Debates, proposals, complaints, (dis)agreement with moderator's decisions

[big bad fab]

I agree with homelycooking.

[Beta Ray Bill is the best pony]

I'm about ready to begin, but should I include Albert Einstein in my survivor or not? (He was Person of the Century)

[Magic 8-Ball]

I say include Einstein.

[big bad fab]

Yes !

Plus on est de fous, plus on rit !
The more, the merrier.

[homelycooking]

Would anyone be interested in a literary survivor involving the novels of, say, Dostoyevsky or Burgess or Nabokov (my favorite), or more contemporary writers like Grisham or Crichton? Or would anyone like to suggest something? Ideally we would have a survivor on a writer whose works many people have read.

I was also thinking of doing something with Ayn Rand, because I hate her so much.

[big bad fab]

I wouldn't take part in any of them, fwiw.

I almost only read history, politics or religious books (and comics...)

[big bad fab]

Am I dreaming or KS21 has deleted his survivor on Congressmen from Mississipi river states ?!?

My goodness, all this time lost !

[Magic 8-Ball]

You're not dreaming, Fab.  Flakes and bad apples and all that.

[Hans-im-Glück]

In the last time it give many Survivors about movies.

Is there some interest in a Survivor about the "Best Western Movies of all times"?

[big bad fab]

Fine !

[homelycooking]

Not for me.

[Magic 8-Ball]

I'm game.

[Hatman]

How is my survivor less worthy than the survivor on Westerns or on Asterix? Neither are political, historical, etc.  You mention geography in the rules, I don't see how my new survivor is not geographical.

[Јas]

I must second Earl on the ostensible unfairness of this locking. It looks like a random cracking of the whip.

What exactly is the "heart of this sub-board"? There are, as Earl cites, plenty of survivors that have little or nothing to do with "politics, economy and geography".

The sub-heading for the board indicates it is for "All Survivor Game Threads". Asking Earl to take his survivor thread to the Off-Topic Board would therefore seem to be contrary to the implied purpose of the board as written, presumably, by Dave.

I'll add that I'm not particularly interested in Earl's proposed survivor, and don't have any particular intention of taking part. It just seems that this specific moderating action strikes as contrary to the very purpose of the board.

[Hatman]

Thank you, Jas.

My survivor is indeed geographical too, as I have divided the sports teams into geographical areas and will be eliminated based on geography.

Perhaps if it were a survivor dealing with players, then I can see your point (however, I object to your rules anyways, but my survivor does not break them)

[homelycooking]

I think that bbf objected to that survivor because of its primary focus on athletics. It's just very hard to draw bright lines demarcating where "geography" and "history", encouraged themes, begin and where discouraged ones like athletics or popular culture (I suppose) end.

[Hatman]

I think that bbf objected to that survivor because of its primary focus on athletics. It's just very hard to draw bright lines demarcating where "geography" and "history", encouraged themes, begin and where discouraged ones like athletics or popular culture (I suppose) end.

Well, I am more interested in the geographical nature of the survivor.

Sports teams and geography can go hand in hand, see the "CommonCensus" project: http://www.commoncensus.org/sports.php

It's very interesting to see what areas of the US support what sports teams.

A lot of choosing what sports teams to eliminate will be based on geography.

[big bad fab]

SPECIFIC RULES FOR SURVIVORS / MANAGEMENT OF SURVIVORS:

Of course, we are on a political forum, in an "election and history games" board, so survivors allowed here will only deal with elections, politics, history (political, military, social, economic, religious,...), geography, economics, sociological matters.
I am entitled to lock any survivor with a theme that doesn't fit that rule.
We need to keep as many active survivors as we can on the main page. So, the threads that do not abide by the rules will be deleted quickly.

Please re-read the rules: they are here from the beginning.
This sub-board is about "human sciences", if you want.
The other games of the entire board are all political or historical or related to these matters. Survivors should be also. And should I repeat that it is named "Election and History Games" ?

Dave has created it because some mods and some forumers were fed up with mushrooming survivors on US politics. So, basically, as this is the case with this forum (never forget it: off-topic and forum community were created only to avoid a mess in the other boards), we're here to talk about politics, elections, history, geography, philosophy, etc. Not about sports.
And when I say geography, I of course don't refer only about a division of lists by geographical limits.

Of course, as I've already said, an Olympic Games survivor would be allowed as it is obviously (though partly) political, historical and economical.

Asterix and Tintin have historical and political context and content, even historical and ideological debates on them.
Westerns are of course historical "works" (and even some had a political dimension at the time they were made !).

All of you know I've deleted threads on Pokémon (Libertas' idea, remember ? ).
And I've said Sandra Bullock or even Ingmar Bergman would'nt fit the rules .

I've already said rules can't be STRICTLY set and there is of course always a problem of limit. The mod is here for this.

But here it's clear.
(your link is interesting Earl, but your survivor has of course no sociological dimension, I'm sorry).

And may I have to add that this is nothing personal ?
I allow survivors in which I don't take part in, like the fine one of Earl on Canadian cities.

I've locked the thread so that Earl can save his lists because I'm respectful of others' work.
Locking isn't infracting or reporting of course.
Since the beginning one year ago, I've moderated one post, by deleting a photo which was a bit rude. That's all.

Other forumers, like homelycooking, have asked if it would be allowed before launching a survivor. When there is a doubt, that's better to do it.

Thanks for your attention and thanks for reading and re-reading the RULES topic .

[big bad fab]

If I'm not very active until Thursday, that's not because of this little debate (which can continue freely of course !), but because I'm very busy and have just had some bad news about one of my boys (nothing horrible, but a real disagreement though).

[Hatman]

Did you even visit this site? http://www.commoncensus.org/sports.php

This is a friggin' geography forum, and my survivor is of the interest of geography.

Please reconsider!

[big bad fab]

I've said it, I've visited it and it's indeed interesting.
But your survivor is a different thing.

And you're not forbidden to launch your survivor in the entire forum. So this specific moderating action, as Jas called it, is very smooth...

Just put it in the Off-Topic Board, where Gramps has recently organized 2 survivors on forumers, without any problem either and with a decent turnout (EDIT: sorry, it was in the Forum Community board; but the Pokémon survivors were in the Off-Topic board; there were even some failed Bond survivors too, some months ago).

BTW, I (really) think the turnout would be better there than here for your survivor.

Call it stubbornness but I don't see a real good reason to let this survivor here.
Otherwise, I already see some less serious forumers than you using this precedent to invade our small sub-board with survivors that don't qualify as "elections and history games".


BREAKING !
One of the great moderators of the Off-Topic Board has just confirmed (without being asked to, BTW) that this board would of course allow your survivor.

I won't move it in a "dictatorial" manner, but if you want me to do it, so that you don't even have to copy your own post, I'll do it. Just let me know.

[Hatman]

Ugh.

Alright, you can move it.

But I am disappointed by your subjectivity. I'm still not satisfied with the ruling, and I will make no more survivors here out of protest.

[big bad fab]

Ugh.

Alright, you can move it.

Done.

EDIT: I've moved it without having first unlocked it, believing it would have unlocked automatically. But I've asked one mod of the Off-topic board to unlock it. It will be done quickly. And I'll delete my own post so that your thread will be clean.

But I am disappointed by your subjectivity. I'm still not satisfied with the ruling, and I will make no more survivors here out of protest.

As you wish, though I just invite you to finish the one on Canadian cities, as I know how disappointing it is for voters not to see a survivor be completed.

Rules may be disappointing for some. But, still, they are rules. And they were set the VERY day this sub-board was opened; they were as clear as possible and a thread of debate was open the VERY day this sub-board was opened.
And rules always let a space for interpretation, a task done by judges.
And a moderator acts like a judge, especially in a sub-board which is a game.

[big bad fab]

http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=130219.0

So that every regular user of this sub-board is well informed, here is the link to a thread entitled "Moderator abuse by Big Bad Fab" (sic).
(EDIT: and there is now something of a debate about all this... Everyone can take part in it, of course !
But I don't know if I'll argue for a long time, though )

And to be complete, Earl has reported the post in which I've explained why I've locked his thread and in which I've suggested him to re-create in the Off-topic board.
This is my first post reported . So, my triple 0 in my profile is dead .

[Hatman]

It appears to still be locked