Zapping questions

[naomi24]

Ed, when you zap an unwanted poster, is there any possibility of you actually looking at the question and the responses to that question before zapping the whole thread? There was an excellent question in R&S which produced some very intelligent and considered responses - but because the person who posted it is obviously no longer welcome on AB, the whole thing has disappeared. Tragic! What a complete waste of time - and brains!

[sandyRoe]

I agree. The singer, not the song, should be zapped

[NazNomad]

I disagree ... wipe the lot, warts an' all.

[NOX]

I'd just like to second that, there seems to be a lot of new rules etc being introduced that are likely to stifle lively debate too. Not everything that draws controversy is bad, only if it gets down right vile and unpleasant ought it to be pulled in my humble opinion- debate is what this place should be about as you get the very broadest spectrum of opinion then. The thread that was pulled was very interesting- I didn't contribute at all, but a lot of posters put a lot of time into it and it's a bit of a travesty that it's gone to be honest.

[NOX]

My last post refers to Naomi's opening thread and not NAZ :)

[society]

I too agree with Naomi.

[boxtops]

I know what you mean, naomi, but how would Ed differentiate? - there are hundreds of posts on here and (I understand) only one Ed. In the past there has been criticism of certain foul posts where the OP was suspended but all the foulness remained all over the weekend - by pulling the whole post it could have been avoided. I do agree though, the discussion on some is worth coming - but I can't see how the distinction could be made, when the OP is banned for whatever reason.

[society]

Ban, suspend the poster but leave the thread.

[naomi24]

Well, it might be difficult Boxy, but a very quick look at that thread would have confirmed that there was some serious theological debate going on there. I really do think that if people aren't going to made to feel they're wasting their time, then the content of the threads at least in the more serious sections of AB should be taken into consideration.

[boxtops]

but suppose it was defamatory, society (as some were before Christmas) - what criteria would Ed apply? Keep this one, pull that one?

[naomi24]

That's exactly what I'm saying society. Stop the idiots from creating havoc of course - but when they make a mistake and post a question that people are actually interested in, let it remain.

[naomi24]

Yes, boxtops. Why not?

[society]

Yes.

Ed could use his / her judgement and remove the offensive thread or poster. That's not difficult to detect.

[naomi24]

He does it all the time. If a question is offensive, it's zapped. .

[boxtops]

Fair dos, I wouldn't like to have to make the decision though. What offends one will be amusing or interesting to another!

[NazNomad]

Obviously the subject of a future dubious ruling that will no doubt be misinterpreted by the masses, lol

[naomi24]

Well, as I said the Ed does it all the time so he must have his yardstick.

[ludwig]

I suppose the trouble the Ed has is that you either have to ban someone or not - I mean if you can carry on asking questions even though you're banned, then you're not actually banned.
So even though people have come in and turned the question into a good discussion, and all their efforts and thoughts are going to go to waste, he has no choice but to zap the whole thing.

[vivandorron]

I can't find at the moment the link, but I recall the Ed having said that if a Questioner was Banned then all of the thread was removed. However, a member being given a 'Permanent Suspension' would allow the question and answers to remain in the columns of AB.

Ron.

[boxtops]

That's my understanding too, ron - suspended posters keep their posts, banned ones go.

[vivandorron]

boxtops.....You've no doubt read what I did in an Editorial. The category 'Permanently Suspended' was a way of Banning members but allowing all postings to remain.

Ron