Bundling threads

[Grace]

So someone edited the thread title and put (nazi) in it??

 

[RadiomanATL]

So someone edited the thread title and put (nazi) in it??

Yes.

And someone edited TM's thread title to insult her.

 

[Ravi]

Huggy didn't say Obama killed bin laden.

Poor Gunny, it really kills you that this happened under Obama. Boo fucking hoo.

Actually, Ravster..... this started on Bush's watch, Obama ended it. So, if we're credited Presidents, credit both.... because the original intel came from Gitmo, from Khalid Shiek Mohammend.... under Enhanced Interrogation Techniques... or.... waterboarding.... or, to put it another way.... torture got the intel that led to the name of the courier that led to the compound that led to Osama.

Credit where it's due. A whole bunch of people played really important parts in this outcome. Obama finished what Bush started. Both deserve some credit.... but, far more than them... credit to the CIA analysts who sat there and unraveled this thread, and most of all to Team 6 who went in, did the job and left.... and let's hope they picked up some useful intel to continue chasing the rest of these bastards.

I have credited both, and if fact I also credit Clinton.

It is Gunny that is melting down because someone has dared to thank Obama.

 

[Grace]

So someone edited the thread title and put (nazi) in it??

Yes.

And someone edited TM's thread title to insult her.

Not cool.

 

[Ravi]

And no offense to you Del, and don't take this as a question about Your Modiness....

but your new avatar SUCKS!

 

[Ravi]

So someone edited the thread title and put (nazi) in it??

Yes.

And someone edited TM's thread title to insult her.

Not cool.

No, it isn't. But we are not allowed to comment on that.

 

[del]

And no offense to you Del, and don't take this as a question about Your Modiness....

but your new avatar SUCKS!

http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-flame-zone/165779-some-of-you-disguised-me.html

what can i say?

 

[Immanuel]

Sorry, guys, but I don't think it's fair to bundle all threads started regarding Osama bin Gotten into what's already 1300+ strong. I for one don't have time to plow through all of those, nor would I want to. For one thing, there are going to be many aspects to this operation that will unfold in the next few days, and they deserve SEPARATE threads. If some are obviously similar, that's a different story.

Same thing with bundling everything regarding Trump. I mean, seriously? What on earth is the point? I may want to post something about his stone face at the Correspondents' Dinner the other night, but for anyone to join in THAT discussion (just as an example), they'd never find it.

What you're doing lately is making it like a comment section for an online newspaper article, where people normally only weigh in once. This is supposed to be a FORUM.

I hope you keep this comment HERE, because it's my "feedback" and posted in the appropriate place.

Thank you.
Maggie

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-trump-was-hysterical-and-well-delivered.html

Having 100 or more threads on the same essential topic is clutter. When such threads are merged, it's based on housekeeping only. Same thing would happen with other big events, such as if the shuttle crashed again, or whatever.

There might be alot of folks who want to talk about other topics, they would have to wade through the 100 or more clutter threads to see if their topic already has a thread on it.

I would prefer the "clutter". It sucks being subscribed to a particular thread, then to step away for an hour or so and to come back to a thread and have to read 1200 posts of merged BS from threads you had ignored originally because of who started it.

Who reads all the threads anyway? Logged in this morning after participating in a thread on OBL last night. Came back and it had my last post on page 34 and there were over 100 pages of merged crap most of which was repetitious.

Immie

 

[syrenn]

Sorry, guys, but I don't think it's fair to bundle all threads started regarding Osama bin Gotten into what's already 1300+ strong. I for one don't have time to plow through all of those, nor would I want to. For one thing, there are going to be many aspects to this operation that will unfold in the next few days, and they deserve SEPARATE threads. If some are obviously similar, that's a different story.

Same thing with bundling everything regarding Trump. I mean, seriously? What on earth is the point? I may want to post something about his stone face at the Correspondents' Dinner the other night, but for anyone to join in THAT discussion (just as an example), they'd never find it.

What you're doing lately is making it like a comment section for an online newspaper article, where people normally only weigh in once. This is supposed to be a FORUM.

I hope you keep this comment HERE, because it's my "feedback" and posted in the appropriate place.

Thank you.
Maggie

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-trump-was-hysterical-and-well-delivered.html

Having 100 or more threads on the same essential topic is clutter. When such threads are merged, it's based on housekeeping only. Same thing would happen with other big events, such as if the shuttle crashed again, or whatever.

There might be alot of folks who want to talk about other topics, they would have to wade through the 100 or more clutter threads to see if their topic already has a thread on it.

I would prefer the "clutter". It sucks being subscribed to a particular thread, then to step away for an hour or so and to come back to a thread and have to read 1200 posts of merged BS from threads you had ignored originally because of who started it.

Who reads all the threads anyway? Logged in this morning after participating in a thread on OBL last night. Came back and it had my last post on page 34 and there were over 100 pages of merged crap most of which was repetitious.

Immie

Me too. It wasn't worth trying to unravel it all.

 

[Foxfyre]

Sorry, guys, but I don't think it's fair to bundle all threads started regarding Osama bin Gotten into what's already 1300+ strong. I for one don't have time to plow through all of those, nor would I want to. For one thing, there are going to be many aspects to this operation that will unfold in the next few days, and they deserve SEPARATE threads. If some are obviously similar, that's a different story.

Same thing with bundling everything regarding Trump. I mean, seriously? What on earth is the point? I may want to post something about his stone face at the Correspondents' Dinner the other night, but for anyone to join in THAT discussion (just as an example), they'd never find it.

What you're doing lately is making it like a comment section for an online newspaper article, where people normally only weigh in once. This is supposed to be a FORUM.

I hope you keep this comment HERE, because it's my "feedback" and posted in the appropriate place.

Thank you.
Maggie

Yes, it is a very discouraging practice and one of the reasons I seldom post threads anymore. Who has, or wants, to take the time to go through all those posts in order to make a potential redundant comment, much less put thoughtul energy into it. Not I. It's happened to me twice in the past month, and on those rare occasions when I even post threads. It is as a slap in the face to see your thread gone, and consolidated into a 1000 post thread started by another. Very frustrating. A major negative of the site.

I can still find threads to post in but not so much anymore since bundling/merging has become so prevalent. Some threads immediately dissolve into a food fight and that is a major turn off for those who really are interested in discussing a topic. So you start another and are having a decent discussion and then WHAM....it gets merged with the food fight that just keeps spamming the pages.

And as somebody said, there is no practical way to take a discussion in a different direction that would be of interest to some. When you have very different sub topics being discussed all in the same thread, it is difficult to maintain any continuity.

But oh well. As I have said before, world peace does not hinge on this. A minor annoyance at best.

 

[uscitizen]

Sorry, guys, but I don't think it's fair to bundle all threads started regarding Osama bin Gotten into what's already 1300+ strong. I for one don't have time to plow through all of those, nor would I want to. For one thing, there are going to be many aspects to this operation that will unfold in the next few days, and they deserve SEPARATE threads. If some are obviously similar, that's a different story.

Same thing with bundling everything regarding Trump. I mean, seriously? What on earth is the point? I may want to post something about his stone face at the Correspondents' Dinner the other night, but for anyone to join in THAT discussion (just as an example), they'd never find it.

What you're doing lately is making it like a comment section for an online newspaper article, where people normally only weigh in once. This is supposed to be a FORUM.

I hope you keep this comment HERE, because it's my "feedback" and posted in the appropriate place.

Thank you.
Maggie

I agree, it is however a good way to hide rightwingers making fools of themselves.

 

[uscitizen]

So someone edited the thread title and put (nazi) in it??

Yes.

And someone edited TM's thread title to insult her.

This can only be done by an administrator type. Logs need to be checked to see who.

 

[Immanuel]

Let me clear up a misconception for you.

You have NO right to freedom of speech on a message board.

Have a nice day.

Yes, you're right.

But she said "I thought this site was about freedom of speech." And it always has been. One of the things that the staff has always done well is let fucktwits be fucktwits. As long as someone doesn't violate the TOS, their post stands. There have been exceptions of course. Such as Spiderman Tuba's BP threads, and Lil Ol' Lady's immigration threads. And even the recent OBL threads. But that is more about housekeeping than anything else. Less clutter and confusion.

But now it seems the mod buttons are being used just as another tool to play "gotcha" with another poster.

Not cool at all.

We are Trying to Consolidate, Not Edit, Not Trash. We are still working it out, Hourly.

Just for the record, someone changed one of TM's (damn I can't believe I am defending her!) threads and it was not about consolidation. The new thread title is, "What Dumbshit Leftist AntiAmericans think of Capitalism". I think the old one was "What Leftist Americans think of Capitalism" or something a kin to that.

Lately, I am no fan of TM, but is that right for a mod to do?

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

Well, it's just been MY experience that EVERY site has at least a mod or two who at least occasionally abuse their powers. So why would anyone be surprised that this site would also?

USMB hasn't had that issue really. Which is why it has been one of the best.

Oh, I rather doubt that just all of a sudden this site has had an issue that never plagued it before. It's more likely that it has been happening all along, only it's been happening to unpopular posters , or posters who didn't feel it necessary to post about it. After all, if a post is modified by a moderator, who would know unless the original author spoke up?

TM is one of the most unpopular posters on this site and every site I have been with her on. RadiomanATL mentioned the same post I mentioned. Sorry, Radioman, I had not finished reading the thread. This is not about who is popular and who is not. It appears one of the mods is playing games.

Immie

 

[Grace]

Yes, you're right.

But she said "I thought this site was about freedom of speech." And it always has been. One of the things that the staff has always done well is let fucktwits be fucktwits. As long as someone doesn't violate the TOS, their post stands. There have been exceptions of course. Such as Spiderman Tuba's BP threads, and Lil Ol' Lady's immigration threads. And even the recent OBL threads. But that is more about housekeeping than anything else. Less clutter and confusion.

But now it seems the mod buttons are being used just as another tool to play "gotcha" with another poster.

Not cool at all.

We are Trying to Consolidate, Not Edit, Not Trash. We are still working it out, Hourly.

Just for the record, someone changed one of TM's (damn I can't believe I am defending her!) threads and it was not about consolidation. The new thread title is, "What Dumbshit Leftist AntiAmericans think of Capitalism". I think the old one was "What Leftist Americans think of Capitalism" or something a kin to that.

Lately, I am no fan of TM, but is that right for a mod to do?

Immie

No.

 

[Ernie S.]

So someone edited the thread title and put (nazi) in it??

Yes.

And someone edited TM's thread title to insult her.

That is totally inexcusable no matter if it's Quantum or TDM

In my not so humble opinion, any editing or moving a thread should carry the name of the mod or admin who did it. If you think you're justified, fine! Just own it. I used to design scientific instruments for a living. Every drawing, every spec and every proposal I've ever drawn up carries my signature and I conduct my all business with that same pride.

ANYTHING you do in life, you should be proud to sign your name to. Cowards operate in the dark.

 

[TheBrain]

USMB hasn't had that issue really. Which is why it has been one of the best.

Oh, I rather doubt that just all of a sudden this site has had an issue that never plagued it before. It's more likely that it has been happening all along, only it's been happening to unpopular posters , or posters who didn't feel it necessary to post about it. After all, if a post is modified by a moderator, who would know unless the original author spoke up?

TM is one of the most unpopular posters on this site and every site I have been with her on. RadiomanATL mentioned the same post I mentioned. Sorry, Radioman, I had not finished reading the thread. This is not about who is popular and who is not. It appears one of the mods is playing games.

Immie

That wasn't what I was saying at all. I was merely saying that I doubt it has JUST started happening.

 

[Intense]

Closed for Administrative Review.