A Request to Forum Moderators

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

Although, as an aside, I do find that one of our local “anarchists” (Dustin) is pleading for some top-down rules ironic and humorous. Not picking on you, Dustin - just noting the irony.[/quote]

I know you are just messing with me, but I never asked for any rules.

I have said it in several posts already, but I’ll repeat it again. I would like for the existing rules, and apparently there are some in place, to be clarified.

I certainly hope that TC doesn’t come back with a laundry list of rules for posting in this forum as I enjoy how crazy it gets sometimes. Also, because you guys would never let me hear the end of it since I started this thread.

My gut feeling is that there are only a few general guidelines, but they are not always enforced. I just want to know what they are.

82

[quote]phaethon wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

Think about what you just wrote and how non-analogous it is. You COULD rewrite it and possibly come up with something better but as it stands…it doesn’t stand.[/quote]

Could you point out the problem? I do realize it was not the best analogy but I think the core point still holds.

It is difficult to make an apt analogy because I don’t know what the deleted posts said. So I am guessing a little.

From my understanding however it went like this:

  1. IrishSteel creates a thread praising and honoring US service men/women.
  2. Other posters come in and say that people serving in the US military are not worthy of praise nor are they honorable.
  3. Mods deem other posters posts unacceptable and delete them.

Now for my analogy (in a slightly more general, and more apt, form).

  1. Person X creates a thread praising Muslims.
  2. Other posters come in and say that Muslims (in general) are not worthy of praise nor are they honorable.
  3. Mods deem other posters posts unacceptable and delete them.
    [/quote]

This is pretty much how it went down from my perspective. I saw the posts before they were deleted as well and the gist of content has been posted in this thread. Questioning whether the soldiers should have such a tribute is definitely on topic (how is questioning the topic of the thread not on topic?) and should be allowed, even if people don’t agree with it.

Yes it is one of the most sensitive subjects that can come up, but it is the people who have a problem with that content that should suck it up, not the people getting censored. The parallel to the Westboro church and protests at funerals is ridiculous, this is a thread on a site known for it’s loose bounds and open discussions in the forum that has the most open and heated discussions.

It’s a great sacrifice the soldiers make, but whether they are doing the right thing (not just in their missions but in how those missions are carried out) is an important question and one that shouldn’t be avoided just because people can’t deal with that discussion.

Now if the reason for the deletion had been that this is T-Nation’s decision that honoring the troops should not be questioned, then that is a rule they are allowed to make and while it’s a stupid rule, it should be followed. However, while it seems that was the sentiment of the mod, it certainly isn’t a rule and wasn’t given as the reason. As a result, I think the censorship was done in poor taste.

83

[quote]NAUn wrote:

[quote]phaethon wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

Think about what you just wrote and how non-analogous it is. You COULD rewrite it and possibly come up with something better but as it stands…it doesn’t stand.[/quote]

Could you point out the problem? I do realize it was not the best analogy but I think the core point still holds.

It is difficult to make an apt analogy because I don’t know what the deleted posts said. So I am guessing a little.

From my understanding however it went like this:

  1. IrishSteel creates a thread praising and honoring US service men/women.
  2. Other posters come in and say that people serving in the US military are not worthy of praise nor are they honorable.
  3. Mods deem other posters posts unacceptable and delete them.

Now for my analogy (in a slightly more general, and more apt, form).

  1. Person X creates a thread praising Muslims.
  2. Other posters come in and say that Muslims (in general) are not worthy of praise nor are they honorable.
  3. Mods deem other posters posts unacceptable and delete them.
    [/quote]

This is pretty much how it went down from my perspective. I saw the posts before they were deleted as well and the gist of content has been posted in this thread. Questioning whether the soldiers should have such a tribute is definitely on topic (how is questioning the topic of the thread not on topic?) and should be allowed, even if people don’t agree with it.

Yes it is one of the most sensitive subjects that can come up, but it is the people who have a problem with that content that should suck it up, not the people getting censored. The parallel to the Westboro church and protests at funerals is ridiculous, this is a thread on a site known for it’s loose bounds and open discussions in the forum that has the most open and heated discussions.

It’s a great sacrifice the soldiers make, but whether they are doing the right thing (not just in their missions but in how those missions are carried out) is an important question and one that shouldn’t be avoided just because people can’t deal with that discussion.

Now if the reason for the deletion had been that this is T-Nation’s decision that honoring the troops should not be questioned, then that is a rule they are allowed to make and while it’s a stupid rule, it should be followed. However, while it seems that was the sentiment of the mod, it certainly isn’t a rule and wasn’t given as the reason. As a result, I think the censorship was done in poor taste.
[/quote]

so start your own discussion thread already . . .

84

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

[quote]NAUn wrote:

[quote]phaethon wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

Think about what you just wrote and how non-analogous it is. You COULD rewrite it and possibly come up with something better but as it stands…it doesn’t stand.[/quote]

Could you point out the problem? I do realize it was not the best analogy but I think the core point still holds.

It is difficult to make an apt analogy because I don’t know what the deleted posts said. So I am guessing a little.

From my understanding however it went like this:

  1. IrishSteel creates a thread praising and honoring US service men/women.
  2. Other posters come in and say that people serving in the US military are not worthy of praise nor are they honorable.
  3. Mods deem other posters posts unacceptable and delete them.

Now for my analogy (in a slightly more general, and more apt, form).

  1. Person X creates a thread praising Muslims.
  2. Other posters come in and say that Muslims (in general) are not worthy of praise nor are they honorable.
  3. Mods deem other posters posts unacceptable and delete them.
    [/quote]

This is pretty much how it went down from my perspective. I saw the posts before they were deleted as well and the gist of content has been posted in this thread. Questioning whether the soldiers should have such a tribute is definitely on topic (how is questioning the topic of the thread not on topic?) and should be allowed, even if people don’t agree with it.

Yes it is one of the most sensitive subjects that can come up, but it is the people who have a problem with that content that should suck it up, not the people getting censored. The parallel to the Westboro church and protests at funerals is ridiculous, this is a thread on a site known for it’s loose bounds and open discussions in the forum that has the most open and heated discussions.

It’s a great sacrifice the soldiers make, but whether they are doing the right thing (not just in their missions but in how those missions are carried out) is an important question and one that shouldn’t be avoided just because people can’t deal with that discussion.

Now if the reason for the deletion had been that this is T-Nation’s decision that honoring the troops should not be questioned, then that is a rule they are allowed to make and while it’s a stupid rule, it should be followed. However, while it seems that was the sentiment of the mod, it certainly isn’t a rule and wasn’t given as the reason. As a result, I think the censorship was done in poor taste.
[/quote]

so start your own discussion thread already . . . [/quote]

I’m certainly not saying I agree with him, just that he should be able to voice that opinion. I realize war is not a neat and clean process and sometimes things happen that people don’t want to hear about from the comfort of their own home. I have the highest respect for our troops.

85

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
<<< so start your own discussion thread already . . . [/quote]
I really do wish this is how it would go. I just can’t get myself to embrace the denial to idiots their right to be such on an international bodybuilding site. It would be different if this place were something like wwww.salutethetroops.com where it’s purpose was to recognize our armed forces.

Of course this isn’t my site so take my opinion for what it’s worth. I hope I’m not being misunderstood as somebody who thinks less of our military because of this.

86

[quote]Dustin wrote:
As to not gum up the works in the US Armed Forces worship thread, it was suggested to me to start a separate thread for my particular request.

Would the PWI forum moderators, at their earliest convenience, please post a “sticky” thread outlining forum does and donts?

Thanks[/quote]

We need rulz or else there will be…ANARCHY!!!

Hahaha!

87

476×570 29.2 KB

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:

You don’t understand what’s going on here.

People type what they think - and get censored.

To me, that happened in aforementioned thread of yours and at least twice before that.

One time it was about religion and yes, it wasn’t about critisizing the Mahabharata.

I just want clarity; apparently, some mods are very sensitive and don’t wish to let us debate american military culture or their idols (although it’s super-ok to praise them endlessly).

So just hand out that censorship list!
[/quote]

So what did you post that was censored?[/quote]

One time I tried to post this pic and it got removed because all of the sudden we are not allowed to make fun of Christ – which this is obviously doing?!

88

LMAO!!! LIFTY FTW!!!

89

[quote]Mod Jump’N Jack wrote:
To add of point of clarification about a recent instance of moderation that prompted the creation of this thread:
A member posted in the “US Armed Forces Tribute Thread” with comments that were entirely opposite from the topic of that thread.[/quote]

So if I start a thread, “US Military Members Are All Murderers” and someone comes in and posts an opposite viewpoint it will get deleted? Interesting.

Why bother even having discussion at all if we have to start a new thread every time we want to argue a point?

90

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Although, as an aside, I do find that one of our local “anarchists” (Dustin) is pleading for some top-down rules ironic and humorous. Not picking on you, Dustin - just noting the irony.[/quote]

There is nothing ironic about it. Anarchy does not mean “no rules.” It means no monopoly of aggression to enforce the rules.

The PWI forum is a perfect example of anarchy in action. This is a perfectly peaceful place to discuss ideas and it is completely voluntary whether we participate or not.

Personally, as an aside -- I think we all should be able self moderate by voting on posts and if they get too many "thumbs down" then the posts can be hidden from view unless a member chooses to see it.  We can also report posts that would bring ill repute to TNATION.

Anarchy rules!!
91

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Although, as an aside, I do find that one of our local “anarchists” (Dustin) is pleading for some top-down rules ironic and humorous. Not picking on you, Dustin - just noting the irony.[/quote]

There is nothing ironic about it. Anarchy does not mean “no rules.” It means no monopoly of aggression to enforce the rules.

The PWI forum is a perfect example of anarchy in action. This is a perfectly peaceful place to discuss ideas and it is completely voluntary whether we participate or not.

Personally, as an aside -- I think we all should be able self moderate by voting on posts and if they get too many "thumbs down" then the posts can be hidden from view unless a member chooses to see it.  We can also report posts that would bring ill repute to TNATION.

Anarchy rules!![/quote]

Lets go turn over some cars, and break windows, and stuff.  Anarchy is the Shiznit.
92

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Dustin wrote:
<<< I’m convinced that man had to be drunk at least 50 percent of the time he was posting here.[/quote]
I got to know him pretty good, even some away from this site. There was no indication I could discern anyway that he did any excessive drinking. I think I’m gonna drop him a line and see if I can talk him in to coming back. I doubt it though. He is every bit as mule headed as Professor X.[/quote]

Yea, me and him were mutually respectful of each other. Politics aside we got along excellent. [/quote]
I sent him an email, but like I say he is one stubborn dude. It’s no secret he and Shugart were not exactly falling into each others arms. I just realized it’s been 2 years since he left already.[/quote]

I spoke to him on another site we both frequent…he is most certainly not coming back (his words).

Without him, Zap, Angry Vader, Kuz, and the rest of some oldies…it’s just not as much fun anymore.

93

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
Lets go turn over some cars, and break windows, and stuff. Anarchy is the Shiznit.[/quote]

Isn’t that how the military protects your freedom and shit overseas???

94

[quote]UtahLama wrote:
Without him, Zap, Angry Vader, Kuz, and the rest of some oldies…it’s just not as much fun anymore.[/quote]

You sentimental old sap!

Grow a pair of testicles already.

Fun is what you make. Get over it.

95

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:
Without him, Zap, Angry Vader, Kuz, and the rest of some oldies…it’s just not as much fun anymore.[/quote]

You sentimental old sap!

Grow a pair of testicles already.

Fun is what you make. Get over it.[/quote]

Oh it’s still fun you trout squeezer…just not the same kind.

96

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
Lets go turn over some cars, and break windows, and stuff. Anarchy is the Shiznit.[/quote]

Isn’t that how the military protects your freedom and shit overseas???[/quote]

First, I do not have any freedoms and shit overseas. My freedom and shit is right here in the USA, or at least it was but soon to not be if we continue down this path.

Second, the military actually blows up stuff only when necessary.

Edit: I am being a bit sarcastic in my posts.

97

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
so start your own discussion thread already . . . [/quote]

So that is how you want PWI to be? When you disagree with someone rather than talk about it in the original thread you must make a new thread?

Sounds like a good way to ruin PWI.

98

[quote]phaethon wrote:

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
so start your own discussion thread already . . . [/quote]

So that is how you want PWI to be? When you disagree with someone rather than talk about it in the original thread you must make a new thread?

Sounds like a good way to ruin PWI.[/quote]

nope, just figured with all of the wasted energy whining about it, you could have started a new thread and blasted away to your hearts content. It seems symptomatic of people today to complain rather than just it up and get on with what you want to say. I even when and started a thread so you could bash away. The mods apparently blocked a post they thought needed blocked - kewl, it’s their site. I’d have been fine flaming shwartzenfarter for being a douche posting some stupid anti-military rant and gone on my merry way. He should have found another way of stating his opinion or started his own thread- for crying out loud it can;t be any easier to get your own rant thread going than on this site. Got a post deleted? I can deal with it. I expect some of my rants to get deleted and if they do - kewl, I reword it and try to make my point another way. What, you’re not creative enough to come up with more than one way of saying something? what’s up with all the whining, suck it up, grow a pair and get back into the discussion . . .

100

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Mod Jump’N Jack wrote:

As far as other posts which may have been deleted in the past, PMs are generally sent to explain.[/quote]

Yes, PMs are sent.

However, it matters who gets sent one a and who doesnt.

If my pictures are pulled and I get a PM explaining why, fine, but if other, far worse pictures are fine with the same Mod and those people never get a PM because their posts are not pulled the Mod in question is still biased.

The pictures in question where not the truly outrageous ones I posted, though they were likely caused by strapping young “heroes”, but the rather peaceful looking dead children, most definitely caused by the same “heroes”.

Two days later another poster posts pictures of deaths caused by “terrorists”, including blood, gore and severed limps and these pictures got through without any fuzz.

So, while what you posted is technically true, it is also neatly sidestepping the issue.[/quote]

What else would YOU expect from an American-based board?

You’re not describing anything that’s inconsistent with the views you repeatedly express about the US.

By now, you know what bigoted people we are, and you still choose to post here, so quit your whining.

Perhaps you just need to find another site which is not sullied by all the distorted, bloodthirsty character of the American people.[/quote]

I am waiting for this post to be deleted because it is obviously very off topic.