AS
Asa
Admin
It's nothing to do with anything that has been said - usually any 'dodgy' posts would just be edited.
I didn't close the thread but whoever did probably should have made a quick reference to why it was.
The reason is mainly because it's got nothing to do with news presentation or the like. The thread just descended into general conversation and there's nothing wrong with that...if you're on Metropol. The Lounge there was created for that exact reason.
Now I'd be interested to hear opinions on whether we're being heavy handed about this ("you are" you cry
) but I don't think there's anything wrong with a coherent policy that makes it clear what should be discussed.
Certain members, even after polite warnings, are continuing to create these 'here's a news event' threads with dubious reference to what the forum has been set up for.
I didn't close the thread but whoever did probably should have made a quick reference to why it was.
The reason is mainly because it's got nothing to do with news presentation or the like. The thread just descended into general conversation and there's nothing wrong with that...if you're on Metropol. The Lounge there was created for that exact reason.
Now I'd be interested to hear opinions on whether we're being heavy handed about this ("you are" you cry
) but I don't think there's anything wrong with a coherent policy that makes it clear what should be discussed.
Certain members, even after polite warnings, are continuing to create these 'here's a news event' threads with dubious reference to what the forum has been set up for.
CW
Charlie Wells
Moderator
I've added a closing note, and was in the process of doing so at the time of Asa' post.
LO
personally, i don't see why that matters. this forum is littered with threads which aren't about tv presentation, such as soaps, big brother etc etc.
i know discussing news events in the newsroom is discouraged but to be honest, i don't think it matters and i think it would help build the community here.
i enjoy these forums and i think by and large the are moderated well but it would be nice if the discussions could veer of topic sometimes... it happens on metropol and it's built up a nice community so i think it can work here too.
Charlie Wells in the closed thread posted:
Ok, it's clear this thread is straying away from the original discussion of the TV coverage of the event and into more general discussion. This discussion is probably best continued at Metropol.
personally, i don't see why that matters. this forum is littered with threads which aren't about tv presentation, such as soaps, big brother etc etc.
i know discussing news events in the newsroom is discouraged but to be honest, i don't think it matters and i think it would help build the community here.
i enjoy these forums and i think by and large the are moderated well but it would be nice if the discussions could veer of topic sometimes... it happens on metropol and it's built up a nice community so i think it can work here too.
IT
itsrobert
Founding member
I must agree with the closure of the said thread. It has absolutely nothing to do with television news presentation, which is what I'm sure most people are here to discuss. I felt that the whale thread was not suitable to this forum as it was not exactly news pres related, but I had my wrists slapped by rts for closing it.
I agree with Asa in that we must have a clear and coherent policy on what is and is not to be discussed.
I agree with Asa in that we must have a clear and coherent policy on what is and is not to be discussed.
DA
Dan
Founding member
The general conversation right up until just before the thread was locked (i.e. about which channel broke the news first and the manner in which the Sky News presenter announced it) seemed more relevant to the topic of television news presentation than some other threads which have remained open in the past.
I also thought people were doing well to keep the thread on track despite one person appearing not to want to. Many other threads also drift off topic temporarily only to be pulled back on topic again - or just die naturally if people have nothing else to say.
However my main worry was that it was the off-topic views expressed which had caused the thread to be closed. The explanation that's been added to the thread makes it clear that that was not the case, although it did take about 20 minutes after the thread was locked for the explanation to be added which was why I started this thread..!
I also thought people were doing well to keep the thread on track despite one person appearing not to want to. Many other threads also drift off topic temporarily only to be pulled back on topic again - or just die naturally if people have nothing else to say.
However my main worry was that it was the off-topic views expressed which had caused the thread to be closed. The explanation that's been added to the thread makes it clear that that was not the case, although it did take about 20 minutes after the thread was locked for the explanation to be added which was why I started this thread..!
LO
I don't disagree with Asa's general aim of discouraging non-TV-related discussion - but I do think that a slightly higher threshold should be applied before threads are closed, instead of unnaturally trying to stifle discussion when there is a slight deviation from topic.
Also, I think an official widening of the Newsroom's remit to cover *how* stories are covered on the news channels and bulletins (not just nuts-and-bolts graphics, music, and presenters) would be healthy.
But there is a line to be drawn and clearly more general political discussions etc belong in the lounge.
Also, I think an official widening of the Newsroom's remit to cover *how* stories are covered on the news channels and bulletins (not just nuts-and-bolts graphics, music, and presenters) would be healthy.
But there is a line to be drawn and clearly more general political discussions etc belong in the lounge.
DA
Exactly. But a coherent policy would have seen the "Lib Dem Leadership Contest" thread closed 2 weeks ago when people started discussing Bush and Saddam, not now when they were discussing how channels broke the news of Mark Oaten's resignation. Or perhaps just a note to the people involved to tell them to move the discussion about Iraq to Metropol would have stopped the thread going so far off-topic.
If the rules are clear and coherent, why are people ignoring them and wouldn't it be better to do something about those people rather than closing threads only for others which do not conform to the rules to be opened?
Dan
Founding member
Londoner posted:
I don't disagree with Asa's general aim of discouraging non-TV-related discussion - but I do think that a slightly higher threshold should be applied before threads are closed, instead of unnaturally trying to stifle discussion when there is a slight deviation from topic.
Also, I think an official widening of the Newsroom's remit to cover *how* stories are covered on the news channels and bulletins (not just nuts-and-bolts graphics, music, and presenters) would be healthy.
But there is a line to be drawn and clearly more general political discussions etc belong in the lounge.
Also, I think an official widening of the Newsroom's remit to cover *how* stories are covered on the news channels and bulletins (not just nuts-and-bolts graphics, music, and presenters) would be healthy.
But there is a line to be drawn and clearly more general political discussions etc belong in the lounge.
Exactly. But a coherent policy would have seen the "Lib Dem Leadership Contest" thread closed 2 weeks ago when people started discussing Bush and Saddam, not now when they were discussing how channels broke the news of Mark Oaten's resignation. Or perhaps just a note to the people involved to tell them to move the discussion about Iraq to Metropol would have stopped the thread going so far off-topic.
If the rules are clear and coherent, why are people ignoring them and wouldn't it be better to do something about those people rather than closing threads only for others which do not conform to the rules to be opened?