I'm curious as to why my thread was deleted twice;there were no replies on the thread, was not offensive, or any 'graphic' pics in it??? I wasn't even sent an orgnote as to why? Can a moderator answer that question for me?

What The Fuck?

from the rulebook:

Keep messages on-topic, and don't cross-post.
Post in the appropriate forum for your topic, and don't post similar messages in multiple forums. Don't create new threads when an existing one will do. Don't create 'nonsense' threads.

...postin stuff with a single emoticon doesn't qualify as a meaningful thread, so that's why it was deleted.

hey chico1, i gotta question..


if you had recieved an orgnote detailing the reasoning for the thread lock would it have helped you better understand?

Handclapsfingasnapz said:

Nobody assed you!!!!! Go somewhere and CHUT IT!!!

sosgemini said:

abso-fucking-lutely.

Nonsense threads.... isn't that the pot calling the kettle black?

No offense...but there are threads that hove a "." or a symbol and and they are left up. So I don't quite understand what the difference is. Though a couple org notes did shed some light on why some are left and others aren't. Same org game different day. Oh well no big deal.

Thanks Dansa And sosgemini.

oops. forgot the "pop" / "status" rules edit!
[Edited 2/10/05 20:48pm]

wierd...i recieved an orgnote but didnt get it..strange...
[Edited 2/10/05 20:53pm]

sosgemini said:

[Edited 2/10/05 21:33pm]

????

Handclapsfingasnapz said:

GrayKing said:

Nonsense threads are ok for only some people apparently.

I hear ya!

How many "heres a song for anxiety" or whoever threads are appropriate for this forum.

I gotta agree that there are a whole lotta bullshit threads on the Org, epsecially in the Prince forum.

TheOrgerFormerlyKnownAs said:

Chico1 said:

i must say, it does suck when you ask for action and dont get a responce....no explenation...no reasoning.....it happens to mods to..and it sucks.....when someone takes the time to submit something its only kind to respond when action (or no action) is taken.....

Handclapsfingasnapz said:

oh really?

http://www.prince.org/msg/100/136970

Chico1 said:

I think the biggest frustration regarding orgers relationship with the moderators is consistency. Perhaps some conduct is ignored and others may get [snipped sos] for much the same or a thread is locked because the mod’ isn’t liking what is going on even though others may be enjoying it.

The problem is the org rules can be interpreted in different ways depending on the mod’. However I do think with open and respectful questioning issues can be resolved peacefully. (I discovered recently) It must be a tough job at times so the fact that the mods’ are prepared to be questioned on different decisions can only be a good thing.

NewSystem said:

see, this is were a leap of faith is needed.....you guys dont see the "report to a moderator" request.....i can only speak on my behalf but i dont act on a thread unless someone has complained (reported) it....and even then i try to chime in and request that things be kept civil...

for instance, there was a thread that i locked that was a duplicate thread (the trinity thread)..i should have locked that thread for being a duplicate but some new people had participated in it and i figured i'd keep it up if people maintained civility..but when the thread got heated (and people started making false accusations) i got re-pulled into the thread by a report to mod request....then, the same people who had used up like over 100 posts in the previous trinity thread started repeated the exact same arguements and well....i got tired of it and locked the thread..keep in mind, once a thread has been reported i personally feel obligated to read every single post within it to make sure "issues" dont come up again.....so is it fair to me to have to read a bunch of circular nonsense from the same people over and over and over again?

now, you (nor any other regular user) didnt get to see all of this go down...but you gotta just trust that 1) we mods have the sites best interest in mind and that 2) if a mod is acting in extremes the other mods will will call him/her on it....(obviously thats all done outside your view so once again a leap of faith is needed on everyone's part).



fromthreadtopost...
[Edited 3/16/05 16:13pm]

and yes it sucks that there isnt more consistency but if we laid out specific and detailed rules that everyone understood to the "t" then it would stiffle conversation because people would be too afraid to post...the rules as they are (vague and general) have worked really well in my opinion.....

i think where things break down is when people take the moderation action personal...thats when ive seen the most complaints...people get defensive rather then ask for clarification and understanding.....

as far as the p&r forum....

the key for the p&r forum is to remember to, "keep it friendly"...




tomakeitcleareredit..
[Edited 3/16/05 16:16pm]

sosgemini said:

Thanks for taking time to explain. It sounds like a lot of people are running to the mods like little school kids telling the headmaster for every little misdemeanour, sad. As you have seen yourself sosgemini I have been directly insulted (moron amongst other things) and yet I’ve never felt the need to run to the mods. I just feel if that is their choice of conduct that is their choice. It’s all very well insulting people behind the safety of a computer screen I know they wouldn’t say it to my face. (I have a big ugly face, they’d be too scared ) I can see your point of view of having to read all the threads and seeing the same stuff again and again however there are many myself included reading posts for only the first time. I don’t spend all that time looking through every single thread. So perhaps a bit more discernment in that respect?

There was a thread on the trinity that you locked probably the one you mentioned for being a duplicate. If that’s the case so be it. I would like to ask you why you felt the need to lock my thread on the trinity? I felt that was the wrong decision because my thread was approaching the topic from an historical point of view namely ‘Constantine’ whilst the other thread was debating the validity of the trinity from a biblical point of view. I feel on that basis my thread should have stood. However I respect your decision to see it otherwise that is your prerogative.

sosgemini said:

Good point, it would be foolish to jump to conclusions without all the facts. I don’t doubt your sentiments.

sosgemini said:

That’s fair comment.
[Edited 3/19/05 12:13pm]