Do you think that funadvice has a discretionary definition for questions?

What is novel about someone of a particular political bent… addressing some point he wishes to direct the nature of his… YES!… QUESTION… towards? I have done this before. I have read others before. Why isn’t it based on my intention instead of someone’s narrow interpretation of what constitutes a question? Taken in context with my post… it is obvious to anyone that my “vague” title pertained to their opinion regarding the events of 9/11. Certainly… we could have resolved the issue of what category I intended the question to fall under… had you asked me. Instead you have taken it upon yourself to decide MY intentions. Why? What standards in your interpretation of the guidelines at Funadvice have I so egregiously ignored that I should not have my intentions honored? How does this question harm any standards of Funadvice. I simply set the parameters I wished the debate to take. Before the change of format… the person writing the post selectively chose what category they wished their post to fall under. I think I can best determine whether or not I want input. It is very frustrating to me… because nearly all of my questions are sent to the mature category… for no good reasons… in my opinion. Please spare me the condescension. I am frustrated… for good reason. I have not intentionally shirked your terms of usage… I have tried to comply. You have accused me of plagiarism with absolutely no proof. I think you are the petty one here.

I have no time for your drawn-out banter. I’ve already told you all there is to say.

In other words… you are the decider… damn the standards.

Is this going on? Wait a sec, I’ll go get the popcorn…:)

Why if as you say… Funadvice is no place for POLITICAL rants… is there a POLITICAL category?

I agree that the way they choose what a question is, doesn’t make sense. My questions seem to always get put in the status updates when they are quite obviously a question. I don’t think my titles are very vague. and a lot of the time It will say they were put in the status updates because ‘’ the question has already been asked’’ when– NO it hasn’t! My questions are geared towards ME so they obviously haven’t been asked! i even look up the question in FA and there is none that are even similar to mine.

I think you used the “Do you still believe?” as a way for it to fall into the questions category but by the time I got done reading the stuff you wrote my brain felt numb and I could care less about what you wrote.. I am 31 years old and that is why I read the whole thing. Many members here are still in high school or middle school so I doubt they will spent 15 seconds on your rant. Maybe you need to be a little more “chill” in the way you ask your questions. This is not Fox news or Coast to Coast dude. Take the conspiracies over there. Damn it now I need a beer!!!

Okay… just for a little clarification here.

I have been a member of this site for a few years now. In the old format… before Colleen was administrator… or even on Funadvice for that matter… it was routine for the posts in the political and religious categories to follow the formula that the post I have asked for reconsideration took. These are philosophical pursuits. It wasn’t and isn’t out of the ordinary for someone to ask a question by first stating what they believe… then why they believe that way… and then to ask for input from the other members at Funadvice.

I keep hearing that I have somehow flouted the system here by simply trying to adapt the limitations of the algorithm to accommodate the way things always were. I did not think that the algorithm was construed to inhibit the free expression of ideas here… I was under the impression that it was in place to help facilitate the advisors in placing the question where the asker most likely intended it to be placed. If the administrator could get out of the “gotcha” mode she would see that I never intended to get anything over on her or anyone else… but only to circumvent a convoluted algorithm that I don’t believe was ever intended to inhibit my style of question here in the first place. My question is in the spirit of what Funadvice is supposed to support. That’s why I ask… what rule have I broken… and if I have broken it… have I not kept with the spirit of the rules here… and if anything… only undermined the dysfunctional portions of the algorithm?

I could have remedied the purported discrepancy by simply adding the same question at the end of my post… by asking… in light of this information… do you feel any differently about 9/11. I could have done that. I could have thrown in other questions along the way. I didn’t feel the need to at the time… because I have asked questions in this method before… without having them changed to a status update. I feel as though this is arbitrary and not in keeping with the spirit of the site.

I am sorry that so many have favored such an ill-conceived… biased method of moderation here. So be it.

Maybe you need to ease off the beer.

… and the arrogance and immaturity of miscegenymiser strikes again … “if you don’t agree with me i’ll insult you and try to make you look stupid” … 33 years old, buddy, time to stop acting like a 12-year-old.

For political questions, not political “rants*. This isn’t rocket science. Let it go already - Jeremy has been informed of the situation and if he agrees with you, your rant will be put back on the board, so stop making a scene and be quiet.

Political questions tend to entail something more than the asinine… “Who was the 15th President”… type questions you seem to think it should. It was routine to use this formula before you were promoted to the position of power to completely sanitize Funadvice of any meaningful discourse.

My response to Evil Elmo was meant tongue in cheek. Maybe you’re a little too @nal retentive to pick up on these nuances.

There is noting immature about seeking recourse the only way you have left me. Sometimes the people who think they sit in the catbirds seat are actually in over their head… where things look topsy turvy.

biased method of moderation here. So be it. – most tick like to colleens answer is because she has a group of sheeps following her every word. I like colleen and thinks she is going an ok job but dara was more open minded on most topics on funadvice. Maybe colleen is under pressure as she is the only person running funadvice as the owners are away but i hate it when people click the like button cos colleen says something. she is a moderator so what there isnt a need to worship everything she says.

I’ve always had issues with some of the advisors here. I’ve always had issues with some of the decisions made by the administrators. I agree with you. Dara seemed to be more diplomatic in her decisions… whereas Colleen is more doctrinaire in regards to the letter of the law here… which is never a good policy for an arbiter to have. It’s frustrating on my part because the majority of my questions are relegated to the Mature section for my having tripped over one or two of the dozens of banned words in my post in some manner. When the first few wound up there I registered a complaint to Colleen and/or Jeremy… so I know Colleen is aware that this was a recurring problem for me. I don’t understand why Colleen chooses to follow this tack of calling me childish for once again having a post of mine buried for no good reason… and for being upset that my grievances were addressed in an accusatory… terse manner. I’m sure that some of my words have been inflammatory… but I didn’t set the blaze.