NationStates Jolt Archive

The thread: http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=108637&start=40
Was just locked without warning and without comment. Can you please tell me why?
There is an opposing thread on general right now as well so what happened?

The poll looked rather one sided.

The poll looked rather one sided.

not reason enough

flamebait!

you must be...

1) stupid.
2) insane
3)flamebaiting
4)believing everything you hear from washington.
5)not able to think for yourself.
6)a right wing republican christain.
7)kidding.


wich one is it?

This was just one example, there were a few more.. including one small one by the person who started the thread to begin with. However, this one stuck out the most at me.

Stephanie
Game Moderator

But we allow the opposing thread to continue. The poll is just as one sided.
I did not request any lock on this thread and if you are going to lock threads for flame responses then lets apply it equally. The example given was not taken as a flame at all, if you happen to read the reply to it.

Further notice that one of your fellow Game Moderators actually participated in this thread after the example that you use:

Enodia
Game Moderator


Founded: 17 Dec 2002
Posts: 3155

Posted: Sat Dec 27, 2003 7:59 am Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Saul 2 Paul wrote:
It seems someone has forgotten that some of the intelligence that made that choice was gained during the Clinton Administration.

Saul 2 Paul, this is simultaneously a valid point and completely irrelevant. If the information was collected under Clinton's presidency, then that's one thing - who used the information is important. Think about it. Let's say that one policeman finds information which says that you are a criminal. He then gets transferred to another division and leaves his files behind. The next guy to come in has a look at this information and thinks "well well well, Saul 2 Paul is a criminal. Let's go and arrest him."

I'll be the first to admit that if the information was wrong in the first place then it's permanently wrong. That stands to reason. What I'm pointing out here is that the second policeman (Bush) used the wrong information to "arrest the criminal" (go into Iraq).
Now don't start with the "there's no proof that Bush lied" stuff. I'm not interested in whether Bush himself lied to anyone. What I'm saying is that the information was wrong, people knew or reasonably suspected some of it to be wrong* and Bush and friends ignored that knowledge and those reasonable suspicions to continue on in the same direction that they were intending to go in the first place. If a person in as powerful a position as the C-in-C of the American armed forces is going to haul his fighting men (and those of several other countries, mind you) into a war over the heads of the UN Security Council (which was set up, in part, to prevent that sort of thing happening), then the least he could do is make certain his facts are correct.

*Here I'm referring to such things as the suicide of David Kelly (British Iraqologist), the fact that one of the British reports on the situation was later established to have been a university assignment and several years out of date, statements by top-ranking officials in Australia's intelligence services and the information provided by the guy whose wife was a Non-Official Cover agent with the CIA.

Back to top
____________________________________________________________

Seems to me, that if the sited reasons for the lock are real, then the other Game Moderator would have seen them as such and not chose to participate in the discussion.

I would really appreciate a ruling on this action. The thread was locked for flamebaiting. The second post of the thread sited as the cause. The thread ran for three pages and nobody made any claims of flaming by anyone else.

Note:
Stephistan has now went back to the thread and entered the post in question as reason for locking.

The thread certainly deteriorated after I'd left it. At the time I posted, it appeared that it could either turn into a nasty little Bush-bash or some kind of useful political discussion - it seems to me as though it had made up its mind to take the former path by the time Steph locked it.

The thread certainly deteriorated after I'd left it. At the time I posted, it appeared that it could either turn into a nasty little Bush-bash or some kind of useful political discussion - it seems to me as though it had made up its mind to take the former path by the time Steph locked it.Steph locked it due to the second post on the thread. Can you point out any flamebaiting on the thread after you left? I have read back through it and I didn't feel flamed against nor do I feel like I flamed against anyone.

Steph locked it due to the second post of the thread because she thought that post was going to incite flaming.
Personally, I think that posts later on would incite flaming - since that particular "time bomb" has been defused rather effectively.
The fact of the matter is that it wasn't my decision to lock the thread. My post was designed as a means of elevating the discussion above the kind of borderline-flamebait that was being traded there. Steph may be forthcoming with her reasoning for locking the thread based on that post, but as far as I'm concerned it was a justifiable decision.

BTW if you can look at this thread and not lock it for the very same reasons given then something is dreadfully wrong with this decision:

http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=108702

Point: The thread contained flamebait. That was enough reason to lock it.

Point: The mods are not a unified front. Enodia clearly hoped he could salvage the thread, whereas Stephistan did not think it was possible.

Point: Political leanings had nothing to do with it.

Point: The thread was next to trolling to begin with, IMHO.

BTW if you can look at this thread and not lock it for the very same reasons given then something is dreadfully wrong with this decision:

http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=108702

In case you hadn't noticed, polls that offer little diversity in their options tend to attract trolling and flaming. Take that as a lesson for future reference and make better poll options in the future, it helps.

BTW if you can look at this thread and not lock it for the very same reasons given then something is dreadfully wrong with this decision:

http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=108702
I haven't read the whole thread as yet (since the server seems to be playing up right about now), but the first 2 pages seem to be a more reasoned debate (in places) than your thread was.
The "Best President" thread, because it gave no other options than George H Bush and George W Bush, was always in danger of degenerating into a Bush-bash. The "Worst President" one has a series of different options from different times in American history. While nobody (that I've read) has yet written a response comparing and contrasting all the options, the opportunity is there. The opportunity is there for people to debate all manner of issues, whereas your thread was merely an opportunity for people who think the Bush family is the best thing since sliced bread to argue with people who think the Bush family should be exiled to the Northern Marianas. Opportunities like that will, in 99% of cases, result in flame-wars.

So this action is setting a precedent for how to stop a thread you disagree with. Just post a sarcastic reply that can be interpreted as flamebaiting. Now comes the issue of whether the nation pointed out as flamebaiting has recieved a warning for the action. If not the decision is not correct. You simply cannot lock a thread for flamebaiting without warning the offending nation.

You're being very presumptuous, telling the mods how to do their jobs.
You don't even know if he was warned or not. Frankly, it's none of your business, and most warnings go out over telegram.

So this action is setting a precedent for how to stop a thread you disagree with. Just post a sarcastic reply that can be interpreted as flamebaiting.
Not in the least bit. If you're going to make threads which are clearly skewed in one direction or the other, you're going to see this sort of thing happen more often. It's the same with the various brands of racists we see here - a thread entitled "3000 reasons why Jews suck" or "How to cook and eat a homosexual" is a lot more likely to degenerate into flaming (assuming it doesn't start off that way) than a thread entitled "So what did everyone get for Christmas?". Extreme examples, but I think you can take my point here.
There's nothing wrong with having strongly-held political beliefs, just be aware that if you demonstrate them in the manner in which you have done here, you will risk the provocation of flaming by those who hold equally strong and diametrically opposed beliefs.

Now comes the issue of whether the nation pointed out as flamebaiting has recieved a warning for the action. If not the decision is not correct. You simply cannot lock a thread for flamebaiting without warning the offending nation.
While it's hardly your place to tell me what I simply can and cannot do, it's been done already. Happy?

:?:

Well, I'ma gonna lock this thread, and I'ma gonna tell ya why.

Stephistan has explained herself.

Saul 2 Paul has disagreed.

Enodia has explained his case.

Saul 2 Paul has disagreed.

Now, I may be looking at it wrong, but it looks like S2P is willing to flail an equine bereft of life until he gets his way... and I very much doubt he's going to get it, so it'll be best if I just lock this thread now and declare the issue closed.

http://www.af.mil/media/photodb/web/web_030503-F-0573A-005.jpg
Next person to post gets ventilated with the GAU-8 of Good.

http://www.weirdozone.0catch.com/projects/nationstates/scolo_mod.gifScolopendra der Game Mod

OW! *picks 30mm bullets out of his skin*

On a serious note, one thing that you might want to keep in mind:

Threads created to mock or parody other threads.

These threads (such as yours) are often unpopular because they duplicate discussion and have a point that would often be better kept to the original thread. More often than not, they are poorly written, horribly biased, and not particularly polite.

Keep in mind when posting these threads:

Am I being clever... or just angry?
Am I just doing this to be rude, or do I have a new point of discussion that should be raised - heck, raised in a new thread, as it will stand by its own?
Is this thread better written or worse written than the original?
Is this even more biased than the original thread starter?
Am I just trying to piss people off?

Take a deep breath. Review. Otherwise, you just encourage rude behavior in the furm with your new thread.