I propose a new rule.

[Missourian]

If a thread has more than 200 posts before a "rule violation" like the thread didn't have enough commentary in the OP, or it didn't have a link...that thread shouldn't be locked for that violation.

I mean...obviously once a thread reaches 783 posts, this should be simply common sense.

But since it isn't codified, shouldn't there be the equivalent of a statute of limitations on locking extremely active threads for minor rule violations?

 

[pknopp]

One could start threads so they don't violate the rules for starting a thread.

 

[Natural Citizen]

That a given illegal thread got that far along just means that maudes were derelict in the first place.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

One could start threads so they don't violate the rules for starting a thread.

won't help the lefty mods and you lefty posters will still shut them down while ignoring all the threads your buddies start that don't meet the rule.

 

[1srelluc]

How about taking the time to format a thread properly instead of trying to be "firstest with the leastest".

 

[pknopp]

won't help the lefty mods and you lefty posters will still shut them down while ignoring all the threads your buddies start that don't meet the rule.

Whining over a thread getting closed. It's really not that hard to do.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Whining over a thread getting closed. It's really not that hard to do.

a popular well liked productive thread? Hell ya. It just shows what you bottom feeding lefties will do when your feelings are hurt.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

IM2 violates the rules all the time and his threads are never shutdown or him punished. All they do is move it.

 

[AyeCantSeeYou]

That a given illegal thread got that far along just means that maudes were derelict in the first place.

So when are you going to start paying the mods to read every thread?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

So when are you going to start paying the mods to read every thread?

when are mods going to show a little common sense?

 

[Natural Citizen]

How about taking the time to format a thread properly instead of trying to be "firstest with the leastest".

^^^ This ^^^

 

[AyeCantSeeYou]

when are mods going to show a little common sense?

We do. When are those that violate the rules going to stop blaming the mods for what they did?

 

[AyeCantSeeYou]

If a thread has more than 200 posts before a "rule violation" like the thread didn't have enough commentary in the OP, or it didn't have a link...that thread shouldn't be locked for that violation.

I mean...obviously once a thread reaches 783 posts, this should be simply common sense.

But since it isn't codified, shouldn't there be the equivalent of a statute of limitations on locking extremely active threads for minor rule violations?

Follow the rules about starting a thread and they won't get locked. How hard is it to do that?

 

[Natural Citizen]

So when are you going to start paying the mods to read every thread?

Well this goes back to my previous pissing and moaning about having to report the same thread two or three times when you see that at least two maudes are online and active.

When legit reports get ignored...and they do...that;s what allows the thread to go on so long.

And the funny thing about it is that the illegal post doesnlt really have a topic. Doesn't really say what the OP wants to discuss. Or why they feel it is important to discuss.

 

[AyeCantSeeYou]

Well this goes back to my previous pissing and moaning about having to report the same thread two or three times when you see that at least two maudes are online and active.

When legit reports get ignored...and they do...that;s what allows the thread to go on so long.

And the funny thing about it is that the illegal post doesnlt really have a topic. Doesn't really say what the OP wants to discuss. Or why they feel it is important to discuss.

When that happens, PM me and give me a link to the thread. I'll look into it.