cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

We know whats good for you. (CCTV)

N/A

We know whats good for you. (CCTV)

Ian Wild, you said about the recent thread "CCTV spying on kids"

"This is a public forum anyway - It's not my place to comment"

You then comment in the very next line, "I don't see any benefit in carrying on the discussion now as you both know where you stand."

Well maybe you don't see any benefit, but maybe others do. As a father of 4, I followed this topic with interest. Not only did you feel the need to comment, but also call a halt to the thread as well. Whats the point in discussions if suddenly someone who has not contributed to it, decides, I think it should end here, without giving a plausible reason.

Then you generously suggest that a new thread be started, but you imply, oddly enough for the good of everyone (?) that you would rather it was not.

As for, Also, the thread was getting too long... What does that mean?

If the thread was locked for legal or other reasons relating to the law, then so be it, all well and proper and even understandable. But whatever the real reason, please tell us. The fact that you see no point in the discussion hardly calls for censorship. I can tell by your many previous posts that you are an intelligent guy, please extend that courtesy to us.

Paul.
2 REPLIES
Ianwild
Grafter
Posts: 3,835
Registered: 05-04-2007

We know whats good for you. (CCTV)

Hi Paul,

Thanks for your comments.

In my opinion, the thread had deteriorated into something which was not relevant to the original question posted and later postings were not adding anything to the debate. Because an 'atmosphere' was forming I felt it would be best to give the posters concerned the opportunity to end it amicably (ie no one needed to have the last word) and if they wished to take the matter into a private arena then that was a suggestion which would have prevented further hostility.

I'm all for good natured exchanges and I am certainly not here to censor posts in these forums (had the post been censored it would have been deleted, not locked anyway). Perhaps in this case locking the thread was a bit harsh - The forums are new and we are all still learning where to draw the boundaries. On the wider point though I would remind you that this isn't a public forum and as such we do assert the right to take whatever action we feel is appropriate in relation to forum postings.

With regard to thread lengths, this is something I am used to in a lot of the forums I use - When a thread reaches 30 or 40 posts it can become unreadable to someone joining in at a later stage and by restarting a new thread it brings more focus to the issue being discussed. Again, this is something that we can form the policy on in the future based on everyone's feedback.

I will go away and think about this some more, the questions about content legalities have raised some interesting points. What I want to make clear is that if there is any doubt about the legality of a posting then action will have to be taken - The legal team would sooner ask us to remove the whole forum system than adjudicate over arguments between customers.

To make my position clear on the topic at hand - I have no opinion on or problem with the subject matter being discussed. I do have a problem when a debate looks like it's going to turn into a flaming - I'm pretty keen to leave that on Usenet, where it belongs.

Cheers,

Ian
Ianwild
Grafter
Posts: 3,835
Registered: 05-04-2007

We know whats good for you. (CCTV)

PS: Just to add - I undertstand the conflict in terms of my "Public forums" comment - My original use of this wording was mis-judged and I apologise for my ability to say exactly the wrong thing at the wrong time.

I can (and should) clarify the Forum Guidelines in relation to this and will do so when I'm back at work on Wednesday. Until then, I'm going to be away from the forums, so if there is any unlocking of threads to do after some more debate then the moderators have the keys Smiley