have to agree

I suppose you could have 'Guidelines for blogs' but then you'd need someone to moderate the blogs. In the event of a blog such as the one in question, this could take up an awful lot of moderator time.

I totally agree, and good point re AP. In a way I think Gnasher's posts about this topic are more insidious, as she's insisting that an actual dog she loves has been 'helped', whereas AP was talking about dogs in general, more.

TBH, I am bored witless with the entire e-collar debate. Pretty much everyone here has made their views known so any visitors can see both sides of the debate very easily.

The 'debate' has now degenerated and is not a good reflection of what is, IMHO, a really lovely forum and online community.

This would mean relying on the integrity of the Blog Owner (though their integrity or lack of it soon becomes evident in their posts and account should be taken of this before anyone posts a reply in the Blog) .

..again this depends on the Blog Owner and the reason for starting the Blog in the first place, some people appear to like provoking an argument.

I think there is no middle ground, either the Blogs come under the sphere of the rest of the site and its rules or they are a 'free for all' with all the nastiness that may entail in which case a message to this effect/disclaimer should be posted in Blogs then no one can complain.

Having read through everyone's response, I think I would have to say that Blogs must be moderated in a similar way to forum posts.

That might be arguing against myself, but the way I see it is this. Blogs on Dogsey are still part of Dogsey, and therefore surely are perceived in exactly the same way as a "thread". In addition, Krusewalker raised a very good point - he was subjected to abuse completely unrelated to my blog, and that was inappropriate to say the least.

So I vote for Blogs to continue, but to be moderated in an UNBIASED way - ie, personal likes or dislikes set aside, within reason.

I agree.

Censorship defeats the purpose of the blogs yet non censorship can heighten people's viewpoints and make the forum an ugly place to be.

Azz - well and truly stuck between a brick wall and a hard place with this one I'm afraid - but remember you can't please everyone and it's between the forum owners to decide what the rules are.

Perhaps two blog entry area's: positive training blogs and other training blogs - that way anyone who doesn't want to see blogs on E-collars and aversives - they can choose to stay out of the non positive training blogs.

Or perhaps a password will be needed to access training blogs - so the forum can see the training blogs but non members cannot...

If any of that makes sense.

Sounds like sensible advice to me.

Easier said than done - some people cant turn a blind eye, just because you dont read the thread, dont mean its not happening..and by turning that blind eye you are doing nothing to help the change that you feel is needed......

Can you put up some kind of warning/disclaimer that the contents of people's blogs are not necessarily in line with forum opinion/belief? E-collars could be mentioned as an example.

unless the 'other' training blogs came under moderation but then thats a bit like one rule for one and not for the other.....

Minihaha; could it not be when the blog owner hasnt kept to that responsability that Admin can delete their blog? So if they dont want it to possibly be deleted they will act more responsably? without needing 'full-time mod'