posted on Oct, 26 2008 @ 02:09 PM
I would imagine because the staff doesn't want to deal with a plethora of threads where the content basically boils down to Obama sucks! and McCain
is great! or vice-versa.
Internet forums are not democracies, consider them as dictatorships and you'll be much closer to the truth. Whoever owns the site has absolute power
to do as he/she/they please as regards content (except in cases where law prohibits certain types of content). While some sites may give you the
opportunity to appeal in some way, regardless, the decision will be made by the site owner and their staff, based on their opinion of the matter. In
this case the apparent decision from on high is that political wrangling of this sort is counterproductive to what they want their site to represent.
I happen to agree with them, but that is also just my opinion.
Your options, as I see them are threefold.
1. Try to work within the framework of rules they have set forth.
2. Start your own forum with your own rules.
3. Find a forum that better matches your own ideals.
I've seen many share your frustration at threads/posts being removed/closed/censored, and want to know why it was done. They may even offer you an
explanation as to how the decision on a particular matter was arrived at... or not. Either way, what it comes down to in the end is, it's their site,
and that's how they want it.
Not that I'm trying to disparage you for making the inquiry either, quite the opposite actually. You believe in the threads relevance and are trying
to defend it and I applaud your effort to do so. What I am saying is, whatever answer you receive (if any at all), no matter how nicely couched it is,
will boil down to "Because this is our site, and that's how we want it".
Best regards and gl with quest for an explanation