Topic Locking in Off Topic

[Fandango 1,439]

Did you ever go by another username here, called Mox?

LOL I knew this thread comlaint was VERY Mox-esque But in this regard, I was irked by what I see as a VERY overzealous mod.

Not the first time either...

[trailmix 77]

Perhaps the thread should not have been locked for veering off topic. It should have, instead, been locked for being totally offensive. This is the kind of stuff that probably drives people away from VJ, which is primarily an immigration website.

[Fandango 1,439]

Perhaps the thread should not have been locked for veering off topic. It should have, instead, been locked for being totally offensive. This is the kind of stuff that probably drives people away from VJ, which is primarily an immigration website.

See, the thing is, it's not about the actual topic that irks me. And I don't think it's offensive to the VJ collective...yeah it's an immi website, but that's OT. I thought everyone there did a pretty good job with discussing a VERY sensitive issue without it degenerating into a flame fest. So I think everyone handled it well.

If everyone's handling themselves more or less respectfully, I see no reason why we can't all have a discussion in OT that handles a very delicate subject. You can clearly see what that topic was going to be, so it wasn't like a thread on puppies that turned into one on abortion. You don't want to take part in something like that, don't click. If someone's going to turn away from VJ because of a calm abortion discussion where all sides of the opinion are highlighted, in OT no less, well then perhaps this isn't the place for him or her. We can't regulate what every person here might find offensve, that's impossible.

But aside from the actual topic, are we now being regulated in OT for staying 'on topic'? Lame excuse at best. Lock it cos the OP requested it, lock it if there's a flame war going on, etc... but 'veering off topic'? Cman, it was still relevant to the original topic. And if we're going to start locking topics that evolve into other topics, well then, Kathryn has a lot of work to do in a ton of threads in OT. Again, this is my point here...lamest excuse ever.

Mods are not here to govern people with a billy club. They should move topics, handle flame wars, trolls, etc....but they have absolutely no right to stifle normal conversation for no reason other than because they want to. Of course, that's jmo.

[trailmix 77]

Mods are not here to govern people with a billy club. They should move topics, handle flame wars, trolls, etc....but they have absolutely no right to stifle normal conversation for no reason other than because they want to. Of course, that's jmo.

This is not public domain, where free speech is a constitutional right. It's a discussion board on a privately owned domain and just like you can't walk in to McDonalds shouting whatever you want against animal products you can't assume you can just say anything you want to in here.

I personally thing the moderators give a huge amount of leeway.

[Fandango 1,439]

This is not public domain, where free speech is a constitutional right. It's a discussion board on a privately owned domain and just like you can't walk in to McDonalds shouting whatever you want against animal products you can't assume you can just say anything you want to in here.

I personally thing the moderators give a huge amount of leeway.

Of course not, I know that. Just stating my opinion is all. I can respect rules I don't agree with, but this is ridiculous. I think that if that's the way OT is going to be governed now, then some will think twice to contributing. Less hits = less revenue, so it's not exactly a smart financial decision, especially when it admittedly wasn't causing a disruption.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Perhaps instead of closing threads that go off topic - they could be split into separate threads.

[Fandango 1,439]

Perhaps instead of closing threads that go off topic - they could be split into separate threads.

Yay! we agree again!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

But... I'm not sure that would have worked in the thread in question - since there were 3 or 4 completely different tangents going on at the same time.

[Jenn! 918]

Of course not, I know that. Just stating my opinion is all. I can respect rules I don't agree with, but this is ridiculous. I think that if that's the way OT is going to be governed now, then some will think twice to contributing. Less hits = less revenue, so it's not exactly a smart financial decision, especially when it admittedly wasn't causing a disruption.

I would bet that mod action was taken due to numerous reports on the thread - that's usually how it happens. There are many people who will not 'speak up' within a thread, but do object to the content and will report it as inappropriate. If OT is modded more strictly, you're right that you will probably have a good number of people who won't contribute anymore. But you might be surprised by the number of people who will start to contribute more because they prefer the less hostile environment. I'm not sure anyone can say with confidence which way is the smarter financial decision.

[Marilyn. 340]

I just did a quick check and of the last 600 threads in the OT only about 20 have been locked or made invisible..

they do let a tonne of stuff slide in the OT...

[The_Dude 1,142]

If a thread has strayed off it's original topic, but has not spiraled into pety insults for pages, why close it? That is absolutely absurd, and arbitrary.

[Captain Ewok 1,891]

Splitting a topic is definitely an option if it makes sense it can be done easily. Sometimes it is so fragmented that it would be tough to split 3 or 4 ways. If it is obvious to do so, I think most mods, members and myself would clearly prefer that.

[Sinergy 3]

ah how I have missed VJ

[spookyturtle 9,466]

I had a few things to add to this thread, but unfortunately my post was deleted and I was suspended. Isn't it odd that happened even though nobody was named and it was a general observation? No TOS violation. I thought that this section was where we were supposed to post these types of things. Hmmmmm, strange.

[john_and_marlene 162]

I had a few things to add to this thread, but unfortunately my post was deleted and I was suspended. Isn't it odd that happened even though nobody was named and it was a general observation? No TOS violation. I thought that this section was where we were supposed to post these types of things. Hmmmmm, strange.

Maybe you haven't sucked up to the "in" crowd enough.