A moderator on this zoo chat has just closed a thread relating to the slaughter of Marius the giraffe at Copenhagen Zoo. For what reason I am unable to comprehend, the discussion was taking place in a very civilised fashion, despite different views from the members participating, What exactly is the score on here now, are you only allowed to make posts as long as you are only in full agreement with a tea loving Dave, if this is the case then this zoochat is no longer worth a light, if you are not allowed to express your opinion on here and state facts, what is the point of taking the time and trouble to participate?
THREAD CLOSURE , A COMPLAINT
- Thread starter TARZAN
- Start date
The conversation has not been being held in a civilized fashion as far as my eyes can read. The discussion, while not getting as far out of hand as it has on Facebook and other social medias, has begun to get nasty and some seriously insensitive and disgusting things have been thrown out there. And the only reason you can't see them, might I add, is because the mods have been working tirelessly these past few days to keep this forum as civilized as possible during this outbreak of ridiculousness and anger. Now I don't agree with everything the zoo did but they did it as a last resort and there's no reason to get this upset over it! Personally, I think you all need to calm the hell down and thank the mods for everything they've done for this site. Show some respect! No need to rant or complain about what TLD did as he even said he'd create a new thread if requested. I stand by your decision TLD and know you'd only close a thread if absolutely necessary in the eyes of the people who patrol this site and keep if safe. Thanks you.
Now I also think it's time for the Marius discussion to be put to sleep indeed!
~Thylo
Now I also think it's time for the Marius discussion to be put to sleep indeed!
~Thylo
I gave my reasoning some hours before closing the thread.....
As no one said they were opposed to the thread being locked, and my post was followed by a poster turning the discussion in a unpleasant direction...
... I thought it best that the discussion was brought to a peaceful close.
Incidentally, you were posting in the thread *after* I asked if anyone would protest the discussion being ended, yet did not request it be kept open. Considering I kept the thread open when I asked the same question a day or so ago as people wished to continue the discussion, you cannot say I was being unfair.
As for your comment about "only being allowed to make posts as long as you are only in full agreement with a tea loving Dave", you will note that I have not voiced my opinion on the matter other than noting at the start of the thread that - although never so public - this kind of thing happens more often than people realise.
As no one said they were opposed to the thread being locked, and my post was followed by a poster turning the discussion in a unpleasant direction...
... I thought it best that the discussion was brought to a peaceful close.
Incidentally, you were posting in the thread *after* I asked if anyone would protest the discussion being ended, yet did not request it be kept open. Considering I kept the thread open when I asked the same question a day or so ago as people wished to continue the discussion, you cannot say I was being unfair.
As for your comment about "only being allowed to make posts as long as you are only in full agreement with a tea loving Dave", you will note that I have not voiced my opinion on the matter other than noting at the start of the thread that - although never so public - this kind of thing happens more often than people realise.
Respect?, in my opinion this has to be earned, and for the record the slaughter of the giraffe was most certainly not a last resort, it would appear to be very much a first, why did this so called zoo in Denmark ignore Yorkshire Wildlife Park's offer of a home, I also now question the mental state of certain personel at this zoo, and as for this zoochat, that's your finish, can't say it has exactly been a pleasure, good night and good riddance,
Night night.
People kept posting after you asked whether the thread should be closed. Not a direct answer, I admit, but surely some indication peoples still wanted to discuss the matter?
"Unpleasant direction"? Agreed, the suggestions that someone is mentally ill because they have an extreme difference of opinion to yourself is both wrong and doesn't really inform or advance the debate. That said, would it not have been possible to reprimand the individual, edit the post or (ideally) wait for someone to refute the argument? As an aside, whilst I consider the accusation absurd in this instance I do believe that there have been mentally ill posters on ZooChat in the past who have generally been given a lot of patience by posters arguing points with them.
I think this is a dangerous rationale for closing threads. If every thread where discussions go around in circles and no changes to entrenched views arise is considered a candidate for closure you're going to have to close a lot more threads (some of those relating to to London's collection/changes and "Twycross" spring immediately to mind). I accept there's a fine line and moderators have to make calls on these things. Personally, I'd prefer you to err on the side of letting the debate roll a little further but fully appreciate "different opinions are available". I'll leave things at that for now but am hoping I don't have further reasons to worry about (in my opinion) over-restrictions on debate in the future. Sheesh, who'd want to be a moderator?
Final thought, maybe we need (do we have?) a formal set of guidelines on posting rules, a "constitution" if you will -at least then moderators actions can be judged against guidelines (and whether principles are applied consistently) and posters know how they're expected to behave. One hopes
that common sense shouldn't have to legislated but it might help in these instances?There certainly are a set of rules already in place:
Terms of Use and Site Rules
The moderators' interpretation of these terms have been rather liberal so far. Their patience is to be commended.
Terms of Use and Site Rules
The moderators' interpretation of these terms have been rather liberal so far. Their patience is to be commended.
Many thanks for the link (it was probably under my nose all along
).I think this informs the situation well for all to consider.
I can't see where it says threads of circular arguments between entrenched parties will be closed though -I suppose it falls to moderators' interpretation of "robust and fair debate" and (what constitutes) "offend(ing) others".
A very strange decision indeed.
At no point the discussion went in circles, the contrary, the different opinions got clearer by the hour.
For me Grant Rhino was a great summary.
And if a member doesn't meet the rules because he is enraged by what has happened, - the moderators often except much worse comments.
What is the point of being a ZooChatter then? Just adding some more lists of animals seen, or not seen, zoos you have visited, have not visited, or intend to see? And all on a very personal level?
For me this was the most civilized, lively, thoughtful and interesting thread so far.
At no point the discussion went in circles, the contrary, the different opinions got clearer by the hour.
For me Grant Rhino was a great summary.
And if a member doesn't meet the rules because he is enraged by what has happened, - the moderators often except much worse comments.
What is the point of being a ZooChatter then? Just adding some more lists of animals seen, or not seen, zoos you have visited, have not visited, or intend to see? And all on a very personal level?
For me this was the most civilized, lively, thoughtful and interesting thread so far.
Zooplantman
Well-Known Member
One wonders about any decision to shut down discussion. This is not a deliberative body that needs to get to a decision. The back and forth of opinion is not using so much bandwidth that the site will crash. If individuals get rude they can be warned and even censured. The debate did not interfere with the other threads that were not about Copenhagen or infringe on the enjoyment of Zoochat by those who didn't want to debate Marius' fate. If some members wish to make a hobby of endlessly repeating their arguments on a (now boring) thread, what rationale is there to prohibit them from doing that? The Terms and Conditions do not stipulate "You Must Remain Interesting To Others."
So what would be the practical reason to decide that there has been enough discussion?
I urge Moderators to manage with a light touch and let the Forum community go where it will unless there is reason to intervene.
Closing down discussion is a very serious step in a community such as this.
So what would be the practical reason to decide that there has been enough discussion?
I urge Moderators to manage with a light touch and let the Forum community go where it will unless there is reason to intervene.
Closing down discussion is a very serious step in a community such as this.
Last edited:
Elephas Maximus
Well-Known Member
Me was opposed, but in other topic where it was mentioned, and can't find the post now
Read again; the user in question actually accused the staff and director of the zoo of being mentally ill, which *does* infringe the portion of the ToS about not defaming others. As a (now deleted) post had already made rather racist remarks about the EAZA, I took this as an indication that were the entrenched argument to continue, things would only decline from there.
Sheesh, who'd want to be a moderator?
It's been an.....interesting few days! The first really big divisive issue I've had to deal with since my promotion, if memory serves.
Me was opposed, but in other topic where it was mentioned, and can't find the post now
Yes, when the thread was initially split off from the Copenhagen thread I asked if people wanted to continue the discussion, or close it and potentially start a new thread more generally about the euthanasia debate. At that point in time people very rapidly agreed that the discussion should continue in the thread as it stood.
Considering it seems people *do* want to continue discussion in this case, I'll do what I suggested a few days ago and open a general thread about the euthanasia debate
and if anyone has been offended by my decision to close the old thread, I apologise.
Further discussion of the issue on a general level can be made here:
Euthanasia of healthy animals in zoos, and "Breed to Cull" » General Zoo Discussion
Euthanasia of healthy animals in zoos, and "Breed to Cull" » General Zoo Discussion
Thread closure.....
I worked in mental health for many years, took mental illness quite seriously, and object to it being trivialised by Tarzan above.
As for the giraffe, he appears to have had a good life and a death he knew nothing about. Arguably more fun than not being born at all.
I worked in mental health for many years, took mental illness quite seriously, and object to it being trivialised by Tarzan above.
As for the giraffe, he appears to have had a good life and a death he knew nothing about. Arguably more fun than not being born at all.