Skip to comments.Sometimes I hate zots
Posted on 10/19/2011 5:16:45 AM PDT by fightinJAG
Sometimes I hate zots!
Yes, posts can be stupid and zot-worthy, but still end up generating very useful, substantive discussion.
A lot of freepers just invested a whole bunch of good discussion time in a thread that, yes, when first posted, was zot-worthy, but which morphed into an excellent and useful discussion on the 999 plan.
Pulling such a thread, after it has developed into a solid, substantive discussion of the issues, to me, is like letting the kitties win.
At least only lock the thread so it can still be read and the posts are not deleted from everyone's account.
Many people work hard on their posts, in terms of making the best arguments they can. Disappointing to see them go poof after a couple of hundred posts just because the OP may be a troll. Punish the trolls without wiping out a good discussion.
My first and only rant vanity on FR ever.
(Excerpt) Read more at freerepublic.com ...
Yeah, but this was a thread to an article at Fox News. So . . . what is the problem?
Yes, the OP’s history was a little shakey, and he got the appropriate skepticism for that. But the overall thread was completely usual.
I don’t think the OP’s motives or posting history should be the only determinant in whether a thread that has a couple hundred or more substantive replies and a lively debate going gets zotted.
This thread was on an article at Fox News!
The problem was that the OP was a noobie and had posted 3 anti-Cain threads since joining.
Okay, so maybe that’s a problem. Maybe. If the threads are not total basketcases, and this one wasn’t, I’d say watch and see. There are plenty of old-timers here posting anti-Cain after anti-Cain (or anti-whoever) threads. SO WHAT?
The people who support Cain (or whoever) can hold their own, or not. That is all.
The freepers who get walloped the most by this type of arbitrary action are those who work the hardest to post substantive arguments and engage others in a substantive way!
We all love the one-liners and snark, me most of all. But when there’s more to a thread than that, mods should respect what feepers have invested in the discussion. If you keep walloping the people who routinely invest the most, they will feel like it’s not worth it to post.
Ticked me off to no end.
You KNOW I don’t post vanities, but that tells ya something.
Is that the case if the mod note says “pulled”? I think it says “moved” otherwise.
This one was just turned to cosmic dust.
The only comedy show on television that rips apart liberals and their agenda, and we're no longer allowed to discuss it, because some anonymous admin doesn't like potty talk.
I’m okay with censorship in the forum if that’s how JimRob wants to run it.
But what I’m not okay with is letting a thread sit there, it gets a hot and very useful substantive discussion going, extends to a couple of hundred posts and is still on fire, and along comes a mod who pulls the entire thing — all that WORK and INVESTMENT down the drain — because WHY?
Not because the OP violated the TOU. But I guess because some complained that the poster was a newbie and had posted only anti-Cain threads since signing up.
I just don’t see how that is a factor. If the articles the newbie posted were trash and troll-like, okay. But if they are normal articles, such as this one was from Fox News, they could have been posted by any freeper without drawing attention.
As I said, there are old-timers here posting multiple anti-Cain threads (or anti-whoever threads) per day. SO WHAT?
The article was worth discussing regardless of the OP’s history. And the article clearly would have been acceptable if posted by someone not a newbie.
Apart from letting the kitties win, when a thread is zotted after it develops into a good, useful and most of all substantive debate, this completely disrespects the freepers who put the most effort into debating points on the merits.
Dang. I missed it all.
Must’ve been good and hot!
No dude, it’s the double, triple, quadruple, quintuple, sixtuple threads of some trivial or even non-trivial event that are trashing this forum.
As if starting a thread earned somebody a medal or a thousand dollars.
As a lurker for years, I often wondered at the seemingly arbitrary actions of some of the Admin Mods. While I have no problem with a website admin enforcing the house rules, it must be said that the house rules around here seem to change quite a bit, and often without warning. I’m not sure what purpose such guessing games serve.
If this were my website, I’d have a two-tiered membership system. Paying customers would be Members, with full posting and commenting rights. Non-paying members would be able to read messages but not post or comment. An annual election would be held in which Members would choose the year’s Admin Mods from a slate of nominees proposed by the owner. This would improve the moderation system: arbitrary or inconsistent Mods would simply not be re-elected.
This system would also generate a predictable income for the site, ending the need for beg-a-thons.
I hope no one has been offended by these opinions. If so, my apologies.
That’s a separate problem, eh.
I sigh all over again.