Do we really have a clean start rule? I see we don't.

[pknopp]

I used the same words and how the right winger thread was set up. Only change the left wing into the right wing. Or se.oxrat into Republican and boom gone.

The same thread from the right winger is still up.

Maybe no one reported it.

 

[HandleTheTruth]

Just want things to be equal and just.

 

[HandleTheTruth]

Well the right wingers we're never told about this rule. But Everytime I try to do what they do I'm told about it.

Wonder why they were not told about it and moved???


Hmmmm

 

[TemplarKormac]

I can see that over the course of the poster's intervening comments that this has become a call-out thread against the moderators.

Is that not actionable under forum rules?

 

[deannalw]

Just try it liberals.

Make a thread just like a republican and see how fast it is moved.

 

[toobfreak]

Wtf is a clean start rule?

It means: Wash your hands before starting the morning posts.

 

[TemplarKormac]

It means: Wash your hands before starting the morning posts.

What about my eyes?

 

[deannalw]

Well the right wingers we're never told about this rule. But Everytime I try to do what they do I'm told about it.

Wonder why they were not told about it and moved???


Hmmmm

Have you tried batting your eyelashes prettily at the mods?

It's always worked for me.

 

[TemplarKormac]

The rule exists but it's only randomly enforced.

Nope. I've had threads of mine moved, merged, or deleted by these very same mods in the past.

I have had numerous conversations and debates with Coyote , who is liberal in her political leanings, which lends to discrediting this OP in the first place.

OP is making a mistake by trying to wage war against the moderators here. It will fail.

 

[deannalw]

I can see that over the course of the poster's intervening comments that this has become a call-out thread against the moderators.

Is that not actionable under forum rules?

It's actionable anyway because it has nothing to do with politics.

Some folks just can't hang and have a good time.

 

[TemplarKormac]

It's actionable anyway because it has nothing to do with politics.

Some folks just can't hang and have a good time.

I... was getting around to that

...in a painfully slow manner.

 

[toobfreak]

What about my eyes?

Wear orange sunglasses.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Seems to be a lot of confusion on Clean Start Rule. I pulled this off of a link within the USMB Site Guidelines and Regulations page. It was written by a Senior Mod
Titles and Opening Posts
1) Title must contain sufficient clues about the ACTUAL expected discussion. Titles like "How stupid are These People" can't be SEARCHED or indexed for search for the use of members or mods to find and manage existing active threads.
2) Titles must be free of INFLAMMATORY words, name calling or "pet names".. Those things are what make a title "baiting".
3) The "user content" in OPs that the existing rules require needs to be "stepped up".. "Get a load of this" -- is no longer sufficient topical content"... Must be 2 lines or more.. The more the better.. Must SUMMARIZE the topic to be discussed and why you think it NEEDS discussion..
To sum that up.. We're REQUIRING the Original Posters to START a clean topical discussion.,. No more juiced incendiary titles and ranting OPs.. If it's important enough for you to dash to a keyboard to poke it in -- need to put in the effort to start the discussion with YOUR views of the topic..

Last time I was so bold as to ask for a link to an OP's claim in a thread where the OP failed to provide a link for his claim, I got an infraction for it.

The mod who was in the thread said the thread needed to be cleaned up, and I reminded said mod that there was no link to OP's claims.

Of course, the OP remained...without a link to his claim. And I got the infraction.

Not sure if it was for contempt of the mod or just because I had the audacity to ask for a link, rather than having to just discuss a topic based solely upon the OP's personal claim. Likely the former, given the circumstances and particular topical content itself.

As I recall, the topical content had to do with yet another gripe about "whites" collectively.

What I've found to be true, regardless of whether any mod wants to spin it otherwise, is that certain topical content, if it serves as confirmation for one particular mod's own beliefs, irrelevant of whether it violates the so-called clean start policy, remains intact and any contention otherwise earns an infraction. And it's always the same activist mod.

But whatever. I knew that was the case anyway, I was just testing the so-called 'new' Zone 1 rules to see how it would go.

Worst part about it is you get those baseless infractions and don't even know how many you have.

 

[Calypso Jones]

So are these topics deleted permanently so that you can't see yourself why it was deleted for 'no clean start' or do we just have to take the moderators word for it. WHICH may be fine but it would be nice to see it for oneself to have an idea of what that means or possibly get another mod's opinion? You know like file a grievance?

 

[TemplarKormac]

I used the same words and how the right winger thread was set up. Only change the left wing into the right wing. Or se.oxrat into Republican and boom gone.

The same thread from the right winger is still up.

I disagree. I am on the right side here and I could have the same argument.

Does that mean they're targeting me? No. It means they are enforcing the rules fairly and equally.

They don't get paid enough to babysit us. So don't expect perfect results.

 

[deannalw]

Worst part about it is you get those baseless infractions and don't even know how many you have

No shit.

I might even behave myself if I knew I was a toenails length from the edge of the dreaded Cliff of the Banned.

 

[Lesh]

The rule exists but it's only randomly enforced.

Primarily on Libs

 

[sparky]

Titles like "How stupid are These People" can't be SEARCHED

About 471,000,000 results (0.42 seconds)

~S~

 

[Baron Von Murderpaws]

You have to slip the Mod $20

Liberal Democrats at their finest!

 

[White 6]

Last time I was so bold as to ask for a link to an OP's claim in a thread where the OP failed to provide a link for his claim, I got an infraction for it.

The mod who was in the thread said the thread needed to be cleaned up, and I reminded said mod that there was no link to OP's claims.

Of course, the OP remained...without a link to his claim. And I got the infraction.

Not sure if it was for contempt of the mod or just because I had the audacity to ask for a link, rather than having to just discuss a topic based solely upon the OP's personal claim. Likely the former, given the circumstances and particular topical content itself.

As I recall, the topical content had to do with yet another gripe about "whites" collectively.

What I've found to be true, regardless of whether any mod wants to spin it otherwise, is that certain topical content, if it serves as confirmation for one particular mod's own beliefs, irrelevant of whether it violates the so-called clean start policy, remains intact and any contention otherwise earns an infraction. And it's always the same mod.

But whatever. I knew that was the case anyway, I was just testing the so-called 'new' Zone 1 rules to see how it would go.

Worst part about it is you get those baseless infractions and don't even know how many you have.

I don't see it, but haven't been looking for bias, and you know how long I've here. Are there judgment calls? Yes. I still struggle.
Have seen people intentionally "test" the rules. Sometime with interesting results for somebody new, copied in, for training.
Had several reports on this thread. First a no action based on the complaint. Then the obvious wrong forum, so I moved it to correct forum.
You are in good shape. I'll PM ya in a minute, check current stat for you, as already looked.
If anybody ever in question, feel free to PM me or another mod. Be glad to look it up.