So what does inappropriate here mean? All I wrote in "What's happening to Russia" forum is what I have experienced. Why is it inappropriate? Why is it a shame that I have seen what I have seen? I didn't use inappropriate language. When these people from Osetia will be telling what they have seen and experienced, it will also be inappropriate and shamefull??
The rules of the "Meaningless Drivel" forum are simple and straightforward: anything that is not meaningless and not drivel may be deleted. If you don't believe me, look at the message at top of the topic list for this forum.
The entire thread should never have been allowed, because the topic was far from meaningless; but the participants showed such restraint in discussing a difficult topic in a generally dignified and respectful way that, after some debate, the moderators allowed the thread to stand. As soon as the discussion strayed from this narrow path, it was closed, this time for good.
This thread, by the way, is off-topic for this forum. I am moving it to the JavaRanch forum for any followup discussion.
The rules of the "Meaningless Drivel" forum are simple and straightforward
Actually, they aren't, because the site gives conflicting signals on the forum.
In particular, the presence of a link (in important looking red!) to "A document on fallacies" at the top of Meaningless Drivel, by listing a large number of common arguments that are fallacious by virtue of being essentially meaningless, and advocating responding to them with constructive, meaningful responses, gives the strong impression that the intention is to have people make meaningful arguments there. This impression is only strengthened by the fact that "A document on fallacies" is so well written and so, well, meaningful!
If you really want Meaningless Drivel to be restricted to meaningless drivel, you would do well to remove the link to "A document on fallacies". But save the document and put it somewhere else on the site - it's too good to go to waste.
I am not sure at all why the NY thread got the chop ? It looked like pretty harmless fun by 01:00 A.M. GMT .Not everybody has to like or dislike the same things. [ September 06, 2004: Message edited by: Helen Thomas ]
Interesting point on the fallacies document. I'll give it some thought.
The important thing about MD: we tried many different flavors of permitting topics with meaning and it just never worked out. People would get angry and the site would become nasty. It would distract from the java forums.
My book, my movies, my videos, my podcasts, my events ... all my stuff!
I think the fallacies document is misleading at this point. The basic "rule" nowadays is that if one of the moderators thinks a thread is offensive, or could potentially lead to arguments in the near future, the thread may well be removed. The other moderators may have no idea why (as is the case with this "NY thread" which I've never even seen). Perhaps someone had posted something which was controversial. Perhaps one of our moderators was cranky. Who knows? Unfortunately nowadays it doesn't really matter if the original post was framed nicely or not. It also doesn't matter much if posts avoid the fallacies decribed in the document Paul created. If the subject is considered to controversial by one of the moderators, the thread will probably be removed. And under the current system, there's really no way to know why., unless the moderator who did it feels like telling you. I suppose the only general advice I can give is - avoid subjects which someone, somewhere, might think are controversial. You can try them out if you want, but don't be surprised if they later disappear. Too bad, really, but all the other solutions we've tried ended up in may too much work for the moderators.
"I'm not back." - Bill Harding, Twister
Your mother was a hamster and your father was a tiny ad: