• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

What was Barack Obama's first appearance?

Started by lizards2,

97 posts in this topic

InvstmntComcSuply

InvstmntComcSuply

Posted
Posted
So why would the whole thread be poofed? Why not just lock it, scrub the posts with political commentary, hand out wrist-slaps or strikes to those posters, then unlock the thread?

 

I saw the original thread

 

It progressed just like the second thread with a reasonable request for information from the OP and non-political answers from a couple posters. Then about 10 posts in there were blatant political posts, reminiscent of the locked thread points challenge. Followed by more, non-political, informative posts. I expected the offending posts to be scrubbed rather than the entire thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
HarveySwick

HarveySwick

Posted
Posted

That's my point. Moderation action should be focused on those disregarding Board policy by posting political commentary rather than just poofing an entire thread. Honestly, it reeks of personal bias on the part of moderation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CBT

CBT

Posted
Posted
That's my point. Moderation action should be focused on those disregarding Board policy rather than just poofing an entire thread. Honestly, it reeks of personal bias on the part of moderation.

 

hqdefault.jpg

 

 

Now imagine if we could see the moderation section of the board, where the thread still exists, and the name of who poof'd it.

 

Hmmm, cgcmod666....

 

That doesnt tell us much, ok now imagine if the person had to moderate it under their actual name.

 

cgcmodWaterCoolo....

 

 

ok, now we are getting somewhere. Ok, now imagine if they actually had to post a reason into the thread when they pulled it.

 

"This thread is full of political commentary, deleted" - cgcmodWaterCoolo.

 

Ok, now people could disagree with that, but at least they would know the what and why, and could try and make a new thread and make sure no politiking happens.

 

But, if there was only two political comments, then we could say, hey cgcmodWaterCoolo, maybe just delete those two and restore the thread, seems only fair. Thanks friend!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
namisgr

namisgr

Posted
Posted

Bollocks. It's a response to the claim in an earlier post (#9649349) that only posts pertaining to one particular political party and persuasion were being deleted. Another poster familiar with the first deleted thread provided the alternative, factual, and nonconspiratorial explanation.

 

It's a political statement, targeting one group of people with labeling and characterization, and aligning yourself clearly with the "other" group.

 

That is moronic. It was post #9649349 that raised the spectre of a politically aligned moderation action. My own post was directed at Lazyboy's post explaining that the first thread had turned bad, been pulled, and then been followed by a new thread from the same original poster. We all should know by now how attempts to circumvent the moderation process are going to be greeted.

 

Claiming that you can glean anything about personal politics from such a post is ludicrous.

 

So, does anyone have the Dell/Gold Key JFK, LBJ, or Barry Goldwater books from the sixties in high grade? They're tough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CBT

CBT

Posted
Posted

Your post is moronic. It was post #9649349 that raised the spectre of a politically aligned moderation action. My own post was directed at Lazyboy's post explaining that the first thread had turned bad, been pulled, and then been followed by a new thread from the same original poster.

 

That you can glean anything about my own voting history from a week ago is ludicrous.

 

Why thank you, you are entitled to your opinion, and I would be the first to defend your freedom to it and to express it, wrong as it may be. Were it ever exposed to unfair moderation, you would find in me your strongest defender.

 

As for my non-moronic post, it stands on its own, and I see nothing new to add to it.

 

Cheers

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dragonmgmt

dragonmgmt

Posted
Posted

This is worth a :bump:

 

That's my point. Moderation action should be focused on those disregarding Board policy rather than just poofing an entire thread. Honestly, it reeks of personal bias on the part of moderation.

 

hqdefault.jpg

 

 

Now imagine if we could see the moderation section of the board, where the thread still exists, and the name of who poof'd it.

 

Hmmm, cgcmod666....

 

That doesnt tell us much, ok now imagine if the person had to moderate it under their actual name.

 

cgcmodWaterCoolo....

 

 

ok, now we are getting somewhere. Ok, now imagine if they actually had to post a reason into the thread when they pulled it.

 

"This thread is full of political commentary, deleted" - cgcmodWaterCoolo.

 

Ok, now people could disagree with that, but at least they would know the what and why, and could try and make a new thread and make sure no politiking happens.

 

But, if there was only two political comments, then we could say, hey cgcmodWaterCoolo, maybe just delete those two and restore the thread, seems only fair. Thanks friend!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr.Mcknowitall

Mr.Mcknowitall

Posted
Posted

 

Am I reading the info correctly, that it was the 2nd highest in 2015 @ 7.5, and is now a 9.4? Or is it just bad phrasing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr.Mcknowitall

Mr.Mcknowitall

Posted
Posted
Doug Sulipa listing, correct?

I think there was info. pulled from another listing. There are more on the census now as well.

 

If he is seller dwscw, which is the link in the post above to the one for sale. I was curious why the info states in 2015 the 2nd highest is 7.5, and then uses >>>>9.4 as if it is the item listed and the item for sale is 9.4. I interpreted this as it was previously a 7.5 and was upgraded to a 9.4. Either that, or it is unclear info presentation. I don't know the jargon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JazzMan

JazzMan

Posted
Posted
Doug Sulipa listing, correct?

I think there was info. pulled from another listing. There are more on the census now as well.

 

If he is seller dwscw, which is the link in the post above to the one for sale. I was curious why the info states in 2015 the 2nd highest is 7.5, and then uses >>>>9.4 as if it is the item listed and the item for sale is 9.4. I interpreted this as it was previously a 7.5 and was upgraded to a 9.4. Either that, or it is unclear info presentation. I don't know the jargon.

 

Copy, paste, fail. That's how I read it. There's 8 copies higher than 7.5 in the census.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Go to topic listing