Bull Ring Question

[OldLady]

Reading CK's vision of the Bull Ring, he said the Call Out thread was to be in the Bull Ring Call Outs section and then when the invitation was accepted, a new thread should be started in the Bull Ring forum. CK thought the Call Out thread/invitation was where nonparticipants could comment on the debate once the formal thread was started.

So I referred someone to it who hadn't been invited into the Bull Ring and now--poof--that Call Out/Invitation thread is gone and the only one left is the actual debate thread in the Bull Ring.

Does that mean there shouldn't be two separate threads any more? (Fine with me--it was pretty confusing.) Just wondering what happened. Maybe someday when you're bored, the mods could update the Bull Ring rules a bit. As if people read them, anyway.

 

[bluzman61]

Reading CK's vision of the Bull Ring, he said the Call Out thread was to be in the Bull Ring Call Outs section and then when the invitation was accepted, a new thread should be started in the Bull Ring forum. CK thought the Call Out thread/invitation was where nonparticipants could comment on the debate once the formal thread was started.

So I referred someone to it who hadn't been invited into the Bull Ring and now--poof--that Call Out/Invitation thread is gone and the only one left is the actual debate thread in the Bull Ring.

Does that mean there shouldn't be two separate threads any more? (Fine with me--it was pretty confusing.) Just wondering what happened. Maybe someday when you're bored, the mods could update the Bull Ring rules a bit. As if people read them, anyway.

Good point. The Bull Ring SHOULD be called "The Bull Sh*t Ring", because it really isn't worth poo. It needs to be revamped or REMOVED.

 

[deannalw]

Good grief

 

[OldLady]

Good grief

I guess I got a little carried away, huh?

 

[deannalw]

I guess I got a little carried away, huh?

Don't we all?

 

[esalla]

Reading CK's vision of the Bull Ring, he said the Call Out thread was to be in the Bull Ring Call Outs section and then when the invitation was accepted, a new thread should be started in the Bull Ring forum. CK thought the Call Out thread/invitation was where nonparticipants could comment on the debate once the formal thread was started.

So I referred someone to it who hadn't been invited into the Bull Ring and now--poof--that Call Out/Invitation thread is gone and the only one left is the actual debate thread in the Bull Ring.

Does that mean there shouldn't be two separate threads any more? (Fine with me--it was pretty confusing.) Just wondering what happened. Maybe someday when you're bored, the mods could update the Bull Ring rules a bit. As if people read them, anyway.

The lawsuits are on the way for the publishers censoring whatever they choose

 

[OldLady]

The lawsuits are on the way for the publishers censoring whatever they choose

Well, no, there wasn't any censoring.

 

[esalla]

Well, no, there wasn't any censoring.

Everytime something is deleted or moved to a less visible location that is censorship. Deleting a post is equal to book burning

 

[candycorn]

Everytime something is deleted or moved to a less visible location that is censorship. Deleting a post is equal to book burning

Lay off the caffeine

 

[Dogmaphobe]

CK abdicated a long time ago.

 

[Picaro]

lol lol lol the' informal debate on race' Bull Ring thread went as predicted, and no need for deleting anybody's posts showed up.

 

[OldLady]

lol lol lol the' informal debate on race' Bull Ring thread went as predicted, and no need for deleting anybody's posts showed up.

I asked a specific question about starting two threads for each debate. That's all.

 

[Pete7469]

Well, no, there wasn't any censoring.

That's why I love this forum.

We punched out most of the Stormfront refugees, but still tolerate some leftist sock accounts probably because FBI agents want to monitor them.

I kinda hope they monitor me and get a chuckle out of my shit.


.

 

[flacaltenn]

Reading CK's vision of the Bull Ring, he said the Call Out thread was to be in the Bull Ring Call Outs section and then when the invitation was accepted, a new thread should be started in the Bull Ring forum. CK thought the Call Out thread/invitation was where nonparticipants could comment on the debate once the formal thread was started.

That's all correct.. Not simple, but it was the design of that feature.. In ADDITION, It's good to make a "call-out" thread that identifies the "contestants" and/or the topic so that a peanut gallery can properly comment IN THERE and not the match thread...

So I referred someone to it who hadn't been invited into the Bull Ring and now--poof--that Call Out/Invitation thread is gone and the only one left is the actual debate thread in the Bull Ring.

Does that mean there shouldn't be two separate threads any more? (Fine with me--it was pretty confusing.) Just wondering what happened. Maybe someday when you're bored, the mods could update the Bull Ring rules a bit. As if people read them, anyway.

I was just there a couple days ago.. The listing is a bit confusing.. The Bull Ring is the MAIN forum there. The "call-outs and discussion forum" is a SUB forum to that.. If you look at the top of the bull ring page -- you'll see the link to the sub forum...

 

[flacaltenn]

Reading CK's vision of the Bull Ring, he said the Call Out thread was to be in the Bull Ring Call Outs section and then when the invitation was accepted, a new thread should be started in the Bull Ring forum. CK thought the Call Out thread/invitation was where nonparticipants could comment on the debate once the formal thread was started.

So I referred someone to it who hadn't been invited into the Bull Ring and now--poof--that Call Out/Invitation thread is gone and the only one left is the actual debate thread in the Bull Ring.

Does that mean there shouldn't be two separate threads any more? (Fine with me--it was pretty confusing.) Just wondering what happened. Maybe someday when you're bored, the mods could update the Bull Ring rules a bit. As if people read them, anyway.

The lawsuits are on the way for the publishers censoring whatever they choose

Getting sued over actual biased censorship is ONE thing.,. We don't do that.. When we delete posts or threads it is for violations having to do with NOT HONORING the specific topic of that discussion or not starting a CLEAN discussion.. You can SAY almost anything on USMB.. You just have to say it in the RIGHT PLACE... And there's always the Taunting forums for the more juvenile and rowdy who can't DO "topical discussion"...

We're more like LIBRARIANS than "book burners"... How many librarians are getting sued for enforcing the rules of the library???

Moreover, our simple ass rules are all SPELLED OUT. Unlike the folks who make up excuses for CHANGING the "algorithms" depending on the views and opinions of what's being posted....

 

[flacaltenn]

The BS Ring is for the lamer candy ass trolls who can't take what they dish out. Old Lady's posts here are particularly hilarious and hypocritical as well, she's all for censorship of opposing views and commentary.

How did you reach THAT conclusion?? Going in ONE on ONE is brutal for folks that aren't prepared.. It's NOT "candyass"... Wanna TRY??? Should we get all "candied ass" over Libertarians in the Bull Ring Mi Amigo????

 

[esalla]

DOJ takes aim at law that shields tech companies from lawsuits over material their users post

The proposal follows an executive order on social media signed by President Donald Trump last month.

www.cnbc.com

 

[OldLady]

Reading CK's vision of the Bull Ring, he said the Call Out thread was to be in the Bull Ring Call Outs section and then when the invitation was accepted, a new thread should be started in the Bull Ring forum. CK thought the Call Out thread/invitation was where nonparticipants could comment on the debate once the formal thread was started.

That's all correct.. Not simple, but it was the design of that feature.. In ADDITION, It's good to make a "call-out" thread that identifies the "contestants" and/or the topic so that a peanut gallery can properly comment IN THERE and not the match thread...

So I referred someone to it who hadn't been invited into the Bull Ring and now--poof--that Call Out/Invitation thread is gone and the only one left is the actual debate thread in the Bull Ring.

Does that mean there shouldn't be two separate threads any more? (Fine with me--it was pretty confusing.) Just wondering what happened. Maybe someday when you're bored, the mods could update the Bull Ring rules a bit. As if people read them, anyway.

I was just there a couple days ago.. The listing is a bit confusing.. The Bull Ring is the MAIN forum there. The "call-outs and discussion forum" is a SUB forum to that.. If you look at the top of the bull ring page -- you'll see the link to the sub forum...

I know. I went there over and over, and the thread was gone. If you can find the "Invitation to an Informal Discussion on Racism" thread I'll make you a donut. It WAS there, because I went to it and made the link and gave it to an uninvited poster who had stepped into the Bull Ring thread, but then, when I checked back a couple hours later, in the Call Outs Subforum, it was gone.

That's why I wondered. But short of disappearing threads, it's good to know that's still how it should be done.

 

[flacaltenn]

Reading CK's vision of the Bull Ring, he said the Call Out thread was to be in the Bull Ring Call Outs section and then when the invitation was accepted, a new thread should be started in the Bull Ring forum. CK thought the Call Out thread/invitation was where nonparticipants could comment on the debate once the formal thread was started.

That's all correct.. Not simple, but it was the design of that feature.. In ADDITION, It's good to make a "call-out" thread that identifies the "contestants" and/or the topic so that a peanut gallery can properly comment IN THERE and not the match thread...

So I referred someone to it who hadn't been invited into the Bull Ring and now--poof--that Call Out/Invitation thread is gone and the only one left is the actual debate thread in the Bull Ring.

Does that mean there shouldn't be two separate threads any more? (Fine with me--it was pretty confusing.) Just wondering what happened. Maybe someday when you're bored, the mods could update the Bull Ring rules a bit. As if people read them, anyway.

I was just there a couple days ago.. The listing is a bit confusing.. The Bull Ring is the MAIN forum there. The "call-outs and discussion forum" is a SUB forum to that.. If you look at the top of the bull ring page -- you'll see the link to the sub forum...

I know. I went there over and over, and the thread was gone. If you can find the "Invitation to an Informal Discussion on Racism" thread I'll make you a donut. It WAS there, because I went to it and made the link and gave it to an uninvited poster who had stepped into the Bull Ring thread, but then, when I checked back a couple hours later, in the Call Outs Subforum, it was gone.

That's why I wondered. But short of disappearing threads, it's good to know that's still how it should be done.

I'll go look.. COULD have been trashed because Zone2 rules are STILL in effect there..

I'll see if I can track it down...

 

[flacaltenn]

DOJ takes aim at law that shields tech companies from lawsuits over material their users post

The proposal follows an executive order on social media signed by President Donald Trump last month.

www.cnbc.com

Read your own article.. There's no proposal for GENERALLY tearing down the immunity.. The article mentions "illegal acts" like pedo, or drug trafficking, or other specific criminal acts.. Says NOTHING about generalized "bias in content".. And at any rate -- it would applied in a TARGETED fashion. For causes listed in such legislation..

USMB is a bump on the Internet highway... And we have NOTHING to hide..