| Replies
|
|
|
matto
|
Posted at 7:25 am on Oct. 6, 2008 |
| wooo functionality! Thank you |
|
|
The Oath
|
Posted at 12:01 am on Oct. 6, 2008 |
| I sometimes end up doing it out of laziness (re-adding a post/topic), especially if the issue is really clear-cut. |
|
|
iconoclast
|
Posted at 11:41 pm on Oct. 5, 2008 |
Quote: from The Oath at 1:15 am on Oct. 6, 2008
Quote: from draino at 1:12 am on Oct. 6, 2008
Quote: from The Oath at 12:11 am on Oct. 6, 2008
I don't think it should have been deleted.
then re-add it?
If I were to re-add it without first discussing it with another moderator, it would be the equivalent of spitting on their face. 
sometimes i like to do that |
|
|
wOlF
|
Posted at 10:32 pm on Oct. 5, 2008 |
| If you feel that topics were removed in error, then state your argument in a clear organized fashion in a Moderator error report. Making this topic will serve to get less done than submitting an MER. My apologies: You did do one. I would agree with The Oath, tbh. |
|
|
matto
|
Posted at 10:27 pm on Oct. 5, 2008 |
| My topic was an independent topic that did not go further than "relating" to the other deleted topics, it was in and of itself an authentic random musing that was sparked by some of the other topics. |
|
|
wOlF
|
Posted at 10:22 pm on Oct. 5, 2008 |
| One spam topic was deleted and the other ones were deleted because they were directly related to the other topics listed. That is a better word than "related." If you make a topic about a topic and said topic gets deleted your "reply to that topic" so to speak goes with it. Edit: In response to this:
so now topics cannot relate to each other? OOPS THERE GOES 95% OF ALL TOPICS ON LW, GET WORKING LACKY 
|
|
|
matto
|
Posted at 10:18 pm on Oct. 5, 2008 |
Quote: from dreamweaver at 10:16 pm on Oct. 5, 2008
*yawn* Your points are... well, pointless. You're rather a stubborn one today, arn't ya? 
you're reasons are...well, reasonless give me some reasons, and give me some answers. how come all these off topic replies in this topic aren't being deleted? |
|
|
cum funnel
|
Posted at 10:18 pm on Oct. 5, 2008 |
Quote: from dreamweaver at 10:16 pm on Oct. 5, 2008
*yawn* Your points are... well, pointless. You're rather a stubborn one today, arn't ya? 
Putting assumptions as reasons for deletion is pointless. It needs to stop happening. A moderator taking something, thinking it means one thing, and running with it is not fair. You might be responsible for keeping things spam-less, but to act as if you know what the poster was thinking just because of when the topic was made is near-senile behaviour. |
|
|
draino
|
Posted at 10:17 pm on Oct. 5, 2008 |
Quote: from Justins Luvmuffin at 12:17 am on Oct. 6, 2008
Quote: from draino at 1:15 am on Oct. 6, 2008
Quote: from Justins Luvmuffin at 12:14 am on Oct. 6, 2008
Quote: from draino at 1:14 am on Oct. 6, 2008
Quote: from mtllcrckmn at 12:12 am on Oct. 6, 2008
Quote: from draino at 6:11 am on Oct. 6, 2008
lawls
You warned for pr0n too? 
yes i do. why? 
Did you get warned for the Julia thing? 
nope,i told some dude to kill his stalker. 
That's stupid. It's not insisting harm on an lw member, it's insisting harm upon a PERSON. We shouldn't be labeled as "lw members." Therefore, you shouldn't have been warned 
inorite |
|
|
draino
|
Posted at 10:17 pm on Oct. 5, 2008 |
Quote: from The Oath at 12:15 am on Oct. 6, 2008
Quote: from draino at 1:12 am on Oct. 6, 2008
Quote: from The Oath at 12:11 am on Oct. 6, 2008
I don't think it should have been deleted.
then re-add it?
If I were to re-add it without first discussing it with another moderator, it would be the equivalent of spitting on their face. 
ah,okay. |
|
|
Justins Luvmuffin
|
Posted at 10:17 pm on Oct. 5, 2008 |
Quote: from draino at 1:15 am on Oct. 6, 2008
Quote: from Justins Luvmuffin at 12:14 am on Oct. 6, 2008
Quote: from draino at 1:14 am on Oct. 6, 2008
Quote: from mtllcrckmn at 12:12 am on Oct. 6, 2008
Quote: from draino at 6:11 am on Oct. 6, 2008
lawls
You warned for pr0n too? 
yes i do. why? 
Did you get warned for the Julia thing? 
nope,i told some dude to kill his stalker. 
That's stupid. It's not insisting harm on an lw member, it's insisting harm upon a PERSON. We shouldn't be labeled as "lw members." Therefore, you shouldn't have been warned |
|
|
cum funnel
|
Posted at 10:16 pm on Oct. 5, 2008 |
Quote: from Justins Luvmuffin at 10:14 pm on Oct. 5, 2008
Quote: from matto at 1:13 am on Oct. 6, 2008
Quote: from dreamweaver at 10:12 pm on Oct. 5, 2008
If it was "building upon another topic", then shouldn't you think it would be posted within that topic? With this excuse you just used... it still would have been deleted. 
so now topics cannot relate to each other? OOPS THERE GOES 95% OF ALL TOPICS ON LW, GET WORKING LACKY
You gotta admit, dreamweaver, he makes a good point 
SORRY THAT IS NOT ALLOWED WEEEEEOW WEEEEEOW |
|
|
dreamweaver
|
Posted at 10:16 pm on Oct. 5, 2008 |
| *yawn* Your points are... well, pointless. You're rather a stubborn one today, arn't ya? |
|
|
The Oath
|
Posted at 10:15 pm on Oct. 5, 2008 |
Quote: from draino at 1:12 am on Oct. 6, 2008
Quote: from The Oath at 12:11 am on Oct. 6, 2008
I don't think it should have been deleted.
then re-add it?
If I were to re-add it without first discussing it with another moderator, it would be the equivalent of spitting on their face. |
|
|
draino
|
Posted at 10:15 pm on Oct. 5, 2008 |
Quote: from Justins Luvmuffin at 12:14 am on Oct. 6, 2008
Quote: from draino at 1:14 am on Oct. 6, 2008
Quote: from mtllcrckmn at 12:12 am on Oct. 6, 2008
Quote: from draino at 6:11 am on Oct. 6, 2008
lawls
You warned for pr0n too? 
yes i do. why? 
Did you get warned for the Julia thing? 
nope,i told some dude to kill his stalker. |
|
|
Most recent 15 of 33 previous replies displayed. |