NationStates Jolt Archive

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=383236

And yet another anti-bush and anti-rummy thread comes into view, probably the 50th one this week, the 500th one this month, and so on. Isn't there a rule which states that each topic may only have one thread? Wouldn't more than that one topic be spam? How many bush-bashing threads can there possibly be in the general forum that say the exact same thing? Is there an exception that I don't know about?

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=383236

And yet another anti-bush and anti-rummy thread comes into view, probably the 50th one this week, the 500th one this month, and so on. Isn't there a rule which states that each topic may only have one thread? Wouldn't more than that one topic be spam? How many bush-bashing threads can there possibly be in the general forum that say the exact same thing? Is there an exception that I don't know about?

There not the exact same thing in my opinion. None of the threads have broken the rules as far as I have seen. You may not like the topics.. but that's not really a reason to complain. If there were a couple of "I love the American government" threads one has to wonder if you would be in here complaining?

Well, NS does have that rule against "gravedigging", and this is what happens.

Well, NS does have that rule against "gravedigging", and this is what happens.

Yeah, they don't allow gravedigging.. that's true. Yet given the thread being complained about was only posted yesterday, it wouldn't really apply.

Oh, Steph, since you're here... Do you mind me putting you in my sig?

Yeah, they don't allow gravedigging.. that's true. Yet given the thread being complained about was only posted yesterday, it wouldn't really apply.

What I meant then, is that the rule against gravedigging would cause many multiple threads on the same topic, as one cannot post in a thread that has died off, even if it's on the same topic.

Anyway, the mods seem to have relaxed on this rule, allowing gravedigging if it's "relevant".

Oh, Steph, since you're here... Do you mind me putting you in my sig?

Sure, no problem. :)

There not the exact same thing in my opinion. None of the threads have broken the rules as far as I have seen. You may not like the topics.. but that's not really a reason to complain. If there were a couple of "I love the American government" threads one has to wonder if you would be in here complaining?

...and I wonder if you'd be defending the threads if someone came to a moderator calling hundreds of threads saying "i love bush" similar and asked the mods to do something about it?

I'm not taking politics into account. I'm taking forum rules. When there are literally hundreds of threads saying "bush is an idiot" one would think that the topic has been stated enough times. If the same thing happened with threads saying how much the x-box game halo 2 kicked ass, or that the best team in the AFC was the pittsburgh steelers, or mostly anything else, mods would take care of it or at least players would try to steer the discussion into one thread. Why not here?

Lastly, if there were only a couple of "I hate bush" or "Bush is an idiot" threads I wouldn't bother taking it to the mods. I have no problem with people who think differently than I do, and often it helps your own intellect to hear other's opinions. Unfortunately, it's hard to find topics in General when every third thread is about how america/bush/rummy/etc. "suxorz" or how they're all "idiots." It's gone far enough.

...and I wonder if you'd be defending the threads if someone came to a moderator calling hundreds of threads saying "i love bush" similar and asked the mods to do something about it?

Yeah, I think you'd get the same answer. I mean if there were 5 threads on the first page about any subject I suspect the mods would merge them. However, that doesn't seem to be the case?

Yeah, I think you'd get the same answer. I mean if there were 5 threads on the first page about any subject I suspect the mods would merge them. However, that doesn't seem to be the case?

Of course I would. Regardless...perhaps a real mod should answer my question. I thank you, because of your former position, for your imput.

Of course I would. Regardless...perhaps a real mod should answer my question. I thank you, because of your former position, for your imput.

Yeah for sure, totally understand. I am not a mod any longer. I was just trying to help.

Yeah for sure, totally understand. I am not a mod any longer. I was just trying to help.

They have a habit of agreeing with their "formers" anyhow...

Maybe I'm coming in on this a little late, but I see only one "Bush is an idiot" thread in the first three pages of the "General" forum. ...or maybe I'm just going blind.

Could you give me some links?

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation

Maybe I'm coming in on this a little late, but I see only one "Bush is an idiot" thread in the first three pages of the "General" forum. ...or maybe I'm just going blind.

Could you give me some links?

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation

That's all I seen when I looked too Cog. just FYI.

The reason I posted that link is, to be honest, I was finally fed up with it. That thread was the first thing I saw when this complaint came to mind. Now, just because the forum isn't flooded with the threads now, at this very instant, doesn't mean that its not a problem.

However, that is not even my point. The thread doesn't even have to be about bush or politics at all, and yet the phrase "bush is an idiot" or similar things still seem to make their way into the thread.

I've been sick for a while, so I really should be doing makeup work right now, but if you give me some time i'd be happy to provide you with some links.

The reason I posted that link is, to be honest, I was finally fed up with it. That thread was the first thing I saw when this complaint came to mind. Now, just because the forum isn't flooded with the threads now, at this very instant, doesn't mean that its not a problem.

However, that is not even my point. The thread doesn't even have to be about bush or politics at all, and yet the phrase "bush is an idiot" or similar things still seem to make their way into the thread.

I've been sick for a while, so I really should be doing makeup work right now, but if you give me some time i'd be happy to provide you with some links.

True, but couldn't the same be said for all the "Gay" threads and "Religion" threads? In fact the religion threads seem to be more than the Bush is an idiot threads atm.

I guess that's why they call it "General" if we couldn't discuss & debate politics, religion and other topics that should never be done while drinking..lol what would we discuss? :)

True, but couldn't the same be said for all the "Gay" threads and "Religion" threads? In fact the religion threads seem to be more than the Bush is an idiot threads atm.

I guess that's why they call it "General" if we couldn't discuss & debate politics, religion and other topics that should never be done while drinking..lol what would we discuss? :)

You're exactly right. Add "jews" and the "america vs. whoever" threads and it's rather pathetic.

Perhaps this just stems from my general dislike of most of the general forum. Perhaps.

Still, my point is that I was always under the impression of "one topic - one thread," and now I'm wondering if that's just common curtesy or an actual rule, given that you and I have provided a good number of examples of topics that break it.

The only place I've ever seen "one topic - one thread" enforced is in the UN forum when discussing the current proposal at vote. Certainly here and in Technical topic starting could be effectively shut down in favor of about 12 different 'Master topics'. There is nothing but repetition in here.

I've been 'slapped' by General posters for suggesting there was already a topic on a hot subject: "STFU dude, that one's *at least* three hours old. It's already on page four!" That attitude is a big part of why I don't bother much with General these days.

You're exactly right. Add "jews" and the "america vs. whoever" threads and it's rather pathetic.

Perhaps this just stems from my general dislike of most of the general forum. Perhaps.

Still, my point is that I was always under the impression of "one topic - one thread," and now I'm wondering if that's just common curtesy or an actual rule, given that you and I have provided a good number of examples of topics that break it.

It's always been my understanding that if the thread is exact as the other, then yes, they get merged. However, you can get many threads about a subject that are not exactly on the same issue, but are about the same subject. I have always thought this was the difference when I made decisions on such issues.

Of course you'd have to get that answer from a real mod, but that has always been my understanding.

Still, my point is that I was always under the impression of "one topic - one thread," and now I'm wondering if that's just common curtesy or an actual rule, given that you and I have provided a good number of examples of topics that break it.
I have to double-check with the other Mods, but I think the official position is: One specific subject, one thread. That is, a related, but not identical, subject would get its own topic. We Mods don't get any more involved than that unless a group of related threads are starting to flood General, in which case we may limit how many are active at once. Recent examples that come to my mind are the "Ask a...." and "What if you had a child that...?" threads.

Whether or not the "Bush and Co. are idiots" threads qualify for such treatment can only be determined when a Moderator has reviewed the series of threads in question. As it doesn't seem to be a problem right this moment, we won't take action. If you give us links later, they'll likely be links to topics that have become inactive, so we still won't take action, but I* can try to determine whether or not action would be called for.

* The Mods are all busy, so I can't speak for the other Mods; if it's not a current problem, then we can't guarantee that the Mod Squad will take the time to render an opinion on it.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
"Think about it for a moment."

I have to double-check with the other Mods, but I think the official position is: One specific subject, one thread. That is, a related, but not identical, subject would get its own topic. We Mods don't get any more involved than that unless a group of related threads are starting to flood General, in which case we may limit how many are active at once. Recent examples that come to my mind are the "Ask a...." and "What if you had a child that...?" threads.

Whether or not the "Bush and Co. are idiots" threads qualify for such treatment can only be determined when a Moderator has reviewed the series of threads in question. As it doesn't seem to be a problem right this moment, we won't take action. If you give us links later, they'll likely be links to topics that have become inactive, so we still won't take action, but I* can try to determine whether or not action would be called for.

* The Mods are all busy, so I can't speak for the other Mods; if it's not a current problem, then we can't guarantee that the Mod Squad will take the time to render an opinion on it.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
"Think about it for a moment."

Alright. I guess I just await the final results after I give links.

Also, I know the jobs of a moderator, being one at numerous large sites myself, are time-consuming (let alone *gasp* real life duties...lol), so perhaps I should wait for a time when it is "more" of a problem.