Why are threads being closed?

Why are threads mentioning Steve Keen being closed down by Sim?

It seems to me that some of the existing Keen threads are quite long and have moved into other areas.

The last closed thread was starting to explore some interesting and radical ideas. I agree that simply having threads which slag off someone get be be "so yesterday" that we probably don't need any more. But a thread that starts to explore new ideas about valuing property and so on could lead to be quite interesting.

Was this thread just closed for personal reasons?

EC
 
Do we really need 6+ threads about the same guy? If you prefer I could just merge any new thread in with the existing thread.

The long thread was closed because the argument was turning personal.
 
The first post was slagging off at Keen, but I thought his propositions could be an interesting topic and responded accordingly.

The world is collapsing around our collective ears and you want to limit posts to the banal. :(

Another thread reveals that some members are hurting now. That number may have been greater if some hadn't read the cautionary posts by me and others. At least I hope we helped someone. :) It would have been less though if we hadn't just been ostracised and abused.

Please allow debate.
 
Please allow debate.

There's an existing thread on the topic of Keen's writing that you can post in.

You are free to start a new thread on anything else relating to the economy if you like - we have an entire sub-forum devoted to it.
 
Do we really need 6+ threads about the same guy? If you prefer I could just merge any new thread in with the existing thread.

The long thread was closed because the argument was turning personal.

Sim, I understand where you are coming from. On the other hand if there's a lot of interest in the topic then why not just let people discuss it. Obviously personal attacks are unacceptable. On this point are you going to remove the post that calls Keen a terrorist?

In my experience with forums there are always going to be multiple threads on the same, or similar topics. Some people just post a new thread without checking what was there beforehand. Also some threads take off in there own direction.

The thread I referred to was a short thread and looked like turning into a discussion on the merits of some of his proposals. If I start another thread in the same vein, will this be automatically closed down just because it mentions SK?

EC
 
Obviously personal attacks are unacceptable. On this point are you going to remove the post that calls Keen a terrorist?

I was referring to personal attacks between forum members.

The thread I referred to was a short thread and looked like turning into a discussion on the merits of some of his proposals. If I start another thread in the same vein, will this be automatically closed down just because it mentions SK?

Why can't you discuss it in the existing thread ?
 
Why can't you discuss it in the existing thread ?

You could really apply that to many other threads and ask why do we need several threads on different aspects of FHOG? Why not merge them all into one thread. Taken to an extreme, why have any threads at all, why not just have one thread for all topics?

The reason for having a new thread is to focus on a specific topic, for example "valuing residential property as a multiple of rental return".

Sure I could have added this to the post titled "The self fulfilling prophecy of Steve Keen". However this thread has already taken a path of it's own and now seems more about "free speech" which is cool. So you then end up with a thread trying to talk about several quite different topics. Secondly the title of the thread has already been defined. Not many people would suspect that a thread titled "The self fulfilling prophecy of Steve Keen" would start discussing "valuing residential property as a multiple of rental return" on the 5th page of that thread.

EC
 
Most FHOG threads are about a specific situation.

If you think a thread has gone off topic but the new discussion is worthwhile pursuing - we can split it into a new thread easily enough (easily meaning if you can tell us which posts to move - I would prefer not to have to read every post to work it out for myself! - the actual split process is then very easy).

If the topic is about Steve Keen's prophecy's and there is an active thread about that - then I say discussion should go in that thread.
 
Well, you're the administrator so at the end of the day what you say goes. I still favor a more laissez-faire approach.

Splitting threads to me seems somehow out-of-sync with the spirit of having a forum in the first place. I'm all for some moderation but when you start rearranging posts it gets a bit too much "big brother" for my liking. Maybe I don't understand your thinking behind this.

It seems to me that in general you're being more pedantic about threads lately. Any particular reasons for this?
 
hi sim,

could you split off the following posts from the sef fulfilling prophecy of steve keen thread

i think there is a legitimate debate over there attacking his ideas...

#68, #69, #71, #73, #75,#79,
 
Hey
Is this the new steven keen thread? I hope it is - just found this article I wanted to hyperlink where Pascoe says hes wrong... and I've been looking everywhere and was going to start a new one.

Now you're just teasing :p
 
Well, you're the administrator so at the end of the day what you say goes.

Only to a point - I always welcome a reasoned questioning of moderation practices. It makes us (me!) think about what we are doing and considering whether there is a more effective way to do things.

Splitting threads to me seems somehow out-of-sync with the spirit of having a forum in the first place. I'm all for some moderation but when you start rearranging posts it gets a bit too much "big brother" for my liking. Maybe I don't understand your thinking behind this.

No - it's more about letting a topic run but not letting it get out of control.

Think of it like driving sheep - we have a herd of sheep (that's not a metaphorical description of our members - it's just an example :D ) ... and we want them to go to a paddock down the road.

It's best to keep them all in one group (not let 6 other sheep drives to the same location take place at the same time) ... and we don't want sheep heading off down a side-road or getting mixed up with someone else's sheep - we want them to stay on the path.

If somehow, someone else's sheep do get mixed up with ours, we need to split them out and send them off in another direction.

Is that a good analogy ?

It seems to me that in general you're being more pedantic about threads lately. Any particular reasons for this? ... I still favor a more laissez-faire approach.

Generally I do agree - 99% of threads never get any attention (I certainly don't read them all - I rely on other people to notify the moderators if they think something needs attention).

The extra attention some things are getting of late I think mostly only falls into a couple of areas:

1) multiple threads started up on the same topic (same thing happened with announcements about 1% interest rate drop, and about the deposit guarantee, and about the FHOG announcement, etc)

2) threads that are posted in an incorrect part of the forum

3) threads about that other forum which shall not be named :rolleyes:

Unfortunately we do also have some members who tend to get overly emotional about certain subjects which builds up to the equivalent of standing there yelling at each other to the point where nobody else can reasonably talk about a topic or even wants to be in the same room as them. There's not a lot we can do beyond closing the thread and encouraging them to agree to disagree. That's nothing new - we've always had members and debates like this.

Sometimes they have more serious problems (eg members posting drunk = problem posts) ... and sometimes people just get downright abusive because that's the type of person they are. Again, that's nothing new - we've always had members like this (although ironically, in many cases it is the same member over and over again using different nicks!).
 
hi sim,

could you split off the following posts from the sef fulfilling prophecy of steve keen thread

i think there is a legitimate debate over there attacking his ideas...

#68, #69, #71, #73, #75,#79,

I think they belong in the thread they are in ? They are clearly talking about the prophecies of Steve Keen ?

When I said off-topic, I meant posts that were no longer about the original topic.
 
could you split off the following posts from the sef fulfilling prophecy of steve keen thread

I think they belong in the thread they are in ? They are clearly talking about the prophecies of Steve Keen ?

Actually - I thought a bit more about your suggestion and read the posts a bit more carefully ... I think you are right in that there is merit of talking separately about his proposed reforms as opposed to his prophecies.

http://www.somersoft.com/forums/showthread.php?t=46742

Thanks for the suggestion and the details of posts.
 
Thanks for taking the time to reply. I understand more where you're coming from now. I'm a little surprised that you put the effort into herding the sheep that much. You're very dedicated.

Discussion threads are tricky because discussions can easily take of in new directions resulting in multiple topics in the same thread. That's life.
Perhaps when you close a thread you could put a link to the thread that contains the discussion you want the herd to go to.

No - it's more about letting a topic run but not letting it get out of control.

Think of it like driving sheep - we have a herd of sheep (that's not a metaphorical description of our members - it's just an example :D ) ... and we want them to go to a paddock down the road.

It's best to keep them all in one group (not let 6 other sheep drives to the same location take place at the same time) ... and we don't want sheep heading off down a side-road or getting mixed up with someone else's sheep - we want them to stay on the path.

If somehow, someone else's sheep do get mixed up with ours, we need to split them out and send them off in another direction.

Is that a good analogy ?

He without the masters in AE will leave that answer to he who has :)

EC
 
Back
Top