King Crimson wrote:Willy Nilly wrote:Want an example of a snide, targetted-at-someone PERSONALLY, post, that had absolutely nothing at all to do with the thread it was placed on?
Could all the mod's who ignored this - and all the WM supporters exlain how this is within the AUP please?
Nothing at all constructive added to a serious and well meant thread, but hi-jacked for a totally unnecessary cheap dig at a respected female poster.
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=28776
And please don't say that no-one was named in the post, because we all know full well who it was aimed at.
A little list from me:
1) There is an assumption that unless a post is outside the AUP, it is within it.
2) PRECISELY please, how is that post a breach of the AUP?
3) If mods/admin started to moderate posts on the basis of them not adding to constructive discussion, we may have our hands full and rightly be accused of qualititive censorship.
4) I have no idea of even how to re-size a big picture on here, let alone ban someone with multiple IPs etc. I'll claim the 'clueless' defence cited by Cully above please.
Oh, and 5) There's only one thing worse than being talked about, and that's not being talked about. Talk about giving WM the 'oxygen of publicity'. Well done, guys.
Cop-out.
Posts have been removed on here for mentioning a 'bot' thing that can be 'googled'. What's the difference between that and a veiled reference to another female poster?
And I never suggested that a non-constructive post be removed for being non-constructive, I suggested that it should be removed because, apart from being non-constructive, it was obviously used as a vehicle for yet another 'stalkeresque' jibe at another member. Do you not see that?
Also, I didn't realise that there was grey area between being within and outside of, the AUP.
Surely, either it is, or it isn't :?
And, nothing personal, K C, but if you admit to being 'clueless' , why an administrator?