I have just witnessed the thread about the evacuations in Denver thread, that it has been locked. Why? Ok, so there have been conflicting sources on it that it might be true and might not be true, HOWEVER, isn't that the whole point to having a discussion? The thread was locked after 3 replies to it. Shouldn't the fact that it has conflicting views and they aren't sure whether or not it is a ficticious fact made up by the media, or is actually true, shouldn't that be cause to ALLOW the thread to STAY, and have a good discussion about it, where people can present all sides of the discussion, and people can sort out the validity of the article, as well as clarify any misunderstandings that people may have as a result of the media. The only way you can kill rumors is to clarify the truth, and explain people what really happened, so it should be the same in this situation, no? Shouldn't we be allowed to have a positive discussion about this without it being locked so soon?
Any comments? I hope this doesn't tickle anybodies fancy the wrong way.
TB
Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
-
- Arsenal@LHR
- Posts: 7510
- Joined:
RE: Locking Threads
I found it bizzare as to why the evacuation in denver thread was locked, surely you can't have a flame war with only 3 replies? 
Arsenal@LHR
Arsenal@LHR
-
- McRingRing
- Posts: 1028
- Joined:
RE: Locking Threads
Here's the problem I have. The article clearly states:
Authorities have drawn up plans to evacuate as many as 40,000 people from the southwestern outskirts of Denver.
This is not a "ficticious fact" as TurbineBeaver says. It is the truth.
Nowhere does it say that 40,000 people are currently being evacuated. You can draw up plans without implementing them. Somehow, the author made this connection. And the friend of a moderator, who apparently is the only reliable source on this issue, made the same connection. Both were wrong. Don't blame to media until you actually read what they wrote.
So, now the only piece on information that this friend says is incorrect (we'll see about this one) is how the fire was started. And if that little piece of information is enough to lock a thread, well then I think the threshold is a bit too low.
Authorities have drawn up plans to evacuate as many as 40,000 people from the southwestern outskirts of Denver.
This is not a "ficticious fact" as TurbineBeaver says. It is the truth.
Nowhere does it say that 40,000 people are currently being evacuated. You can draw up plans without implementing them. Somehow, the author made this connection. And the friend of a moderator, who apparently is the only reliable source on this issue, made the same connection. Both were wrong. Don't blame to media until you actually read what they wrote.
So, now the only piece on information that this friend says is incorrect (we'll see about this one) is how the fire was started. And if that little piece of information is enough to lock a thread, well then I think the threshold is a bit too low.
-
- TurbineBeaver
- Posts: 1511
- Joined:
RE: Locking Threads
McRingRing,
I'm not saying it is a ficticious fact. I'm saying that some people were saying it is, and some were saying it isn't, which, therefore makes it debatable yet the moderators didn't let the debate roll out.
Poor moderation.
TB
I'm not saying it is a ficticious fact. I'm saying that some people were saying it is, and some were saying it isn't, which, therefore makes it debatable yet the moderators didn't let the debate roll out.
Poor moderation.
TB
-
- McRingRing
- Posts: 1028
- Joined:
RE: Locking Threads
Sorry - I guess it came out the wrong way. I meant "as TurbineBeaver mentioned it might be." Or something like that... well you get the point.
-
- airlinelover
- Posts: 5287
- Joined:
RE: Locking Threads
Turbine- The first time the user posted it, I deleted it, with a note stating that I had talked to friends IN Denver, and it was not true.. I also said if he could show PROOF to me that I would restore it.. Gave him my email addy as well.. Instead, he re-posted it, with an article in it that proved HIM wrong.. Not to mention the copyright issue.. I was actually going to delete it, but one of my friends was online (who lives in Denver) and I gave him the link.. he gave the truths/falsehoods about it, I posted it, and locked it rather than deleting it again.. I was actually being rather fair by telling him that I would restore it if he could show ME proof, and he went right over my head and that of the other mods.. That, and the copyright is why it was locked.. Plus, misleading topic..
Cya in Chat
Chris
Cya in Chat
Chris
-
- Guest
RE: Locking Threads
Chris,
I don't understand why the discussions were removed. Whether it was fact or speculation it's still worth discussing, if it's wrong others will tell them so. To many of us who live in bushfire prone areas these discussions are interesting. There is a lot of speculation, the news here was running articles of up to 40,000 people being evacuated in Denver, I find it very useful to have access to people who live in the area to clear up fact from ratings grabbing media hype!
:D
VH-ADG
I don't understand why the discussions were removed. Whether it was fact or speculation it's still worth discussing, if it's wrong others will tell them so. To many of us who live in bushfire prone areas these discussions are interesting. There is a lot of speculation, the news here was running articles of up to 40,000 people being evacuated in Denver, I find it very useful to have access to people who live in the area to clear up fact from ratings grabbing media hype!
:D
VH-ADG
RE: Locking Threads
I think they where a little quick on the button with that one too.
I also have a problem with the way that Airlinelover stated he went about deleteing it.
It just reeks of, "I know more then you, so screw you." and that is not a good attitude in a moderator.
I also have a problem with the way that Airlinelover stated he went about deleteing it.
It just reeks of, "I know more then you, so screw you." and that is not a good attitude in a moderator.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 27 guests