Is everything okay here?

[Elspeth]

Originally Posted by COUNTESS

Then, why was the Bhutto space allowed in the first place? That is my confusion.

Because the death of a public figure is a newsworthy event, and it's possible to talk about it without getting off topic into politics- and religion-based fights. The Bhutto thread had turned into a pitched battle about the nature of the Musharraf government, with some people announcing that only those with direct connections to Pakistan deserved to be taken seriously and other people starting on about Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and Afghanistan, and a few attempts to bring US foreign policy into the mix for good measure. We simply don't have the resources to moderate those sorts of threads.

People sometimes overstep their bounds, but by and large there seems to be a very nice element of folks on here posting. Yes, religion and politics are hot items. I've read post that are nasty over whether Camilla should wear such and such a tiara. Just as bad, just a banal subject.

Those posts are a lot easier to deal with because they aren't getting down to people's deeply held belief systems and worldviews.

And, isn't some discussion an opening into people learning about one another, even when they may hold negatives views of them. If you take the time to read and assess what someone is saying, then you just might say, "I never thought of it that way".

You might, which is why there are forums where people are encouraged to post personal stuff about politics and religion. On the other hand, in my experience it's rare to see people changing their minds - there's a much greater likelihood of people standing in their corner and talking (or more usually shouting) past each other, which is what was going on in the Bhutto thread. The topic of allowing political and religious discussions comes up every so often in our moderator forum, and the consensus among the mods is an overwhelming "please, no!" These sorts of topics are exceedingly time-consuming to moderate if they aren't going to degenerate into mayhem (I've moderated religious discussions before now, so I've got some experience here), and we don't have the capacity to provide the standard of moderation of those sorts of threads that this forum would require.

[Aurora810]

I haven't been posting very much lately. One reason is because I've been busy and the other reason is because the fun of it has gone away some for me. Sadly! I have grown tired of the bickering that happens in many threads and if it's not bickering then its the same comments being posted time and again. Some posts are meant as good compliments and others are simply meant to criticize. I understand we all have a right to criticize and say what we want. But some of us simply want to come look at pics and get info and be done with it not read the same criticisms of the same royal each time they step in public. It became too much for me! I image at some point I might start posting more but for now I'm kind of happier keeping a little bit of distance! When I first joined I never noticed the bickering and negativity and then in recent months it seems more common. Therefore, the appeal of TRF's has become a little lost for me.

[marmi]

Well, thats sad Aurora810, I'd wondered where you'd gone. I myself tend only to current events threads and fashion ones - they may seem more superficial but people tend to get on there, and when I come here i want 'relaxing' rather than contentious (I can get plenty of that in the real world!).

[Elspeth]

Do you mean to say that TRF isn't the real world?

[Russophile]

Originally Posted by COUNTESS

Just wondered why certain topics start and then get thrust into the morass.

Cuz some people jack them?

[COUNTESS]

Your are right. They try to broaden them.

In a way, Elspeth, it is not. Other than some on these kinds of Forums, few give a darn what Charles, Camilla, Prince Andrew or the whole road show do. For some reason Diana caught the whole world's attention, good, bad or indifferent, but the rest are just also rans. Not because they are good or bad, just because they are insignificant. This is a political world. Yes, some like to catch a glimpse of the glitter of the royal world, it's fun. But after disucssing someone's clothing for the umpteenth time, who cares. And what will it change?

[Empress]

Countess, if for some reason the environment here does not suit you, you are perfectly free to leave and post elsewhere.

Or perhaps better yet, instead of complaining, how about offer some suggestions or solutions or constructive ideas? It's rather hard to take someone seriously if all they care to do is complain and not offer up a way to fix their complaints.

[Russophile]

She did, she wants a political/religious platform and everybody knows that I'd end up jacking the thing and cheesing everybody off being the capitalistic Republican pig that I am!
Soooo. . that would be a "no."

[COUNTESS]

Ah, but you asked the question. I didn't start this site. I am sorry if it sounds like complaints, but all I inteneted to do is to see why broader disucssions are curtailed. After Russophile's answer, I can see why.

[Elspeth]

Originally Posted by COUNTESS

Your are right. They try to broaden them.

And when they try to broaden them so they fall outside the remit of the forum rules, that is the same as hijacking them. As Russo very kindly pointed out.

In a way, Elspeth, it is not. Other than some on these kinds of Forums, few give a darn what Charles, Camilla, Prince Andrew or the whole road show do.

This is a forum about royalty, you know. I'm aware that large numbers of people aren't interested in royalty, but that's the topic of this forum, and people who aren't interested in the topic don't have to join. if people are interested in politics but not royalty, they should find political forums to post. To me, that comes square under the heading of "not rocket science." As far as I can see, it doesn't make a lot of sense for people to join a forum on a topic that doesn't interest them and then complain that the topic is uninteresting. Bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy, really. Much better if they find a forum whose topic does interest them.

For some reason Diana caught the whole world's attention, good, bad or indifferent, but the rest are just also rans. Not because they are good or bad, just because they are insignificant.

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. However, as you've probably gathered, many people disagree that constitutional monarchs are insignificant.

This is a political world. Yes, some like to catch a glimpse of the glitter of the royal world, it's fun. But after disucssing someone's clothing for the umpteenth time, who cares. And what will it change?

So you think royals are insignificant, royalty is boring, monarchy is outdated, and discussions of the above are a waste of time? Then you're in the wrong place. We aren't going to turn into a political forum simply because one of the members of The Royal Forums doesn't like discussing royalty.

[scooter]

Well, I dont know about the political aspect, but I have had quite a few things that might be considered to be about a certain favorite some one deleted when it was meant in a more general reference. For example there was a discussion when I referred to a book 'Sex with Kings' and quoted a long time ago mistress and said 'Cant think why that sound familiar' referring to many King's mistresses. I got an irate pm from a mod back saying 'your unsubtle slam of Camilla,etc' when I was not even discussing her, but the earlier Kings mistresses.

[jcbcode99]

Originally Posted by Russophile

She did, she wants a political/religious platform and everybody knows that I'd end up jacking the thing and cheesing everybody off being the capitalistic Republican pig that I am!
Soooo. . that would be a "no."

How nice to meet another capitalist Republican pig!
I have to say that I tend to agree with our esteemed moderator, Elspeth (or She Who Must Not Be Named, according to our loveable Thomas Parkham--but I call her by name so????) anyway.....this is The Royal Forums, after all. I admit, I first joined looking for some jewels, but now, well, my WORD, there are all sorts of wonderful topics floating around. This site indulges my hidden passion for Royalty (and jewelry--but that's not so much hidden)--if I wanted to engage in political debate I need go no further than my dining room table where my family gathers. A nice meal turns into slams, barbs, insults, thinly veiled innuendos, tempers flare--I could go on but what's the point? We all know what I'm talking about--and then a nice meal I've worked so hard to prepare has been ruined. No, I would rather that my beloved The Royal Forums be not ruined. It is fun to engage in some discussion, I agree, and I will admit where there is a Camilla/Diana/Charles debate I'm generally there--and I love making catty remarks about the Duchess of York--so I have fun, and its generally harmless. But, bringing stongly charged topics in here (like the Iraq War, for example) would be like bringing dynamite into Windsor Palace and detonating it. Not a good idea,a nd it would ruin something we all love and enjoy.
So, some debate is good, some discussion is interesting, but when the moderators step in, well, they know more about what is going on than I do and that is fine by me.

[Elspeth]

Originally Posted by COUNTESS

Ah, but you asked the question. I didn't start this site. I am sorry if it sounds like complaints, but all I inteneted to do is to see why broader disucssions are curtailed.

As I said, it's largely because we don't have the manpower to moderate that sort of discussion. In principle I wouldn't object to political and religious discussions in Members' Corner, but both topics can get extremely heated because they deal with people's most deeply held convictions, and this can lead to enmity which spills out elsewhere on the forum, making the job of other moderators more difficult and giving an unpleasant edge to discussions. Political threads in particular tend to move at a very fast pace and need a lot of moderation coverage, which we simply don't have. Also, people who get into political and religious discussions need to have a fairly thick skin, and thin-skinned people don't always have the sense to stay out of the way, and that can lead to some really unpleasant exchanges, which the moderators have to deal with.

If we ever get a consensus in the moderator or admin forum to allow political and religious discussions in Members' Corner - and we do revisit the issue from time to time - then we'll reconsider it. For the moment, and for the last couple of years at least, the consensus among the moderation team is that they don't want to have to deal with it.

[Elspeth]

Originally Posted by jcbcode99

How nice to meet another capitalist Republican pig!
I have to say that I tend to agree with our esteemed moderator, Elspeth (or She Who Must Not Be Named, according to our loveable Thomas Parkham--but I call her by name so????)

Excuse me, but that's "She Who Must Be Obeyed." Unless the Voldemort comparison is deliberate, of course, in which case Avada Kedavra to you!

[jcbcode99]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

Excuse me, but that's "She Who Must Be Obeyed." Unless the Voldemort comparison is deliberate, of course, in which case Avada Kedavra to you!

I would NEVER compare you to Voldemort--he is pure evil. Of course, throwing out the Avada Kedavra isn't exactly nice so I shall offer you this and ask for forgiveness! There I was, thinking I was being all witty and BOOM, She Who Must Be Obeyed sets me straight once again. Harry Potter was on my mind (I just did an accent modification class with some foreign students who LOVE Harry Potter so we read excerpts to help them with their intonation patterns--so that's where my mind was)--apologies to you, Elspeth!

[Elspeth]

Well, having gone to all the trouble of asking permission from the creator of the Harry Potter smilies to add some of them to our smilie gallery, I wanted an excuse to use one of them.

[Elspeth]

Originally Posted by scooter

Well, I dont know about the political aspect, but I have had quite a few things that might be considered to be about a certain favorite some one deleted when it was meant in a more general reference. For example there was a discussion when I referred to a book 'Sex with Kings' and quoted a long time ago mistress and said 'Cant think why that sound familiar' referring to many King's mistresses. I got an irate pm from a mod back saying 'your unsubtle slam of Camilla,etc' when I was not even discussing her, but the earlier Kings mistresses.

Unfortunately misunderstandings do happen, especially if we happen to be going through a challenging period (she says, remembing Charles and Camilla's engagement, which resulted in practically an all-night session at the keyboard trying to keep the thread from imploding). You should always feel free to contact the moderator concerned, the other forum moderators, and/or the admins when something like that happens.

[marmi]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

Do you mean to say that TRF isn't the real world?

No, not at all, I just mean that its not my day-to-day, I go to... I see... I'm obliged to... life.