The moderation here is far too heavy-handed.

[PrinceOfCanada]

Point the first: Discussions will naturally veer off into side discussions.
Point the second: this is, actually, a good thing. Otherwise we end up with a ridiculous number of threads--as can be seen by even the most cursory poking around--that largely consist of "Me too!"
Point the third: When someone begins a thread, and starts that thread with certain comments, it is more than reasonable for the ensuing thread to--shockingly--respond to those comments.

I am, of course, referring to the recent thread about Kate Middleton's father.


Yes, discussing e.g. modern sheep farming in a thread about Crown Jewels is probably wandering too far afield.

Discussing the definition of 'commoner' in a thread where the original poster said:

considering she is the first commoner in long, long while to possibly get this chance.

is highly relevant to the topic at hand, viz, no she actually isn't. With supporting proof. Which happens, because of the specific point being made, to include discussion of Diana's status at marriage in direct response to 1) the OP's assertion about 'first commoner', and 2) the surprising number of people who don't know what 'commoner' means.

Bottom line? Discussions will wander about a bit. This is not bad. Stop deleting willy-nilly; it doesn't make this a better place.

[Elspeth]

The deletions didn't happen because the thread veered off topic, they happened because it had degenerated into a series of put-downs and arguments that had dragged it so far off course that the original question had been ignored for the better part of a page, and it didn't look as though it was going to stop any time soon.

People don't always understand the nuances of some of the terms used in discussions of royalty, and it never hurts to acknowledge that the casual usage and the strictly correct usage are sometimes different and that the former isn't really correct and here's why, but you understand what the poster is getting at - and then to be a helpful chap and answer the question in the OP rather than just giving the poster a verbal smack on the nose and leaving the question unaddressed.

When threads start turning from discussions into arguments, you can expect to see moderator intervention. The best way to avoid having a moderator perform a mass deletion is to soften the tone of your posts when you're correcting someone, thus minimising the chance of blood getting spilled in the first place.

[PrinceOfCanada]

Except that's not why it was deleted.

Posts regarding whether or not Diana was a commoner are not on the topic of this thread and have been deleted. Diana's pre-marriage title and the title of her father had nothing to do with marriage into the royal family. This thread is to discuss whether or not Kate Middleton's father would get a title if his daughter marries Prince William.

And no, sorry, there is only one correct definition of 'commoner', as the word itself only has meaning in one context; it has no meaning outside of discussing royalty and peerage. (Except, occasionally, with regards to certain students at Oxbridge schools).

So.. yeah, no. kimebear deleted the crap out of everything because s/he decided--wrongly--that the discussion had nothing to do with the original post. Despite the subject of discussion being mentioned in the original post.

That's what I'm talking about here. Perhaps you would care to address that--that is, the stated reasons for the deletions--than an ex post facto reason?

More to the point.. kimebear failed to see that the discussion was not about Diana per se, but about what 'commoner' means. Again, because the OP brought it up.

[Elspeth]

Originally Posted by PrinceOfCanada

Except that's not why it was deleted.

It is, actually. She and I talked about it by PM. Had it been a pleasant discussion, it would have been dealt with by an in-thread request to get back on topic once the definition of commoner had been established. However, it wasn't a pleasant discussion, it was rapidly getting less so (with at least one complaint about rude behaviour by one poster to another), and by the time we'd figured out what to do with it, it had gone right off topic to being basically about Diana and was running rapidly down that particular rabbit hole.

And no, sorry, there is only one correct definition of 'commoner', as the word itself only has meaning in one context; it has no meaning outside of discussing royalty and peerage. (Except, occasionally, with regards to certain students at Oxbridge schools).

So.. yeah, no. kimebear deleted the crap out of everything because s/he decided--wrongly--that the discussion had nothing to do with the original post. Despite the subject of discussion being mentioned in the original post.

See, this is what I was talking about in my previous post. Would it kill you to be civil when you're disagreeing with someone?

As you yourself said in the thread in the British forum, many people don't understand what the term "commoner" means, which means that they tend to use it incorrectly in casual conversation, as I said in my last post here. Since the conversation was about royalty and peerage, the use of "commoner" is appropriate. If it's incorrectly used, my suggestion about how to correct a person without making her feel like an idiot still applies.

That's what I'm talking about here. Perhaps you would care to address that--that is, the stated reasons for the deletions--than an ex post facto reason?

See above.

More to the point.. kimebear failed to see that the discussion was not about Diana per se, but about what 'commoner' means. Again, because the OP brought it up.

She didn't fail to see anything. The conversation by that point had focused squarely on Diana's title and was beginning to branch out into how the Queen felt about her and Camilla. That's a recipe for a thread that's never going to get back on topic without moderator intervention.

[PrinceOfCanada]

It is, actually.

In that case, might I respectfully suggest that the moderators put the actual deletion reason in the thread? Fewer misunderstandings that way.

See, this is what I was talking about in my previous post. Would it kill you to be civil when you're disagreeing with someone?

I was. kimebear was wrong with the (according to you, wildly inaccurate) deletion reason that was posted. I don't really see how that's uncivil. It was wrong. The sky is blue. These are equivalent statements.

She didn't fail to see anything. The conversation by that point had focused squarely on Diana's title and was beginning to branch out into how the Queen felt about her and Camilla. That's a recipe for a thread that's never going to get back on topic without moderator intervention.

And you're ignoring the original point I made. To wit: discussion veer all over the place all the time, and the moderation is far too heavy-handed in 'correction' of same. Is there a reason that you are choosing to avoid that?

[kimebear]

Originally Posted by PrinceOfCanada

In that case, might I respectfully suggest that the moderators put the actual deletion reason in the thread? Fewer misunderstandings that way.

The actual deletion reason was in the thread. The topic of Diana and the issue of whether or not she was a commoner was the reason why the thread was degenerating into the series of put downs and arguments. I hope this clears up your misunderstanding.

Originally Posted by PrinceOfCanada

I was. kimebear was wrong with the (according to you, wildly inaccurate) deletion reason that was posted. I don't really see how that's uncivil. It was wrong. The sky is blue. These are equivalent statements.

You may think that my reasons were wrong and you are entitled to your opinion. I don't necessarily have to share it. The sky is blue? I disagree. Sometimes it is gray, green, red, black, etc depending on the situation. Not unlike the opinions in the forums.

Originally Posted by PrinceOfCanada

And you're ignoring the original point I made. To wit: discussion veer all over the place all the time, and the moderation is far too heavy-handed in 'correction' of same. Is there a reason that you are choosing to avoid that?

Discussion do veer sometimes. As far as the moderation being too heavy handed in its correction, that is again a matter of opinion. You may see it as too heavy handed. Others may see it as a heavy handed poster being shut down before more members are insulted.

[Elspeth]

Originally Posted by PrinceOfCanada

In that case, might I respectfully suggest that the moderators put the actual deletion reason in the thread? Fewer misunderstandings that way.

The actual reason was put. Kimebear could have added "arguments" to the mix, but as I said, when a thread is dragged as far off topic as that one was, especially in the direction it was going, it didn't look as though it was going to get back on topic any time soon. Since the intervening posts didn't add anything much to the value of the thread, being largely aggressive and increasingly off topic, deletion seemed to be a better alternative than a simple warning. I'm sure she can go back to her post and add something about inconsiderate behaviour by certain participants in the thread if you think it'd help.

I was. kimebear was wrong with the (according to you, wildly inaccurate) deletion reason that was posted.

According to me, "wildly inaccurate"? I never said anything of the sort.

I don't really see how that's uncivil. It was wrong. The sky is blue. These are equivalent statements.

Because one of those statements is an objective observation and the other is a judgement of another person. When you're dealing with other people - which you are doing, even though it's through the medium of the written word rather than face to face - you're dealing with human beings who have feelings. So a bald "you're wrong" or a sarcastic "interesting bit of wordplay" or whatever it was that started the argument is more than likely going to result either in an equivalently sharp response and eventually a fight or in hurt feelings and a withdrawal from the discussion or even the forum in general. All of which could be avoided by applying a bit of empathy when you're disagreeing with someone and especially when you're correcting other people's mistakes. It would be far better to deliver corrections in the spirit of helpfulness rather than criticism. We don't want to have people too scared to participate in the threads because they're afraid of getting a stinging rebuke if they put a foot wrong.

And you're ignoring the original point I made. To wit: discussion veer all over the place all the time, and the moderation is far too heavy-handed in 'correction' of same. Is there a reason that you are choosing to avoid that?

As you say - discussions veer all over the place all the time, and most of them are left to do so. The times you see moderator intervention to delete posts are when they veer badly off topic and don't show any signs of getting back on track and when they degenerate into personal attacks of various sorts. Both of the above were going on in this thread, and Kimebear and I decided that, because of the combination of the tone and the subject matter, a lot of it wasn't worth trying to rescue.

[scooter62986]

I'm too tired to read your arguments, but I have to agree with the poster here. I know mine wasn't on topic and I realized that afterwards, so I will take fault. But I do not think it was good judgment to delete the whole thread a warning is nice. Lately I have felt that there is no in between in in some forums. Moderators don't moderate or they just go and delete everything. There are the exceptions of the amazing ones in Sweden and Monaco forums, but I think something needs to be done, a lot of users are leaving and going to another board

[Paty]

I think that this "heavy-handed" make to The Royal Forums the bets one in the web. Many, many people come here to look for "good and real" information for post in others forums.

There are other boards wich are a really jungle...

[PrinceOfCanada]

According to me, "wildly inaccurate"? I never said anything of the sort.

It was implied. kimebear said the thread was deleted because it's "not about Diana'. You said it was because of arguments. Spin it how you like; these are very different reasons.

The actual deletion reason was in the thread. The topic of Diana and the issue of whether or not she was a commoner was the reason why the thread was degenerating into the series of put downs and arguments. I hope this clears up your misunderstanding.

See above. Elspeth said it was deleted because of arguments. You said because of Diana. To say that the real reason was posted is a slippery bit of equivocation when you two can't even agree on why it was deleted. Or to put it another way, it may be the truth but it absolutely isn't the whole truth. Moderators of any forum have a duty to be open. That means telling the whole truth.

and the other is a judgement of another person

Oh, so that's how it is here. Saying that someone is wrong is not a value judgement. Creationists are wrong. People who believe there was a conspiracy by the US gov't on 9/11 are wrong. People who think that 2+2=5 are wrong. None of these things are value judgements, they are statements of fact.

I'm sure she can go back to her post and add something about inconsiderate behaviour by certain participants in the thread if you think it'd help.

HA! And you say I'm uncivil? I've said it before: mods are allowed to get away with saying things here that the plebes aren't. Oh.. wait.. you deleted where I said that. I wonder why?

you're dealing with human beings who have feelings

Which is why you're talking down to me?

So a bald "you're wrong" or a sarcastic "interesting bit of wordplay" or whatever it was that started the argument

"You're wrong" is the correct pair of words to use when someone is, in fact, wrong. You may have also noticed that I explained exactly why they were wrong.

As for the "interesting bit of wordplay" thing.. you are projecting if you think it was sarcasm. It is an interesting bit of wordplay inasmuch as it's a fantastically narrow definition. Which, incidentally, doesn't apply to Middleton. Which is what I--and several others--were saying. Which is what brought up (logically enough, as she was a commoner who married the Heir) Diana. Which was a natural development of the discussion. Which, to bring us full circle, was heavy-handedly deleted by kimebear without a friendly "hey guys let's keep this on track".

If you want to claim that you're dealing with people who have feelings, how about a little bit of respect for what we write, and a general assumption that we are indeed grownups who can take a little "hey, you're wandering way too far afield, how about you rein it in a bit?" Or does "you're dealing with people" run only from mods to plebes, and not the other way around?

Both of the above were going on in this thread, and Kimebear and I decided that, because of the combination of the tone and the subject matter, a lot of it wasn't worth trying to rescue.

But, again, only one of those reasons was cited. If it was actually both as you say, they should have both been put there.

[Nad25]

I also agree with the poster here well said,i think admin people need to chill abit and stop taking things 'too seriously'

[TheTruth]

Originally Posted by PrinceOfCanada

As for the "interesting bit of wordplay" thing.. you are projecting if you think it was sarcasm. It is an interesting bit of wordplay inasmuch as it's a fantastically narrow definition. Which, incidentally, doesn't apply to Middleton. Which is what I--and several others--were saying. Which is what brought up (logically enough, as she was a commoner who married the Heir) Diana. Which was a natural development of the discussion. Which, to bring us full circle, was heavy-handedly deleted by kimebear without a friendly "hey guys let's keep this on track".

Cause you are of course the most friendly member around to make a reproach to Elspeth who is a respectful member and moderator, as many members could affirm ? Someone should reread his posts and consider the way he answers to members before complaining about others ...

[PrinceOfCanada]

Informing someone that they are wrong in their interpretation of a statement that one has made is hardly a 'reproach'.

[TheTruth]

No but expecting him to be nice when the other isn't doing an effort of decency is one.

[PrinceOfCanada]

Which was precisely my point. Elspeth is expecting me to be nice while simultaneously patronizing me and talking to me like I am a child.