This. Internet Brands really could not care less about your $20.

 

I like to pretend this is how the banning happened:

 

Whoa calm down, Bro! No need to get so upset, it's a discussion in which I am making very valid points which you fail to answer or recognize. No need to let that upset you! You missed my point with the you know...thought you would have understood what I am insinuating, but perhaps that thought was one to many. We all know why he was, that's not the point of my argument, re read what I've been saying and it should lead you...come on Master keep up!

 

I unapproved the topic initially.

1. I am an unrepentant jerk about booting things out of Off Topic Talk. IMHO, this belongs in the Site Info section, not OTT. Don't confuse "censorship" with "administrative expediency."
2. Upon first pass, this appeared to be an open and shut case, as prior action was attached to the ban.
3. Pursuant to my actions, I followed procedure and unapproved the post. That means it is at the Site Mod's discretion to wholly delete it (or keep it). Site Mods put it back in, and I tow that line. Happily.

Nothing to see here. Carry on.
[/quote]

I don't believe I confused anything...you can call it whatever you want, but removing any post is censorship. If you thought it more appropriate in another section, why not move it like all the other threads you see moved? I see threads all the time that say they were moved because the OP put them in the wrong place. Are you telling us you just delete threads because you don't think they are in the right section vs. giving the OP the opportunity to move it or move it for them?

Nothing to see here?
[/quote]
No. There isn't anything to see here, per se.

As I said, I unapproved the post, I did not remove it. This is a nuance, but it is important vis your allegations of censorship. Upon unapproval, the post (and thread) go into administrative limbo. The reason I didn't choose to move it was that I knew the nature of the forthcoming discussion: I try not to hand-off hot potatoes (without warning). More to that point, it was upon a matter which was Administrative, AND (this is the big one) about a banning. Bear in mind, we've never, insofar as I can remember as Member or Moderator, had a protracted discussion about anybody getting banned. I've never seen that previously. Prior practice has been to not discuss what has happened; and it is rarely discussed at length even among Moderators (usually it's pretty cut n' dry).

Given all that, administrative limbo, or, deferring up, was entirely the correct action given where I sit.

So, I was being a bad guy to you, and a good guy to my fellow Moderators, while abiding by the standards and practices laid out by The Site, working within the same Rules that govern Rosie's behavior, as well as yours and mine. Ultimately, what I did may have been swift, but it was done with inspection/adjudication/oversight.

Sam re-opening the thread and allowing this discussion is a new (or rare) maneuver for he, I, and the community at large.

 

Its is very much like this. If there is no financial incentive then there has to be some other form of pay off for investing time, and in cases like this its a sense of power over others, to dictate and make decisions that will be felt by others. Typically but not always, people that seek out and accept these positions of power have personal issues and usually dont have the best interest of others in mind, they are self motivated. Those of you know who you are, and the rest we appreciate your selfless efforts for community.

 

1st I am not your bro

2nd You dragged me into this when you desperately tried to compare what he said to content of forums that are not visible to guests.

3rd Rosario hardly ever posted in the Back Lot if he had - his post would have been removed by me if I saw it, but there is another moderator there & I cannot speak for him.

4th I am also not your "master"

 

Funny, I see that in people who think everything is some big conspiracy. The man is gonna get you.

 

Typically but not always, people that seek out and accept these positions of power have personal issues and usually dont have the best interest of others in mind, they are self motivated. Those of you know who you are, and the rest we appreciate your selfless efforts for community.
[/quote]
Well said, those who are in it for a power trip are quick to LAY DOWN THE f@#kIN RULES!!!!! The ones giving it a run out of a good heart are not so fast to pull the trigger. Seems someone had their POWER questioned and had to be dealt with the underling.

 

Well, "slore" isn't a word, and Rosario was annoying in my opinion.

 

I unapproved the topic initially.

1. I am an unrepentant jerk about booting things out of Off Topic Talk. IMHO, this belongs in the Site Info section, not OTT. Don't confuse "censorship" with "administrative expediency."
2. Upon first pass, this appeared to be an open and shut case, as prior action was attached to the ban.
3. Pursuant to my actions, I followed procedure and unapproved the post. That means it is at the Site Mod's discretion to wholly delete it (or keep it). Site Mods put it back in, and I tow that line. Happily.

Nothing to see here. Carry on.
[/quote]

I don't believe I confused anything...you can call it whatever you want, but removing any post is censorship. If you thought it more appropriate in another section, why not move it like all the other threads you see moved? I see threads all the time that say they were moved because the OP put them in the wrong place. Are you telling us you just delete threads because you don't think they are in the right section vs. giving the OP the opportunity to move it or move it for them?

Nothing to see here?
[/quote]
No. There isn't anything to see here, per se.

As I said, I unapproved the post, I did not remove it. This is a nuance, but it is important vis your allegations of censorship. Upon unapproval, the post (and thread) go into administrative limbo. The reason I didn't choose to move it was that I knew the nature of the forthcoming discussion: I try not to hand-off hot potatoes (without warning). More to that point, it was upon a matter which was Administrative, AND (this is the big one) about a banning. Bear in mind, we've never, insofar as I can remember as Member or Moderator, had a protracted discussion about anybody getting banned. I've never seen that previously. Prior practice has been to not discuss what has happened; and it is rarely discussed at length even among Moderators (usually it's pretty cut n' dry).

Given all that, administrative limbo, or, deferring up, was entirely the correct action given where I sit.

So, I was being a bad guy to you, and a good guy to my fellow Moderators, while abiding by the standards and practices laid out by The Site, working within the same Rules that govern Rosie's behavior, as well as yours and mine. Ultimately, what I did may have been swift, but it was done with inspection/adjudication/oversight.

Sam re-opening the thread and allowing this discussion is a new (or rare) maneuver for he, I, and the community at large.
[/quote]

Call it what you want...unapproved or removed...I call it censorship. If I would not have brought this to the attention of another mod, it would not be here...that sir is censorship. But you can continue to call it whatever fits your agenda of the day, it is not important at this point. Just wanted to make sure everyone knew what had happened. As I said previously, I applaud the fact that you brought it back to life...you could (and I must say I use the word you incorrectly at times, in this instance I am grouping the people who are running the site) have just ignored my request and moved on. I think it was the right thing to not sweep this under the rug as you have done previously with other bannings. I think this is first because everyone disagrees with the permanent ban. I am assuming that most bans are done to people the majority agree...but maybe I am wrong...
Thank you for your explanation of the process, it was helpful.