Why lock?

[elwoodblues]

Why lock the racism thread? Seems silly to me.

If this:
[ QUOTE ]
Redbean, since yesterday evening, you have made 76 posts with the word "racist" in it. We get your point. Take the day off to digest my point.


[/ QUOTE ]
is the standard, can we do the same for people who have x number of posts with the words AC or Ron Paul in them? Of course he has a large number of posts with the word racism in them --- he created a thread about racism with "racism" in the title. I would expect as much.

[adios]

iron may be acting on orders, guidelines from higher ups on this site.

[W brad]

Come on, no one really cares about Ron Paul, he has no chance to make it to POTUS.

I think Iron locked the thread because of the link about a major candidate that I had posted in the thread. (link) [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]

[img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]
Why lock the racism thread? Seems silly to me.

If this:
[ QUOTE ]
Redbean, since yesterday evening, you have made 76 posts with the word "racist" in it. We get your point. Take the day off to digest my point.


[/ QUOTE ]
is the standard, can we do the same for people who have x number of posts with the words AC or Ron Paul in them? Of course he has a large number of posts with the word racism in them --- he created a thread about racism with "racism" in the title. I would expect as much.

[/ QUOTE ]

76 posts in one day is pretty ridiculous. Redbean is a reasonable guy on just about all topics except race. That thread needed to be locked, there was nothing productive left to say in it. Good judgement iron.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
Good judgement iron.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm willing to wager a small amount of money iron was prodded to lock via PM, and his "judgment" merely involved capitulating to whichever Ron Paul acolyte PMed him about locking it and temp-banning RedBean.

Maybe adios is right that it came from the higher-ups, but I doubt it. Maybe it was it was completely of his own will, but I doubt that, too.

[Mempho]

It's a crusade by RedBean that borders on spamming?? I have no problem with the lock because the point has been discussed over and over and over many times with nothing new being added to the argument.

Further, the title is quite misleading.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
I have no problem with the lock because the point has been discussed over and over and over many times with nothing new being added to the argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because this is a standard the politics forum consistently adheres to?

The entire discussion was ludicrous, from RedBeans crusade to the ridiculous justifications some Paul supporters made, but I think it's obvious what happened: RedBean pissed off this forum, which is little more than an arm of the Ron Paul campaign at this point, and one (or a few) of those pissed off Paul advocates probably PMed iron...and iron, who's mission in Politics mostly involves trying to satisfy the mob, did what he was told and brought the temp-ban hammer on RedBean. I may be completely wrong -- Iron says it was his decision -- but I doubt it. It was clearly his decision, but like I said, I'm willing to wager iron had 5+ PMs/Notify Moderator messages from angry Paul campaigners, which prompted him to take action.

Either way, "engaging in repetitive and fruitless discussions" and "hammering a point home" have never, ever been a moderating standard the Politics forum has been subject to. That it was applied here is, as I said, likely indicative of the fact that RedBean's form of crusading pissed off this forum's vocal, starry-eyed Paul supporting members.

[TVMH]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have no problem with the lock because the point has been discussed over and over and over many times with nothing new being added to the argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because this is a standard the politics forum consistently adheres to?

The entire discussion was ludicrous, from RedBeans crusade to the ridiculous justifications some Paul supporters made, but I think it's obvious what happened: RedBean pissed off this forum, which is little more than an arm of the Ron Paul campaign at this point, and one (or a few) of those pissed off Paul advocates probably PMed iron...and iron, who's mission in Politics mostly involves trying to satisfy the mob, did what he was told and brought the temp-ban hammer on RedBean. I may be completely wrong -- Iron says it was his decision -- but I doubt it. It was clearly his decision, but like I said, I'm willing to wager iron had 5+ PMs/Notify Moderator messages from angry Paul campaigners, which prompted him to take action.

Either way, "engaging in repetitive and fruitless discussions" and "hammering a point home" have never, ever been a moderating standard the Politics forum has been subject to. That it was applied here is, as I said, likely indicative of the fact that RedBean's form of crusading pissed off this forum's vocal, starry-eyed Paul supporting members.

[/ QUOTE ]

In the "Watch Out" thread, I saw RedBean's behavior as disingenuous.

Regardless of the myriad examples that were presented that demonstrated Dr. Paul's criticism of racism, RedBean seemed to always retort something to the effect of "but that doesn't change the fact that he's a racist."

That borders on taunting, IMO (much like referring to those with particular political beliefs as "starry-eyed" could be construed as taunting.)

And for the record, I didn't send any PM's to iron; I exercised my right to ignore RedBean once I realized that he was being unreasonable.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
It was clearly his decision, but like I said, I'm willing to wager iron had 5+ PMs/Notify Moderator messages from angry Paul campaigners, which prompted him to take action.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll admit to this much: I did push the "notify moderator" button (before anyone else!) in one of the other threads where RB responded to some post about RP with a simple, out of the blue "Ron Paul is a racist" with no additional comment. Note, this was probably the first time he used the word "racist" in that spree, and it had nothing to do with the point being discussed (and RB has been big on yelling at others to "stay on the topic at hand").

Also note, I'm not "angry" and I'm not particularly a Ron Paul supporter. I mean, if someone put a gun to my head and made me vote, I'd vote for him, but unless someone either does that or buys my vote, the smart money is on me staying home on election day.

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]
which is little more than an arm of the Ron Paul campaign at this point

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, moderated by an Obama supporter. If the other candidates did anything remotely interesting they might be getting some support on here too.