Special request

[TylerStewart]

Our of curiosity, if I had a topic or a subject that I thought would be interesting to discuss (I don't, but I'm just curious), and I wanted to prevent certain people from messing it up with their oddball opinions, is this something I could dictate? Since it is my thread and all?

 

[Yvonne G]

In my opinion, if you had some guidelines on your thread and posters started exceeding the guidelines, it would be within your rights to ask a moderator to either split off the posts or prune them, or even delete them. Just MY opinion, though.

For instance, Jordan recently posted about his poor cat that had an abscess and towards the bottom of the thread we all started going on about indoor cats and outdoor cats, domesticated or not, etc. So I started a new thread and moved all those posts not concerning Jordan's cat to the new thread.

So now you've gotten my curiosity up. What are you seeing that you are unhappy with?

 

[ChiKat]

Do you mean not allowing certain people to post in your threads? Or just certain opinions?

 

[TylerStewart]

I meant certain people that I know would eventually interfere. I really don't have a topic, but if there was a topic that I wanted to discuss a certain aspect of, and I know certain people would get involved to deter or change the direction of the thread, I was just curious if I could keep them out so the topic could be discussed. Just curious, don't have a topic yet but maybe eventually will. I have no problem if people want to discuss tree hugging, and don't want me to be a part of the conversation. I just want the same in return.

 

[egyptiandan]

The short and simple answer would be, nope can't do that. If the topic was in the debatable section, than almost anything goes. If your topic was in a specific section of the forum, than posts can be pruned, moved or deleted to keep it on topic.
You can't though prevent certain people from posting on a thread.

Danny

 

[TylerStewart]

The short and simple answer would be, nope can't do that.

So what would the long and complicated answer be? I have nothing but time.

So if I wanted to have a debate between like-minded people, it shouldn't be in the debate section?

 

[egyptiandan]

You can take away peoples posting ability, but it would be for the whole forum and not certain threads.
A debate between like minded people? Is that even a debate

Danny

 

[Yvonne G]

Everyone who joins the forum is free to post on any and all threads that they want to post on. If you want to PM a certain person and explain that you would like for them to NOT post on a certain thread you are going to start, it would still be up to that person to post or not. We can't say who can or can't post on what thread. (The long explanation)

 

[Shelly]

I meant certain people that I know would eventually interfere. I really don't have a topic, but if there was a topic that I wanted to discuss a certain aspect of, and I know certain people would get involved to deter or change the direction of the thread, I was just curious if I could keep them out so the topic could be discussed. Just curious, don't have a topic yet but maybe eventually will. I have no problem if people want to discuss tree hugging, and don't want me to be a part of the conversation. I just want the same in return.

If the moderators are doing their job (and I think they are) then there is no need for you to worry about any of that happening.

 

[Stephanie Logan]

I think that many times a "topic" naturally segues into another, related topic, and that sometimes it's nice to see a post that sort of diffuses (or defuses!) an intense debate with comic relief or disparate point of view, and as long as that poster does not continue to go OT in a deliberate or destructive manner, it should be OK. Obviously I am defending my own (sometimes lame) attempts to post in this way.

I am sorry if I offend anyone, as I rarely have any intention of being deliberately mean or disrespectful.

 

[Meg90]

Um, if its within the guidelines of the forum, I don't think this should be possible at all. I have had similar issues with certain members as well, and while I would prefer them not to post on my thread, or in a certain one, its their right to, considering that this is a public forum.

But I wouldn't like a thread that says, for EXAMPLE: Only post remarks if you are pro-sulcata.
Or something of that nature. I think it would undermine someone's right to free speech.

 

[Candy]

Where's Rich? I'm really starting to miss him and his debates. He didn't have rules. It was much more fun that way. Right Chad?

---

I was actually reading this to my husband (He's a High School Teacher) and he said that maybe to mention on here that people can "self police" their own thread they don't actually need moderators to do it for them. If somebody says something off topic you can just ignore it and go on. You don't have to respond to that poster. Lately it feels like these rules that people are asking for is making this site complicated. I mean how do you make everybody happy? When Rich used to post I didn't see moderator's coming in deleting portions of his thread and I'm wondering why we're doing it now? Why are we now moving threads and not just telling people to get back on topic? It's becoming too confusing when you get on here and your post has been moved somewhere (who knows where) else. Just my opinion.

 

[TylerStewart]

But I wouldn't like a thread that says, for EXAMPLE: Only post remarks if you are pro-sulcata.

Of course you wouldn't, because it would limit your ability to rant about how wrong it is.

Could you imaging a thread talking about breeding sulcatas that a half dozen people here weren't able to be a part of? I can see Meg sitting in her dorm room just fuming at the conversation going on LOL. It's ok Meg, I didn't expect this to happen, so you'll be free to rant wherever you want to. Quit it with the free speech crap though. If someone wants to talk about a very specific topic without you guys interrupting with BS, it's not taking away your free speech. It's called "trying to keep a thread on topic." Just like the "crapping" thread, there's a difference in free speech and in thread organization.

 

[Kayti]

But I wouldn't like a thread that says, for EXAMPLE: Only post remarks if you are pro-sulcata.

Could you imaging a thread talking about breeding sulcatas that a half dozen people here weren't able to be a part of? I can see Meg sitting in her dorm room just fuming at the conversation going on LOL. It's ok Meg, I didn't expect this to happen, so you'll be free to rant wherever you want to. Quit it with the free speech crap though. If someone wants to talk about a very specific topic without you guys interrupting with BS, it's not taking away your free speech. It's called "trying to keep a thread on topic." Just like the "crapping" thread, there's a difference in free speech and in thread organization.

What's the point in preaching about how right you are only to people who agree?
It's called "Debatable Topics", not navel gazing.

 

[TylerStewart]

What's the point in preaching about how right you are only to people who agree?
It's called "Debatable Topics", not navel gazing.

I didn't have people in mind - I really don't. I don't have a subject in mind, which I think I said 3 times or more earlier in this thread. I was simply asking what rules the creator of a thread had control over, and I got my answer. And here you guys come with another rant about free speech.

Not sure what I can't handle.... There's nothing that could ever happen in a forum that I wouldn't be able to handle. This is common with people that think with their heads and not with emotion, as many of us do here.

 

[Maggie Cummings]

Ok everyone, settle down and treat each other with respect. We will debate without anger or direct personal attacks

 

[Meg90]

But I wouldn't like a thread that says, for EXAMPLE: Only post remarks if you are pro-sulcata.

Of course you wouldn't, because it would limit your ability to rant about how wrong it is.

Could you imaging a thread talking about breeding sulcatas that a half dozen people here weren't able to be a part of? I can see Meg sitting in her dorm room just fuming at the conversation going on LOL. It's ok Meg, I didn't expect this to happen, so you'll be free to rant wherever you want to. Quit it with the free speech crap though. If someone wants to talk about a very specific topic without you guys interrupting with BS, it's not taking away your free speech. It's called "trying to keep a thread on topic." Just like the "crapping" thread, there's a difference in free speech and in thread organization.

Aww Tyler, I'm surprised you're thinking about me so much! I've got an apt as well. Where would I put my tortoises in a dorm room?

I do not see the point of this thread. It is juvenile to be picking fights with a couple members after so blatantly bating them with this thread.

This whole thread sounds like a kid asking a "hypothetical" question about eating dessert before dinner. It feels like someone is rubbing their hands together waiting for the fireworks to start. Emphasis on "someone" since we're not naming names.

I also will not tolerate being called Anti-sulcata one more time. Mods, take a peek at this, because if it happens again, its a personal attack.

I am not Anti ANYTHING that lives, breathes, or walks in the animal world. Its an assault on my personal belief to call me that. I do not want it to happen again.

 

[Kymiie]

I understand what your saying tyler, as I only post now to threads that have photos or something and i post my own threads that I would like people to answer because sometimes I feel im getting shouted at (even though I know im not) when i ask aabout cirtain topics such as crush running around on the floor! I think im jus a person who takes everything to heart in a bad way befor a good way!
xx

 

[Isa]

Calling Meg an Anti Sulcata is very wrong. Meg is amazing with reptiles and she wants their best interests, she has a huge heart, Thank God people like her exist! I know I am off topic here but I do not understand why someone would call her that.
A thread in the debatable section should include all opinions, that is why the sections is called DEBATABLE SECTION.

 

[TylerStewart]

Calling Meg an Anti Sulcata is very wrong.

Good grief people, I never called her anti-sulcata in this thread, that was at least a week ago. In the future, I'll clarify that she's "anti-sulcata breeding (which she clearly is)" and not just "anti-sulcata." You're all being entirely too emotional about this. It was a simple question I asked, and a simple answer I got (several posts ago).

I have no reason to personally attack anyone, and I don't personally attack anyone, unless you're using the term very loosely (meaning, you don't know what a personal attack is). Saying that someone acts like they're 12, to me, isn't a personal attack. It's stating facts as I see them. If someone said I was an idiot, I wouldn't care - seriously. As long as I know I'm right, it doesn't matter what people think of what I say. You can't lose a debate when you're using common sense, fact and the truth; only when you start involving emotion and talking before thinking.