Closed Thread 'traditional' definition

Subject: Closed Thread 'traditional' definition
From: Steve Gardham
Date: 18 Mar 10 - 10:22 AM

I would just like to state that I am appalled that a thread started in genuine interest has had to be closed because of offensive remarks. Does this happen often? Those wishing to indulge in bickering and abuse should start their own threads if they must and stop hijacking other reasonable discussions.

---

Answer: If you wish to continue the discussion, simply start a new thread on the subject and continue the discussion - peaceably. Feel free to link back to the previous thread. That's why the thread was closed and not deleted. We find that thread closure puts an end to combat without forcing us to resort to censorship. We used to close threads routinely at a hundred messages because long threads were hard to load for those who had dialup connections - was that oppressive? [It also had the pleasant side effect of stopping squabbles before they became overly contentious.]

But yes, you're right that it is a shame that the squabbles of a few people can ruin perfectly good threads. And it's always the same people. Sometimes, I thwart the combat by moving the combative messages to a new thread, but I didn't think I could do it in a rational way in the "traditional" thread.

I'm sorry, but we do not allow public forum discussion of our editing and moderation actions. You will find very few online forums that allow this. You will, however, find us to be refreshingly honest if you contact us privately - just send a personal message or e-mail to Joe, Big Mick, or Max.
-Joe Offer-
[e-mail]

Subject: RE: Closed Thread 'traditional' definition
From: Wesley S
Date: 18 Mar 10 - 10:27 AM

I don't want to pile on because I havn't seen that particular thread. I tend to stay out of "folk definition" threads- because I just don't care. But from experience I'm going to guess that the parties were from England. I'm not sure why this subject is of earth shattering importance over there but it seems to be that way.

Now is bluegrass really bluegrass if it doesn't have a banjo? That's something you can really sink your teeth into. YMMV.

Subject: RE: Closed Thread 'traditional' definition
From: Tootler
Date: 18 Mar 10 - 10:50 AM

Steve,

Regrettably, it happens a little too often, though not as often as you might think. Of the linked threads listed at the top of the thread in question, two out of 50 odd were marked as closed which is only about 4%. However, both were closed for the same reason - descending into petty bickering. In one case it involved several of the same people as were involved in the "traditional definition" thread.

Equally regrettably it is our fellow countrymen who are most often guilty in this regard.

I have also noted that another current thread - on a current "revival" seems to be heading the same way, though it has calmed down in the the more recent posts. Some others of the "usual suspects" are involved there as well.

It is a pity that some of these threads degenerate in this way, because the topics are of interest and worthy of discussion.

Closed for review by Joe.

---

I agree with the sentiments expressed, but I'm going to leave this thread closed. My explanation is in the first message.
-Joe-