@ Sam re thread stuff:
posters who were discussing the subject matter can determine whether it's sustained or serious and make their own decision to continue or opt out, like a number of them did. that's how to make ones feelings known. they aren't forced to take part. no harm done. different people have different debating styles, i don't like halos one bit because its counter productive and ultimately self indulgent, but as it's done very publicy, people can work that out for themselves and decide to engage or not.
but forcing that decision upon others comes to nothing positive. a number of people did want to continue and were fine with 'suffering' and dealing with the problems that occur from such flawed discourse. taking that decision away from them only creates a number of spin off problems, which are far more toxic than the debate was becoming.
those that dont want to take part, or disliked the direction can choose to not post & not return to the thread.
reported posts regarding racism/homophobia etc can be dealt with in the same way they normally are around the forum. and relevant posters warned as per forum guidelines
and if the number of reported posts is the benchmark for whether a thread gets closed or not, that's frankly bizarre.
I understand this place isn't a democracy, but at least the participants should of been given the chance to vote on its closure. if people take a lot of time and effort to think about and formulate their viewpoints and commit them to words, they deserve to be included equally in the decision.
it creates growing resentment to have something youve emotionally invested a little time and energy into participating, just taken away by what amounts to a parental decision for consenting adults who are free to make that decision themselves and can choose to opt out any time. it's paternalistic and overbearing. and as is evidenced by today's gibberings thread will only result in that discontent spreading.
a contained thread that some may find intolerable is easily ignored.
posters who were discussing the subject matter can determine whether it's sustained or serious and make their own decision to continue or opt out, like a number of them did. that's how to make ones feelings known. they aren't forced to take part. no harm done. different people have different debating styles, i don't like halos one bit because its counter productive and ultimately self indulgent, but as it's done very publicy, people can work that out for themselves and decide to engage or not.
but forcing that decision upon others comes to nothing positive. a number of people did want to continue and were fine with 'suffering' and dealing with the problems that occur from such flawed discourse. taking that decision away from them only creates a number of spin off problems, which are far more toxic than the debate was becoming.
those that dont want to take part, or disliked the direction can choose to not post & not return to the thread.
reported posts regarding racism/homophobia etc can be dealt with in the same way they normally are around the forum. and relevant posters warned as per forum guidelines
and if the number of reported posts is the benchmark for whether a thread gets closed or not, that's frankly bizarre.
I understand this place isn't a democracy, but at least the participants should of been given the chance to vote on its closure. if people take a lot of time and effort to think about and formulate their viewpoints and commit them to words, they deserve to be included equally in the decision.
it creates growing resentment to have something youve emotionally invested a little time and energy into participating, just taken away by what amounts to a parental decision for consenting adults who are free to make that decision themselves and can choose to opt out any time. it's paternalistic and overbearing. and as is evidenced by today's gibberings thread will only result in that discontent spreading.
a contained thread that some may find intolerable is easily ignored.