Potential Rule Change

[moon]

pramjockey;

But canvassing them directly would indicate that their opinion somehow matters more than the rest of ours. And, since some of those who you would canvas are the source of the problem, you get the fox guarding the henhouse.

And what problem would that be ? Two mods have given differing offerings, one has neglected to offer his interpretation at all. You might as well burden me with yours as you claim to have identified something specific . What problem ?

[Captain Trips]

Good crackerjacks, you folks STILL farting around here with this ?

There's a forum with B.S. to .... B.S. about.

You could get a hobby

This is obviously going nowhere. But I knew that at the start

[pramjockey]

Originally Posted by moon

pramjockey;


And what problem would that be ? Two mods have given differing offerings, one has neglected to offer his interpretation at all. You might as well burden me with yours as you claim to have identified something specific . What problem ?

Thread after thread after thread on basically the same topic. They may quote different articles, or use different sources, but it's the same basic thing.

Examples could be

"Gays are Icky!"

Or

"Obama is Fucking Amazing"

The various iterations of threads like this (only examples - no accusation intended) don't add anything to the forums. They only serve to displace other topics that are actually interesting.

Now, threads that are part of a larger conflict would not be an issue. Example: if I start a thread on a Palestinian bombing of a bus in Israel, and then start another thread on an Israeli sniper shooting of a civilian, those clearly are of different topics and different events, even though they are in under the umbrella of Palestine/Israel. Those threads would not be spam.

Make sense?

[pramjockey]

Originally Posted by Captain Trips

Good crackerjacks, you folks STILL farting around here with this ?

There's a forum with B.S. to .... B.S. about.

You could get a hobby [IG]http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y96/Thane1/kneeslap.gif[/IMG]

This is obviously going nowhere. But I knew that at the start [IMG]http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y96/Thane1/rollaugh.gif[/IG]

And, thank God that you're here to provide such amazing insight, and to help facilitate a good discussion!

[Captain Trips]

Originally Posted by pramjockey

And, thank God that you're here to provide such amazing insight, and to help facilitate a good discussion!

But of course.

Because there's such a "good discussion" to be HAD in this one

There.

Now you can piss and bitch about MY use of smilies

If not that, I'm sure you'll find something to dredge up.

[moon]

pramjockey;

Thread after thread after thread on basically the same topic.

That won't do. 'War' is a topic. Two threads focusing on war itself do not constitute 'spam'. Your attempt at a definition of what this proposal is supposed to address doesn't come any closer to a clarification than anybody else's.

I'll say again, without an adequate definition this proposal is a licence to censor.

[pramjockey]

Originally Posted by Captain Trips

But of course.

Because there's such a "good discussion" to be HAD in this one [IM]http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y96/Thane1/kill.gif[/IMG]

There.

Now you can piss and bitch about MY use of smilies

If not that, I'm sure you'll find something to dredge up.

More amazing insights!

All of us are in awe of your ability to really bring a conversation to the highest possible level!

[pramjockey]

Originally Posted by moon

pramjockey;


That won't do. 'War' is a topic. Two threads focusing on war itself do not constitute 'spam'. Your attempt at a definition of what this proposal is supposed to address doesn't come any closer to a clarification than anybody else's.

I'll say again, without an adequate definition this proposal is a licence to censor.

Oh, for fuck's sake. Why did you parse out the part of the post that addressed your concern?

[Captain Trips]

Originally Posted by moon

pramjockey;


That won't do. 'War' is a topic. Two threads focusing on war itself do not constitute 'spam'. Your attempt at a definition of what this proposal is supposed to address doesn't come any closer to a clarification than anybody else's.

I'll say again, without an adequate definition this proposal is a licence to censor.

Moon,

Hey man, stop activating and encouraging this waste of time thread.

Surely there are real topics that would render more constructive (or even deconstructive even) results.

This really is wasting you and everyone elses time.

[moon]

Oh, for fuck's sake. Why did you parse out the part of the post that addressed your concern?

Because it wasn't a definition. It was an interpretation of something yet to be defined by means of invented examples. If you can turn it into a definition then do it.

Trips;

Surely there are real topics that would render more constructive (or even deconstructive even) results.

Surely there are, but there might not be if people fail to protect their rights as members.

[pramjockey]

Originally Posted by Captain Trips

Moon,

Hey man, stop activating and encouraging this waste of time thread.

Surely there are real topics that would render more constructive (or even deconstructive even) results.

This really is wasting you and everyone elses time.

If it's such a waste of time, why are you exerting so much effort in the thread?


I know, you like the attention and everything, but couldn't you just go post a "Fags are bad, Gwar rocks" thread if this one really bothers you that much?

[pramjockey]

Originally Posted by moon

Because it wasn't a definition. It was an interpretation of something yet to be defined by means of invented examples. If you can turn it into a definition then do it.

Multiple threads on a narrow topic that involve only minor variations from each other with no discrete events or other obvious differentiators.

[Traveler]

Originally Posted by moon

Because it wasn't a definition. It was an interpretation of something yet to be defined by means of invented examples. If you can turn it into a definition then do it.

Isn't every rule down to interpretation at the end of the day? Why is this so different?

[moon]

pramjockey;

Multiple threads on a narrow topic that involve only minor variations from each other with no discrete events or other obvious differentiators.

That's pretty good. That certainly moves anything I might post out of the reach of potential censorship by the unelected.

If this proposal was intended to be adopted as a rule, which the OP states it isn't, then that's the sort of definition it would require. It removes much of the temptation for ' power-pruning' which might overcome the sensibilities of the partisan and the bored. Ambiguity is the Devil's flatulence, as they say.

Traveler;

Isn't every rule down to interpretation at the end of the day?

Oops ! Pardon.

[drgoodtrips]

I'm not especially interested in the last several pages of this, but thought it fair to address the length of the poll nonetheless. I created the thread thinking that we'd get a general feeling from the site membership as to how popular/unpopular this measure would be. The time of the poll was somewhat arbitrary, but I thought that most would get a chance to see/vote within a week. What I didn't want was people dredging this thread up by voting months from now when the thread is no longer relevant.