Community Chat

[Moonchilde]

mystyrion1 wrote: "The mods were extremely specific as to what they were going to allow on that thread. History doesn't need to be re-written here making this something it was not. Many people saw the mods instructions and tried to direct people back to them in an effort to get them to understand."

It was with these threads that we saw people willfully and deliberately posting just as they always had, challenging the moderators and thumbing their noses in general. They felt entitled to post their opinions in the way *they* wanted to express themselves on the issue, and rules be darned. THAT and only THAT is why those threads were deleted, no matter how many innocent protests to the contrary.

[LilacTree]

---

@terrier3 wrote:

---

@LilacTree wrote:

---

@missy1 wrote:

It was strange the mods let posters congratulate the rainbow ruling, but posters couldn't say they don't agree with it,

---

Although I agreed with the ruling, I also think it was very unfair to those who disagreed not to be able to voice their opinions.

Frankly, I have never cared what consenting adults do in their personal lives as long as no one is being hurt.

---

Ford - they COULD disagree on my thread - just not insult people personally. 

---

My cable was down for a whole day and there were many important threads that I missed.  I did not see the initial thread, only what has been posted in this one.  If individuals were getting personal and injecting religion, then those posts were rightfully deleted.

[SydneyH]

---

@missy1 wrote:

It was strange the mods let posters congratulate the rainbow ruling, but posters couldn't say they don't agree with it,

---

Thank you, it was past juvenile.....no scratch that, the high school I attended allowed for respectful debates, lol.

[mstyrion 1]

---

@terrier3 wrote:

---

@LilacTree wrote:

---

@missy1 wrote:

It was strange the mods let posters congratulate the rainbow ruling, but posters couldn't say they don't agree with it,

---

Although I agreed with the ruling, I also think it was very unfair to those who disagreed not to be able to voice their opinions.

Frankly, I have never cared what consenting adults do in their personal lives as long as no one is being hurt.

---

Ford - they COULD disagree on my thread - just not insult people personally. 

---

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

agree terrier.

don't believe some of the complaints you are reading about that thread, Ford. The story is re-written and like any story that goes through several re-tellings, it's getting further and further from the truth.

The mods laid out specific instructions about what could and could not be mentioned. The thread was intentionally de-railed by posters who wouldn't abide by those requests.

[SydneyH]

Not true, dissenters of the decision were 'invited' NOT to post on that thread.  If that isn't peculiar I don't know what is..........

[SusieQ_2]

---

@Moonchilde wrote:
mystyrion1 wrote: "The mods were extremely specific as to what they were going to allow on that thread. History doesn't need to be re-written here making this something it was not. Many people saw the mods instructions and tried to direct people back to them in an effort to get them to understand."

It was with these threads that we saw people willfully and deliberately posting just as they always had, challenging the moderators and thumbing their noses in general. They felt entitled to post their opinions in the way *they* wanted to express themselves on the issue, and rules be darned. THAT and only THAT is why those threads were deleted, no matter how many innocent protests to the contrary.

---

From what I saw those "innocents" came from both sides of the discussion. Those who voiced their disagreement and those who couldn't stand to not reply back. As is most always the case in these situations, neither side is truly without any blame. 

[biancardi]

---

@mstyrion 1 wrote:

---

@terrier3 wrote:

---

@LilacTree wrote:

---

@missy1 wrote:

It was strange the mods let posters congratulate the rainbow ruling, but posters couldn't say they don't agree with it,

---

Although I agreed with the ruling, I also think it was very unfair to those who disagreed not to be able to voice their opinions.

Frankly, I have never cared what consenting adults do in their personal lives as long as no one is being hurt.

---

Ford - they COULD disagree on my thread - just not insult people personally. 

---

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

agree terrier.

don't believe some of the complaints you are reading about that thread, Ford. The story is re-written and like any story that goes through several re-tellings, it's getting further and further from the truth.

The mods laid out specific instructions about what could and could not be mentioned. The thread was intentionally de-railed by posters who wouldn't abide by those requests.

---

That is so true. The mods were very specific in their comments. @SydneyH, even in HS debate teams, you have to follow certain rules. The mods were clear and people just wanted to ignore it and continued to argue with posters. They were not debated the topic at hand, they were arguing with posters about the moderation as well.

[biancardi]

---

@SydneyH wrote:

Not true, dissenters of the decision were 'invited' NOT to post on that thread.  If that isn't peculiar I don't know what is..........

---

no, that isn't true.  There were people who stated that they disagreed with it   Those posts stood.  The ones that went on and on about the decision, bringing up politics, the Constitution, and religion - those were the posts that were not allowed on that thread, which is what the mods stated when they removed those posts.

[brii]

Either people are gong to learn how to post within the parameters of what the mods will allow or they won't. 

Feel free to challenge them, but don't be surprised when you get the boot. 

(you in the general sense, not anybody specific)

[Moonchilde]

"From what I saw those "innocents" came from both sides of the discussion. Those who voiced their disagreement and those who couldn't stand to not reply back. As is most always the case in these situations, neither side is truly without any blame."

The original celebratory thread *begged* posters, throughout, to simply express their feelings in ways that would NOT get the thread poofed. 95% of the posters enjoying the happiness in the thread adhered to that. Perhaps 5% did not. So yes, one can say there was blame on both sides, but some was due to anger at others deliberately trying to have a thread that *was staying within the rules* deleted if they could manage it. I'm not saying everyone who posted in either thread was trying for trouble, certainly not. But it was the troublemakers who prevailed, hence the deletion.