Wow... so Mumbles' anti-Republican posts get nuked, but this anti-Obama one doesn't?
I nuked them myself. Once Kryo locked up Dark Knights thread they had no real benefit.
Given that this thread was over a month old it was effectively nuked as well and dredging it up is really of no benefit.
However you are correct in noticing a disparity in the treatment of threads based on their apparent political leaning. There's certainly nothing new in that. It also really shouldn't surprise you as that's just the way the world works. Go over to the Democratic Underground and try to post something from a conservative perspective and see how far you get. Of course the difference is that DU has over 100,000 active participants whereas here there are about a dozen but otherwise they'll very similar except from an opposite perspective.
No big deal one way or the other, the Stardock sites are simply conservatively biased. There's certainly no shortage of such sites, this is but one among many. The only thing is that a site that's as right wing as World Net Daily shouldn't pretend to be neutral. You should embrace what you are and not pretend to tolerate all viewpoints or pretend to enforce rules equitably.
If you're liberal and you wish to be on any of Stardock's forums you simply have to resign yourself to being a second class citizen whose opinions not only don't matter but by definition are *wrong*. You also need to be resigned to being treated as a doormat and that's where I get in trouble. You have to lie down before you can be a doormat and I have trouble lying down.
So the question is what are the rules? Not just what are the written rules but what are the actual criteria both written and unwritten used to define what is or is not acceptable.
Earlier I quoted a few of the written rules from the terms of use page one of which specifically prohibit "stalking" (by which I assume means someone following someone else around and intentionally being disruptive in pretty much any thread in which that someone else participates). This is not something that I've ever done however it is what Dark Knight has done and it would be what Dr. Guy and a handful of the Joe Loser crowd would do if I allowed it by not blacklisting them.
Also there are "unwritten" rules which in many cases are stronger than the written rules. The unwritten rules have allowed me to post political related threads in the Off-topic forum as long as they remained "moderately civil". Of course the problem is that "moderately civil" is a subjective term and as such there are no hard and fast criteria. It's like porn, hard to define but you know it when you see it. So OK, I've been perfectly willing to accept that and to self moderate and/or be perfectly happy accepting the arbitrary decision of the moderators.
However my premise is that I truly despise the Joe User site per se and have no interest in associating with the folks there and so if one of my threads "crosses the line" and the mods feel it needs to be moved to Joe User then my response is to simply delete the thread. If in fact if it is decided that the Off-topic forum is to have a zero tolerance policy for any threads even remotely political then fine as well, I am perfectly willing and able to abide by *all* forum rules both written or unwritten.
However what I will not do is to be forced onto a site I despise and so if indeed there is a zero tolerance policy for political threads in the Off-topic forum then I will simply not post any such threads. However I would also expect to not be subject to the right wing equivalent in the Off-topic forum as well.
So what *are* the rules?
