NationStates Jolt Archive

I thought threads were only closed if they break the rules somehow or out of control flaming occurs. Is there a statute of limitation rule in regards to the age of an issue being discussed, or was the closing of the 'George Bush Stole 2000 elections' thread simply a whim on the part of the mod concerned?

If there was a rule broken can someone please clarify because I clearly dont know what that rule is and wouldnt want to run afoul of it in the future. I trust the mods dont go about closing threads just because they find it boring or old news, and I honestly cannot find a rule about 'no posting of something that happened more than X amount of time ago'.

I'm confused, I wondered for a moment if there were a blanket rule against certain 'politically delicate' issues that might be implicated in the thread closure, but I've not noticed similar threads being closed. Can a mod please clarify the issue for me?:confused:

While I'm not a mod, and I'm not sure if you want me to post (you probably don't), but I can clarify it. It's gravedigging, to be posting in a thread is already old and have 'died'. Gravedigging isn't neccessarily a problem really in terms of flaming, causing trouble, etc, but it's nuisance, and I guess George Bush Stole 2000 elections sounds alot like an old thread that should not be revived. There isn't really a cut-off date for a thread, but if its generally accepted to be old, and no one is posting in it, then it probably should not be revived.

While I'm not a mod, and I'm not sure if you want me to post (you probably don't), but I can clarify it. It's gravedigging, to be posting in a thread is already old and have 'died'. Gravedigging isn't neccessarily a problem really in terms of flaming, causing trouble, etc, but it's nuisance, and I guess George Bush Stole 2000 elections sounds alot like an old thread that should not be revived. There isn't really a cut-off date for a thread, but if its generally accepted to be old, and no one is posting in it, then it probably should not be revived.
media judging the mass,like nazi germany is to communism
let me laught.
and this is JENNIFER nation states site

There was no real discussion of the issue going on. There was someone posting repeatedly about elections in general being flawed. That point wasn't being debated.

And there was the original topic, which wasn't being discussed at all. Just people on one side preaching, people on the other side preaching and people who are simply tired of hearing the same tired complaints being trotted out with no debate.

They tend to close threads that are not actually sponsoring a discussion.

Jenrak, the thread was started today so I dont think it's a grave-dig issue.

Jocabia, your interpretation is inconsistent with the facts. I see 'race is/is not real' threads all the time, they share all the same features you refer to, yet they dont all get locked, many of them go for days and days, and pages and pages and pages.

The 'not real discussion' is no less real discussion than that which takes place in the majority of threads. It is quite typical for discussion to branch in threads, and much further afeild from the OP of the thread concerned, without getting locked.

So I dont think that either of the explanations either of you have offered is likely to be the right one...it's just not consistent with usual practise, and I can see no reason why the mods (or a mod) would suddenly dispense with usual practise. :confused:

I thought threads were only closed if they break the rules somehow or out of control flaming occurs. Is there a statute of limitation rule in regards to the age of an issue being discussed, or was the closing of the 'George Bush Stole 2000 elections' thread simply a whim on the part of the mod concerned?

If there was a rule broken can someone please clarify because I clearly dont know what that rule is and wouldnt want to run afoul of it in the future. I trust the mods dont go about closing threads just because they find it boring or old news, and I honestly cannot find a rule about 'no posting of something that happened more than X amount of time ago'.

I'm confused, I wondered for a moment if there were a blanket rule against certain 'politically delicate' issues that might be implicated in the thread closure, but I've not noticed similar threads being closed. Can a mod please clarify the issue for me?:confused:not a mod, but I think having a first post like this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11806426&postcount=1) does not add anything constructive to the topic.

"You all know the drill." isn't an argument, nor does it present any point of view nor anything new.

so it was hashed on these boards, rehashed and since it was investigated by proper authorities and no wrong doing found, it's nothing but a thread that would lead to flaming and trolling. not a good thing.

JuNi, the hashed and rehashed and investigated, and leading to flaming and trolling are no less true of the recurring 'race is/is not real' threads, but when and if they get locked it's after the flaming and trolling.

The suggestion about the lack of content in the OP seems more likely, poll threads with exactly that kind of OP are commonly posted without being closed, but since we can hardly expect the mods to see every thread, it's possible the others I've noticed were not closed because they were not noticed mods...

Mmm, hopefully a mod will wander in and clarify at some point - I need to get some closure on this closure issue:D

Yeah, let the Mod who handled it address this, rather than continuing to debate amongst yourselves.

As stated,"You know the drill" is not a proper topic starter. What possible reason could there be for a thread about a six year old controversy with that as the sole OP other than stirring things up?

If there was anything of substance going on, it would have been left -- like the thousands of Anti-Bush, Anti-American threads posted and left alone each day that actually DO have something pertinent to say.

Or should I have warned for trolling?

Actually, the same property applies to most of NS General... or it did two months ago, which is the last time I ever set foot in there. I'm told it hasn't changed very much since then though. Therefore, should all debate threads be closed on sight? After all, the same thing has been debated zillions of times before, and generally similar things have been said, too. Only threads with truly original topics should be kept.

Or am I complicating the issue too much by bringing logic into it? <.<

Actually, the same property applies to most of NS General... or it did two months ago, which is the last time I ever set foot in there. I'm told it hasn't changed very much since then though. Therefore, should all debate threads be closed on sight? After all, the same thing has been debated zillions of times before, and generally similar things have been said, too. Only threads with truly original topics should be kept.

Or am I complicating the issue too much by bringing logic into it? <.<

The thing is that a lot of people cycle through here--come in and leave within a fairly short time frame. It's only psychos like me who have been around for five years or so and so who have seen every possible topic debated a bajillion times. And every time there's a new wave, these topics pop up again. That's why I tend to stay out of them and stick with the ones on current issues.

Or should I have warned for trolling?I'm surprised you didn't. It seems warranted to me.

The thing is that a lot of people cycle through here--come in and leave within a fairly short time frame. It's only psychos like me who have been around for five years or so and so who have seen every possible topic debated a bajillion times. And every time there's a new wave, these topics pop up again. That's why I tend to stay out of them and stick with the ones on current issues.

*high-fives fellow psycho*

Only thing is that 95% of the current issues topics turn into debates on the same old topics again. And besides the current issues topics and rehashed debates 80% of the forum is made up of sex-starved teenaged (or older!) geeks humping each others' legs or discussing completely irrelevant other matters (that somehow get filled with innuendo as well). And that too has been going on since 2003 at least, just with different names affixed to the lines of various smileys, thinly veiled cybersex, and all-out spam.

So why not put a stop to all of these? Just saying. If this threadlock will determine NS moderation's policy, you may as well close down NS General altogether, as most of what goes on there is old issues or threads resurrected.

As stated,"You know the drill" is not a proper topic starter. What possible reason could there be for a thread about a six year old controversy with that as the sole OP other than stirring things up?

If there was anything of substance going on, it would have been left -- like the thousands of Anti-Bush, Anti-American threads posted and left alone each day that actually DO have something pertinent to say.

Or should I have warned for trolling?
Thanks for that Katganistan.

I think whether or not to rule for trolling is best left up to you and/or other mods, although I can say that I doubt anyone is keen on getting a warning...:p

I figured the reason for such a thread would be that it's kinda topical at a time when people are looking toward the next presidential election, and although I can see it is a controversial issue, I didnt actually consider the brevity of the OP in terms of wondering about the OPer's motivation. In retrospect I suppose it is more usual to actually start a discussion by saying something about the issue...mmm

I am confused about the without substance comment. It's certainly accurate with regards to the OP, and with regards to the folks who just dropped in to post that they are not interested in posting in such a thread...but I also thought there were folk posting their earnest opinions and attempting to back them up with argumentation.:confused:

Back to the point, I'm still not really clear about the rule breaking aspect, (or rather the 'distribution of rule breaking'), specifically did the problem extend beyond the OP, or are subsequent posters 'in the clear'?
Or to put it more bluntly, did I do something wrong that I need to know not to do again?

If you wanted a thread about whether Bush will "steal" the 2008 elections, then that would be a perfectly valid way to discuss the topic. (Constitutionally, GW himself can't, but I'd not be surprised to see the dynasty continue with Jeb.)

If you wanted to talk about perceived dirty politics, you could also have done so, with a first post that actually presented an argument rather than "You know the drill." "You know the drill" certainly seems lazy at best, and hoping for a mudslinging contest at best.

Poor execution, I believe, is the main problem here.

If you wanted a thread about whether Bush will "steal" the 2008 elections, then that would be a perfectly valid way to discuss the topic. (Constitutionally, GW himself can't, but I'd not be surprised to see the dynasty continue with Jeb.)
Do you mean (implicitly) that 'Bush did/didnt steal 2000 elections' is an off-limits as a stand-alone topic (ie is considered trolling, kinda like the blanket rule about election gloating and similar)?

If you wanted to talk about perceived dirty politics, you could also have done so, with a first post that actually presented an argument rather than "You know the drill." "You know the drill" certainly seems lazy at best, and hoping for a mudslinging contest at best.
Aha, I can see (since you and JuNi pointed it out) that the lack of effort/substance in the OP doesnt exactly indicate a deep desire (on the OPer's part) to discuss the issue, (which in the context of an obviously controversial issue does kinda call the motivation of the OPer into question)...

Poor execution, I believe, is the main problem here.
So, (coming back to my obsession with self here) does this mean that the problem is only the OP and I dont have to fret that I'm inadvertently breaking some rule....?

Do you mean (implicitly) that 'Bush did/didnt steal 2000 elections' is an off-limits as a stand-alone topic (ie is considered trolling, kinda like the blanket rule about election gloating and similar)?

While I really should let Kat speak for herself, I think she's implying that it's ok to start a topic about Bush's theft or lack thereof of the 2000 elections -- or anything else for that matter -- as long as you write a longer, more detailed, better researched, and less trollbaity first post. Or something.

While I really should let Kat speak for herself, I think she's implying that it's ok to start a topic about Bush's theft or lack thereof of the 2000 elections -- or anything else for that matter -- as long as you write a longer, more detailed, better researched, and less trollbaity first post. Or something.

That's actually a very interesting assessment. Are you suggesting that Zagat is altering Kat's argument and arguing against it? Hmmm...

And, yes, the original thread started with no arguments on topic and never got better.

That's actually a very interesting assessment. Are you suggesting that Zagat is altering Kat's argument and arguing against it? Hmmm...

And, yes, the original thread started with no arguments on topic and never got better.

No, I'm just trying to interpret the scriptures handed down from our Gods.... er, mods.

But Kat didn't really mention anything about the 2000 elections in her post, so I may be wrong, it might be a dead and gone topic. I've seen other discussions of historical events (especially wars) before though, so I'm assuming it's ok as long as you make an actual, logical argument.

No, I'm just trying to interpret the scriptures handed down from our Gods.... er, mods.

But Kat didn't really mention anything about the 2000 elections in her post, so I may be wrong, it might be a dead and gone topic. I've seen other discussions of historical events (especially wars) before though, so I'm assuming it's ok as long as you make an actual, logical argument.

It seems like she was pretty clear. I'm a little surprised there's a debate about what she meant when her post was quite clear. She didn't say the topic was the problem. She said the lack of substance was the problem. The same thing you said and I said and several others said. It appears that some don't like that as an explanation.

Do you mean (implicitly) that 'Bush did/didnt steal 2000 elections' is an off-limits as a stand-alone topic (ie is considered trolling, kinda like the blanket rule about election gloating and similar)?
The topic alone is not "untouchable" -- the title and complete lack of posting a premise for discussion was.


Aha, I can see (since you and JuNi pointed it out) that the lack of effort/substance in the OP doesnt exactly indicate a deep desire (on the OPer's part) to discuss the issue, (which in the context of an obviously controversial issue does kinda call the motivation of the OPer into question)... Yup.


So, (coming back to my obsession with self here) does this mean that the problem is only the OP and I dont have to fret that I'm inadvertently breaking some rule....?
Correct. If there had been some sort of point of view posed that discussed how/why the election was stolen, discussed future elections -- in sum, laid out some basis for argument that connected to that title -- the thread would not have been closed.

Now I don't know about the rest of you, but I question the efficacy of continuing to flog this deceased equine...

Thanks for clearing that up Katiganistan.:D