- Nov 18, 2011
- Reaction score
Apparently, the mods are treating 99% of the people here the same. At least according to you.I’m pointing out me and the 99% that we are being unfairly treated which you just said was trueI don't need to take anything back. I said what I said and stand by it.You can’t take it back now lol hahaha hahha you boot licker hahaNot slow at all. When I responded I took the "they" to mean the lefties you said feel attacked.You just said the rules are being broken by both.. are you slow? LolYour 99% figure is still laughable.I’m doing nothing they arent. It’s why we the 99% have taken action, and we’re told to back off .. heheThe "they" was vague. Be more clear in your posts.You said the mods participate in off-topic banterWhat makes you say that?I don’t think you understand what you just wroteAnd now you understand. But before you didn't? Ok then.Lol well there you goWhat is difficult to understand? You asked a question, and I answered it.Lol whatDid I say that? No.Are you saying they don’t participate in banter? Outside of the topic?Did the posts violate the rules listed above? If so, blame the person who broke the simple rules. Unless it is you. I know you will never blame yourself for any violations.Many of us including in the mass email are saying democrats and John Roberts are deleting to many posts because there feelings are hurtVague attempts to cloak your whining as patriotism does not work.Promoting censorship,, must be election season,, democrats protections their feelings.. 99% of the posters here prefer freedom.Here are the "new rules" you are throwing a fit about:
from flacaltenn's thread Yes.. USMB Moderation is Asking for Discussions..
"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..
Currently the Rules require "specific topical content" in EVERY post.. And the moderation method for that is stone simple..
Post has "specific topical content" --- stop reading, ignore the rest, it's legal.
Post LACKS "specific topical content" -- It's illegal.. Delete and/or warn...
1) That rule will edited to read "must contain substantial and relevant topical content".. This means that unsubstantiated generalizations about groups or political opponents is NOT ALONE sufficient as "specific topical content" anymore.. Yeah, you have to stop and think and spend a few calories composing a post..
2) Repetition, badgering, harassment, and repeatedly ignoring requests to clarify or answer questions MAY get you booted or warned... This may be specified in the official rules in the coming days.
3) Meme pics are OK - if they are about topic and NOT just personal and fit the definition of substantial and relevant.
4) Posts on the 1st two opening pages of a thread will be CHECKED by moderation when they visit.. These will be HIGHLY moderated, because the course of thread is determined largely in the 1st pages... If you're caught dropping into a brand new topic just to attack or flame -- you'll be warned and banned for one day.. Assuming there isn't more damage to the thread later on.. If you don't care to DISCUSS the topic first -- DONT DROP IN.. This is probably the most common issue we have with "tone", anger, and stinkyness of this place lately. It's a personality pile-on on Pg1.. Not happening anymore.. Keep a distance from members you consider "retards or morons".. Just ignore what you consider to be crap.. Don't prance thru it barefoot.. "
What is the problem? You want to reserve the right to attack people without commenting on the actual topic? You want to be able to call people names in the OP of a thread? Such lofty goals.
What, specifically, do you have a problem with concerning these "new" rules? They have already been in place since I got here. They are just warning people that the rules will be enforced more.
But do point out which of the rules listed flacaltenn's post you have a problem with?
That said, there is no need for the incredible amount of hostility and vitriol on some poster's posts. Stick with the topic and leave out the attempts at the insults, personal attacks and bullshit. Then you can debate or discuss to your heart's content.
What you are throwing a fit about is your desire to be free to be assholes. What you are defending is to be able to stray off topic specifically to attack people. It is ridiculous.
But I don't see them claiming the basic rules of this board violate their free speech.
Then I pointed out that they may participate in the banter, but they are not claiming the rules are censorship or that they violate their free speech. Do try to keep up.
But it’s only conservatives getting attacked.
is that ok ?
But nonetheless, the rules seem simple enough. Go by them and you won't have an issue.
Action? What action have you taken besides whining and demanding that you be allowed to break the rules in the name of Free Speech?
But in either case, if you derail the thread, whether someone else responds doesn't matter. You were the one derailing the thread. In your case, you often derail your own threads.
You are demanding that breaking clearly stated rules is part of your right to free speech. Despite the fact that this web site is private property, provided to you at no cost.
And the most I said was that they may be joining in the banter. I am not backing off anything.