NationStates Jolt Archive

Again, a legit thread, moved to spam. I don't see how it could POSSIBLY be deemed spam this time around, at least with the last one a possibly good thread simply degenerated into something KIND OF spammy. It's not even like I blatently ignored a mod ruling, a great discussion was brewing in that thread, not in the least spammy. And, even more ridiculous, I've been warned for it?
Please reconsider. Actually read the threads, maybe?

Oh, the link:http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=540894

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13136094&postcount=6

As long as we're swapping links: Ardchoille specifically said not to reword and repost it.

And despite your assumption: they were read. They're spam. You can't even define what they're about.

I wouldn't exactly say it was clear. At all.

And I believe that was the point, it couldn't be defined, I was attempting to discover what it was exactly.

Really? In response to Marrakech II saying, "I would reword your question", Ard quoted that specifically, then posted,

"No, don't. I understood the question; I went and looked at the thread; it's spam. Spammity-spam-spam, spam-spam."

How unclear is no?

Oh! Would you look at that? http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=540785
This thread is about what people were having for dinner. But, it hasn't been moved to spam! Yet, my thread, my thread about an unknown piece of human behavior, was!

I am not reporting that thread, no way, no how. I would never do that. Merely pointing out an example.

It wasn't reworded. In the first thread, I asked if you had 'it'. In the second, I asked what 'it' was. Not the same question at all.

Oh wow, and guess what? They also didn't repost something they were told specifically NOT reword and repost! Amazing!

Not that that's what you did, nosireebob.

Oh wow, and guess what? They also didn't repost something they were told specifically NOT to repost! Amazing!

Not that that's what you did, nosireebob.

But it wasn't moved to spam in the first place, was it? But lets stop beating around the bush, and get to the real issue, please. Why is a question about an aspect of human behavior, that many, not just I OR the people in the threads believe exist, not allowed?

But it wasn't moved to spam in the first place, was it? But lets stop beating around the bush, and get to the real issue, please. Why is a question about an aspect of human behavior, that many, not just I OR the people in the threads believe exist, not allowed?

You know, to be fair, we can still discuss it in Spam.

You know, to be fair, we can still discuss it in Spam.

Agreed, but it is the principle in the action, as well as the amount of traffic the thread would receive. Which is practically none.

Agreed, but it is the principle in the action, as well as the amount of traffic the thread would receive. Which is practically none.

I appreciate your zeal and sense of the aleatoric, but the Mods have spoken.

Being Mods don't always make them right.

Being Mods don't always make them right.

(What a petulant response.)

In the context of NS, it does. What they say, goes.

The upside is that I've known the Mods to be very thorough and quick to remedy any errors or gross inconsistencies they discover. It's not a perfect system, but you won't find many better.

After reviewing the thread, it's pretty obvious that the thread itself degenerated into spam quite quickly, along with the fact that you were told to not create a new thread for it in the first place. It's not the principle of such a 'discussion' being allowed to take place here. That becomes irrelevant because of the fact that you were told to not create a new thread for it in the first place. Case closed.