with moderation.

[foxyladi]

Really? Which one... I completely missed it.:confused:

there must have been a good reason.