Why are flat earth discussions moved or deleted?

Jake the Muss

Red Belt
@red
Joined
Jan 14, 2005
Messages
7,513
Reaction score
2,397
Why can't we discuss the answers in this video? Maybe somebody on this forum can explain.

 
Why can't we discuss the answers in this video? Maybe somebody on this forum can explain.


Hi, Jake.

Threads more or less conspiratorial in nature whose aims dispute otherwise canonical knowledge have always been housed in The Dump. Because I'm unsure what content specifically is prompting you to ask, is there anything you'd like for me to look at besides the above vid?
 
Hi, Jake.

Threads more or less conspiratorial in nature whose aims dispute otherwise canonical knowledge have always been housed in The Dump. Because I'm unsure what content specifically is prompting you to ask, is there anything you'd like for me to look at besides the above vid?

This is not meant to be defiant, but is there a specific reason why canonical knowledge is off the table for discussion?

My concern is that if canonical knowledge is in fact incorrect, then we would never be able to ratify it since any opposition is shut down.

If you are open to watching the vid, I would be open to reviewing any canonical knowledge that can address the interviewers questions.

Thanks!
 
This is not meant to be defiant, but is there a specific reason why canonical knowledge is off the table for discussion?

My concern is that if canonical knowledge is in fact incorrect, then we would never be able to ratify it since any opposition is shut down.

If you are open to watching the vid, I would be open to reviewing any canonical knowledge that can address the interviewers questions.

Thanks!
I understand and I appreciate your civility in broaching the issue.

I reckon the heart of the matter is less what is and is not deemed canonical but rather that this site has not within its function or scope the platform to contend against nor establish such explicanda.

There are online, non-MMA fora dedicated to which but for our community here, such is not the goal and lies off-pitch, so to say. I was open to watching the entire video and in fact did; thank you for sharing it, Jake.
 
You can still discuss the subject, but the Mayberry Lounge isn't the section for that topic.

Mayberry is geared more towards light hearted general discussion. Any thread on Religion, Government Conspiracies, Aliens, etc. tends to get moved to that section.

I would agree with possibly renaming The Dump to something else that would suit those topics better.
 
I would agree with possibly renaming The Dump to something else that would suit those topics better.
Seconded. Step one in a greater destigmatisation process for topics neither quite WR nor Berrian.
 
Jake you were clearly trolling and avoiding questions directly asked to you repeatedly because you knew they'd have ended the discussion. Making extra threads because you wanted more attention just makes the trolling all the more obvious.

Thank you mods for keeping trolling that obvious contained, the forum has enough of it.
 
Jake you were clearly trolling and avoiding questions directly asked to you repeatedly because you knew they'd have ended the discussion. Making extra threads because you wanted more attention just makes the trolling all the more obvious.

Thank you mods for keeping trolling that obvious contained, the forum has enough of it.

Thank you king mod ,

Anything to keep that mythical creature scyther at bay
 
You can still discuss the subject, but the Mayberry Lounge isn't the section for that topic.

Mayberry is geared more towards light hearted general discussion. Any thread on Religion, Government Conspiracies, Aliens, etc. tends to get moved to that section.

I would agree with possibly renaming The Dump to something else that would suit those topics better.

If so The Dump should become navigable from the main sub-forums list
 
Jake you were clearly trolling and avoiding questions directly asked to you repeatedly because you knew they'd have ended the discussion. Making extra threads because you wanted more attention just makes the trolling all the more obvious.

Thank you mods for keeping trolling that obvious contained, the forum has enough of it.


If that's the case send this his shit to the OT (@Lethal @Valhoven) we have a spot for new trolls over there. We could test drive his threads and see if could make/handle the cut


<{1-16}>
 
I understand and I appreciate your civility in broaching the issue.

I reckon the heart of the matter is less what is and is not deemed canonical but rather that this site has not within its function or scope the platform to contend against nor establish such explicanda.

There are online, non-MMA fora dedicated to which but for our community here, such is not the goal and lies off-pitch, so to say. I was open to watching the entire video and in fact did; thank you for sharing it, Jake.

Hi Valhoven,

I wanted to get some input on a separate matter of my own, but felt I rather post in a similar thread topic than start one of my own. Should this thread have been re-labelled "Misleading title:", or for that matter is this lock-worthy?

> http://forums.sherdog.com/threads/m...-the-street-i-would-run-his-ass-over.3673549/

Not that it has been locked, but one user has certainly lobbied for it.

It was originally titled "Tim Bradley:" {quote} which was replaced with the aforementioned "Misleading title:", likely due to user bias. I was also accused of cherry-picking, which by the very nature of a thread title it indeed IS. A thread for a certain topic; if others felt the interview at hand had other points to discuss, then they are free to talk about it or even start their own thread if mine makes them uncomfortable.
 
Last edited:
Hi Valhoven,

I wanted to get some input on a separate matter of my own, but felt I rather post in a similar thread topic than start one of my own. Should this thread have been re-labelled "Misleading title:", or for that matter is this lock-worthy?

> http://forums.sherdog.com/threads/m...-the-street-i-would-run-his-ass-over.3673549/

Not that it has been locked, but one user has certainly lobbied for it.

It was originally titled "Tim Bradley:" {quote} which was replaced with the aforementioned "Misleading title:", likely due to user bias. I was also accused of cherry-picking, which by the very nature of a thread title it indeed IS. A thread for a certain topic; if others felt the interview at hand had other points to discuss, then they are free to talk about it or even start their own thread if mine makes them uncomfortable.
Hi, Saku.

So, while I understand your clickbait universalis argument, the defining line, as I see it, is drawn between content edited for attention with regard to message, and then conversely without.

Cherry-picking within this paradigm is one believing here that you edited for attention without regard to message, i.e., what Bradley himself was saying and then your 'branding' of which came off either insincere or then too easily misinterpreted. While the latter is certainly no crime, there are arguments present in your thread for why the former was suspected, and you were proportionally as free to argue against those claims, as is also present. You see the balance there, yes?

On locking, once a thread gets underway, it too belongs in a sense to those who have contributed to it, and not just TS. So, it would be unjust of me to oblige. If you feel at some point your thread has gone off the rails and no longer has any talking points to speak of, let me know and I can have a look at that time. Alternatively, if you refrain from further posting in it, it will likely see burying and no longer be an issue.
 
We shall henceforth rename the dump High Creative Writing because we are a bunch of savages
 
TS only wants to troll so don't feel bad about deleting those threads.
 
Hi, Saku.

So, while I understand your clickbait universalis argument, the defining line, as I see it, is drawn between content edited for attention with regard to message, and then conversely without.

Cherry-picking within this paradigm is one believing here that you edited for attention without regard to message, i.e., what Bradley himself was saying and then your 'branding' of which came off either insincere or then too easily misinterpreted. While the latter is certainly no crime, there are arguments present in your thread for why the former was suspected, and you were proportionally as free to argue against those claims, as is also present. You see the balance there, yes?

On locking, once a thread gets underway, it too belongs in a sense to those who have contributed to it, and not just TS. So, it would be unjust of me to oblige. If you feel at some point your thread has gone off the rails and no longer has any talking points to speak of, let me know and I can have a look at that time. Alternatively, if you refrain from further posting in it, it will likely see burying and no longer be an issue.


While you touched it very diplomatically, I do feel you didn't answer my query, or perhaps I misinterpreted it your answer. Should it have been renamed or not?

Because at the end of the day, the title is just to grab attention to spark the discussion. In this case, I absolutely disagree that it was a "misleading title", it was a quote from Bradley himself. It was an inflammatory one, but that's what's supposed to spark the discussion, not derailment to where the discussion is about the title as a way to perhaps ignore or excuse Bradley's quote itself. Kind of an ad hominem of sorts.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top