it's difficult as well i think because things can move so quickly that, using MissMistletoe's example, someone can come on and unthinkingly place a rather too lurid thread title but an OP that did call for some discussion on the merits or otherwise of children being out in the dark.
then, having seen '8-year-old raped' pop up in active convos, the lovely Megalegs asks on another thread 'didn't we come to an agreement about the lurid titles thing?' but that then becomes a discussion about censorship, patronage and the rights of the offended to question those who are not offended.
MissM did not know about last week's discussions, and therefore reasonably feels hurt that she is being picked on (when she herself has only partly transgressed the completely unwritten and as it turned out not-even-agreed-on rule) and it then becomes an argument about bullying etc. MissM should not feel bullied, ideally, because it stopped being about her 100s of posts ago, but i can see that she does. (by the way, it was greensleeves who posted in support of you previously, missm, i'm aitch. we just have similar christmas names).
i'm wondering if MN should promote active convos more, as it's what people use once they get used to the site (and realise that it's there, of course). but when you start off you tend to use the topics so there is a bit of that 'if you don't like it don't click on it/what are you doing in this section if you don't want to read the news?' kinda thing...
oh i don't know, i'm babbling. i'm not an old hand, i've only been coming here for 6 months, but i do think that there is a tabloidisation of response evident in even that short time. some of the threads last night were witch-dunkingly depressing.