Why was my topic deleted?.

[J-Studham]

Why was my topic about gnfr deleted?

JamesnfrStedham.

[MCT]

Why was my topic about gnfr deleted?

Because you smell like mustard.

[Christos AG]

Why was my topic about gnfr deleted?

JamesnfrStedham.

Go read the rules and you'll find the answer to your question.

Something you should have done before you started posting.

[Kujo]

Shouldn't this be in the Dead Horse section?

[Krispy Kreme]

Why was my topic about gnfr deleted?

JamesnfrStedham.

It happens all the time. Sadly, there  are  no rules  and everything is arbitrary. Mods  can do what  they want whenever they want. You are  at the mercy of people being reasonable, and often  that does not  happen. It  is a fact.

Your  choices: exit or deal with  it. I speak from experience. I  now  have  exercised "self-censorshp" just like in Putin's Russia--I choose to start threads ONLY after thinking if they will be deleted or not, and even then sometimes  I am wrong. Welcome  to 1933. And welcome to HTGTH.

[Kujo]

The post was deleted because it was one of 5 that popped up discussing that website. It is clearly stated in Jarmos rules that we aren't to discuss that site. Its not like he said something and Christos or whoever disagreed.

It might not be a bad idea however to post a sticky in the GnR section so the new posters can have a constant reminder of the policy regarding gnfnr.com

[Christos AG]

The post was deleted because it was one of 5 that popped up discussing that website. It is clearly stated in Jarmos rules that we aren't to discuss that site. Its not like he said something and Christos or whoever disagreed.

It might not be a bad idea however to post a sticky in the GnR section so the new posters can have a constant reminder of the policy regarding gnfnr.com

There is a sticky about the rules, and gnfr.com is included, but most of the newbies don't seem to care...

[Pandora]

I  now  have  exercised "self-censorshp" just like in Putin's Russia--I choose to start threads ONLY after thinking if they will be deleted or not, and even then sometimes  I am wrong.

That's not self-censorship, that's what you're supposed to be doing all the time. If everyone thought before posting, mods wouldn't have so much work. I don't think it's too much to ask for people to think if the topic has already been discussed or not, if it's allowed or not, if it's in the right section or not, etc...Everyone can help keep an orderly board.

[jarmo]

I? now? have? exercised "self-censorshp" just like in Putin's Russia--I choose to start threads ONLY after thinking if they will be deleted or not, and even then sometimes? I am wrong. Welcome? to 1933. And welcome to HTGTH.

It's 2006, I think it's reasonable to assume people who can login, click on links and use the computer to actually know how to use the search, how to read (for example the posting guidelines) and so on.

Maybe you think it's censorship when you have to think before posting. For your own sake I hope you occasionally think before you speak in your day to day life....




/jarmo

[Krispy Kreme]

I? now? have? exercised "self-censorshp" just like in Putin's Russia--I choose to start threads ONLY after thinking if they will be deleted or not, and even then sometimes? I am wrong. Welcome? to 1933. And welcome to HTGTH.

It's 2006, I think it's reasonable to assume people who can login, click on links and use the computer to actually know how to use the search, how to read (for example the posting guidelines) and so on.

Maybe you think it's censorship when you have to think before posting. For your own sake I hope you occasionally think before you speak in your day to day life....


/jarmo

Thank you for the advice. I will certainly take it into consideration.
1. censorship is indeed  different from thinking. If you read my post carefully, the nuance is clear.
2. when I start to write my 12th academic book in the autumn, I will take your advice and try to put some  thought into it.

[pilferk]

Thank you for the advice. I will certainly take it into consideration.
1. censorship is indeed? different from thinking. If you read my post carefully, the nuance is clear.
2. when I start to write my 12th academic book in the autumn, I will take your advice and try to put some? thought into it.

There is a pretty big fundamental difference between "moderation" and "censorship".

Since you're an acedemic, apparently, how would you feel if one of your students sat in your classroom and constantly derailed the topics of conversation?? Or revisted unrelated topics that were discussed previously?? Or started talking about Calculus during your Comp and Lit Lecture?? ?Not only would it be frustrating to YOU, as the teacher, trying to get your point across, but it would be frustrating to the other students who were trying to get something out of your lecture.

Structure is not censorship.? Moderation is not censorship.? If you disagree with the "bent" and direction that moderation takes in this forum (and I think they are both pretty lenient and pretty clear what the rules are), perhaps it's best not to complain about it (since you know that's not going to be effective), and either do something about it or go to a forum that more closely meets YOUR ideals of what moderation should be.? It seems a simple concept that any acedemic should have no issue comprehending.   In fact, you even mention is in your post.  So why continue to complain when you know it has no effect?  Or do you think it might sway posters into leaving as well? 


To the OP:? gnfr is a subject, given it's controversial nature, that jarmo thinks best left off the board.? If you want to discuss it, I know chinesedemocracy.com has/had a huge thread on it going.

[Will]

What is beyond me is that people actually still believe whatever is going on at gnfr.com...I mean, hasn't anyone realized that this guy...whoever he is - hmm whatever...always puts his "insider's info" or whatever you call it after it happens?? I mean come on, give me a break. Some lame guy puts up a fake "complete CD leak" on mininova...after a few hours it's become very clear that it's fake. And then, oddly enough gnfr.com is updated and the guy posts something like "Don't be fooled by fake leaks" or whatever (sorry I just looked at it real quick). Oh yeah, that must be his insider's info.
I guess in a way, it's good that it gets people's minds occupied while waiting for the CD, trying to solve "riddles" which do not have a point really. Wasn't he supposed to give out some real info after a countdown about 4 years ago? Hmmm...

[pilferk]

Will.....

You're discussing what we're not supposed to discuss.



Though I will say a few things, since you brought it up:

1) At this point, it being "real" seems pretty remote.

2) To the sites credit, it did relaunch just hours before the new PR that Axl and the band released about Rio and Storming NYC.

3) Most of those following it are doing so for the "right" reasons.? Because it's interesting and a neat mental excersize.? I've posted, a few times, over at cd.com warning people that management has said it's not legit, and informing them of what happened back in '02...so not to expect too much.

4) And yes...the countdown thing was pretty much when gnfr.com jumped the shark.? Man, that pissed us all off.

[Will]

You're discussing what we're not supposed to discuss.

I had to get this off my chest because this gnfr.com thing really gets on my nerves. lol

4) And yes...the countdown thing was pretty much when gnfr.com jumped the shark.  Man, that pissed us all off.

And yet, people still believe in it.

[Krispy Kreme]

Thank you for the advice. I will certainly take it into consideration.
1. censorship is indeed? different from thinking. If you read my post carefully, the nuance is clear.
2. when I start to write my 12th academic book in the autumn, I will take your advice and try to put some? thought into it.

There is a pretty big fundamental difference between "moderation" and "censorship".

Since you're an acedemic, apparently, how would you feel if one of your students sat in your classroom and constantly derailed the topics of conversation?? Or revisted unrelated topics that were discussed previously?? Or started talking about Calculus during your Comp and Lit Lecture?? ?Not only would it be frustrating to YOU, as the teacher, trying to get your point across, but it would be frustrating to the other students who were trying to get something out of your lecture.

Structure is not censorship.? Moderation is not censorship.? If you disagree with the "bent" and direction that moderation takes in this forum (and I think they are both pretty lenient and pretty clear what the rules are), perhaps it's best not to complain about it (since you know that's not going to be effective), and either do something about it or go to a forum that more closely meets YOUR ideals of what moderation should be.? It seems a simple concept that any acedemic should have no issue comprehending.? ?In fact, you even mention is in your post.? So why continue to complain when you know it has no effect?? Or do you think it might sway posters into leaving as well??


To the OP:? gnfr is a subject, given it's controversial nature, that jarmo thinks best left off the board.? If you want to discuss it, I know chinesedemocracy.com has/had a huge thread on it going.

I agree with you 100%--there is a huge difference between moderation and censorship, and indeed, between moderation and self-censorship. One need not be an academic to understand this basic difference. My point, which spoke directly to the thread, was that one has to exercise self-censorship (which entails thinking) when starting a thread. Why? Because some threads are deleted for no good reason at all. Arbitrarily, at the whim of  whoever is the moderator at the time. No reason, no basis, no consistency, just 'I do it because I can.' It has happened to me time and time again, especially in The Jungle, which should be the most lenient of all. Thus, one has to try to predict what will be an 'acceptable' thread to the mods and hope that one has guessed correctly.

Thus, I am not talking about staying on topic (I agree with that policy), and I am not talking about insults or other infractions, with which  I also agree. I am talking about the arbitrary use of 'power' by some mods to delete threads with no reason other than they can. That is a real problem I have encountered in The Jungle. And that is why there are frequent threads in the Admin section asking 'why was my thread deleted.'

[jarmo]

And that is why there are frequent threads in the Admin section asking 'why was my thread deleted.'

Because in many cases the thread was merged with a similar one. It appears like it was deleted because it might not have the same subject anymore.



/jarmo

[pilferk]

I agree with you 100%--there is a huge difference between moderation and censorship, and indeed, between moderation and self-censorship. One need not be an academic to understand this basic difference. My point, which spoke directly to the thread, was that one has to exercise self-censorship (which entails thinking) when starting a thread. Why? Because some threads are deleted for no good reason at all. Arbitrarily, at the whim of? whoever is the moderator at the time. No reason, no basis, no consistency, just 'I do it because I can.' It has happened to me time and time again, especially in The Jungle, which should be the most lenient of all. Thus, one has to try to predict what will be an 'acceptable' thread to the mods and hope that one has guessed correctly.

Thus, I am not talking about staying on topic (I agree with that policy), and I am not talking about insults or other infractions, with which? I also agree. I am talking about the arbitrary use of 'power' by some mods to delete threads with no reason other than they can. That is a real problem I have encountered in The Jungle. And that is why there are frequent threads in the Admin section asking 'why was my thread deleted.'

Honestly, I've not seen a thread deleted, in any section, that didn't violate the rules.

The one mentioned by the OP, for example, was discussing gnfr. ?The rules clearly state that topic is a no no. ?No self-moderation there, other than to be able to understand the rules, which you agreed to when you created your account and took on the priviledge of being able to post here, and abide by them.

In the Jungle, for the longest time, political threads were (and may still be) considered a no no. ?And it said so in a post at the top of the page. ?Again, no self moderation other than understanding the rules and abiding by them.

That, of course, is not to say it hasn't happened. ?But the fact of the matter is that when the person POSTING a thread complains about it's deletion, and asserts it didn't violate any rules...you must admit the source is not exactly the most unbiased on the matter. ?Not knowing the content of the posts, it's tough for me to give you an objective view, too.

But it still leads us back to the fact that, if you disagree with the mods use of their power, why stay and complain when you know it will have absolutely zero effect? ?Unless you percieve that you are going to alert the rest of the membership to this percieved injustice?

[pilferk]

And that is why there are frequent threads in the Admin section asking 'why was my thread deleted.'

Because in many cases the thread was merged with a similar one. It appears like it was deleted because it might not have the same subject anymore.



/jarmo

And couldn't he just check his last posts to see where it had appeared?

I'm not being snarky, I'm just not exactly sure how that feature works...if it moves, does the link in your last posts change or does it point to the "broken" message?

[jarmo]

Yes, the posts should show up in the latest posts list.



/jarmo

[makane]

Are you planning on doing something for the weekend? ie. you could remove the ability to create new threads if you have under 20 posts or something?
The board will be bloated. It would be nice to actually find the real info from the garbage can after the shows.