Welcome to the forum! Where do you usually hang out in here? I always thought lurkers would be more likely to hang out in Bargains than Forum Feedback.

Do we have a grandstanding smilie?

das

Gee, I dunno, maybe because it was a bargain?

threatening to suspend or ban me based on a comment I made about the director of Powder and Jeepers Creepers, Victor Salva

You were not threatened with either a suspension or a ban for your comments. Further instances of the same behaviour would definitely have done so.

A warning is what is given out before a suspension which in turns precedes a ban - Clear?

My other post was not a "flexing" more an admonishment to cease your off-topic posting until your E-mail address could be retrieved (as you’d blocked it in your profile).

My post concerned the movie - nothing more. I presume you likewise won’t give housespace to Polanski or Chaplin movies and campaign in a similar fashion in threads concerning them?

I'd think you'd be happy to get only a warning for clearly and willingly breaking the rules after repeated posts instructing not to do so. <B>jonathan.e</B>'s actions seem both fair and reasonable to me. Less respectable people would simply revoke priviledges with neither a warning nor explanation as to why.

das

I am quite fiscally irresponsible and usually pay close to list at stores out in the real world -- you know, the part that's left when you turn off the computer.

Mostly I read dvd, movies and other (other is where this was originally).

Look, I don’t really care all that much about the evils of the director. But I find it odd that we now have a deal thread that had all but 1 post edited.

If I posted a deal at blockbuster I know I would get a dozen people telling me not to go to blockbuster because they are the devil (and frankly I probably agree). Would all those posts be modded out with the same enthusiasm that jonathan.e has had?

If you post a deal, and I come along and think that your deal is not a good deal, and I explain why I think that. In this case because the money goes to someone they don't like. Why is that off topic?

I don’t have the exact wording of my post because it was edited down to.

"Either way, im not sure I trust DVDsoon enough to preorder from them just yet."

What was edited out was something along the lines of
"Since we all know about the issues with the director. Maybe the low price is good because it will be supporting him less. Or on the other hand it might mean more copies sells and he is supported more"

So that means I can question the retailer selling the DVD, but not the director?

I know DVDTALK doesn’t guarantee free speech, I know I have no "rights". But I think this is a case of a mod having too much free time on his hands. So what if things get a bit off topic? Most threads do pretty well without much editing. And I'd bet the 70% off deal would have dropped off the 1st page pretty quick if it weren’t for some people having string feelings on the director.

Thank you. Seems the mods have a hard time with this concept.

Ok, so hypotheticly. What would you be intrested in people saying in response to a bargin being posted? It is ok to make comments on the retailer correct? And usually comments like "Good deal" dont get modden out. I just dont see why we need such strict rules here, a "Bargin" is in the eye of the beholder. To quote a favorite author of mine:

The shops certainly did have pretty things and the handmade blouses were among the prettiest. Ticky insisted they were "bargains" and I suppose they were. I never will understand about such things; to my mind a bargain is something I need at a price I can afford.
-Robert Heinlein


So it seems reasonable if there are diffrent interpritations of the word "Bargin" then it is reasonable for someone to want to point out why something is either A GREAT DEAL and why, or THE WORST DEAL IN THE WORLD and why.

If a thread gets out of hand, sure mod it, lock it, etc. But that isnt why happened here. Here every post has been edited. Maybe jonathan.e had good intentions, but I think all the red and "Last edited by jonathan.e" under every post not his own. Is much more off topic. And was a sure way to derail the thread.

MacKenzieIII, the majority of your post was only furthering the discussion about the director and would in turn have led other posters to pass comment in that direction and as had already happened ALL the posts would have been all about Salva and nothing about the deal.

But I think this is a case of a mod having too much free time on his hands.

Additionally, I’ll thank you to keep the personal comments to yourself.

---------

As I said previously Salva is a hot-button topic and I was and am unwilling to let a simple bargain-notification thread be hijacked into a condemnation of the director in question. If your opinions and POV are so strong then start a thread in the appropriate forum - It’s simple, and those unwilling to acknowledge this seem to be actively condoning thread-crapping and hijacking.

tdirgins, I agree with some of your thoughts and while "thread-crapping" (a term I loathe more than what it describes to) should not be encouraged, there are some individuals that have the power to edit other's posts and like to use that power even when it is not called for.

I assure you if I had started a "I'll Be Home for Christmas for 90% off" thread, someone would have posted a "This movie sucks and so does JTT" comment and you know what...I'd be fine with it. IMO, that is on topic as the item on sale is being discussed...same with people bashing Battlefield Earth.

If we're really going to stick to the rules, then what discussion value does any Bargain thread have? They all either degenerate into Store Forum discussion of when the store has shipped a copy, etc. If you can't even discuss the thing that is on sale, then such threads should simply be memos with no replies. Is a bargain discussion by the book "XXX is XX% off!" "Thanks, I wanted that." "No thanks, I'll pass." "I bought it." ?

Not much of a discussion. Anyway, I agree with the way you feel, tdirgins. People will throw the "It's not your board and you can't do what you want" argument, but I kind of thought the whole idea of online forums is to provide open discussions. It's not, though, so I'm told.

Discussions lead to more discussions, and maybe this "thread-crapping" thing we all are supposed to hate isn't so bad? Not everything that needs to be said needs its own thread.

Amen brother!

If there is a grey area fine but how is the personal life of the director anywhere near that? If you have an agenda have the balls to admit it. Just come right out and say "This guy has done something so bad I just have to break the rules". But dont whine when the rules are enforced.

And LBp you know your one of my best online friends but if you want a free for all there are places you can get that. Its not here.

*blush*

You have proven my point Q.E.D.:

You cannot read my original post to determine my "agenda". I did come right out and say I was breaking the rules because of the director's reprehensible behavior.

Well, say fakewebsite.com is selling any dvd for $5 a pop and it gets posted. If someone finds out the site is using all it's cash to start up a European kiddie porn site, I don't think that person would get crapped on for mentioning it in the bargain thread. For a good deal of the members here, buying a movie that might give cash to Salvas would be the same moral issue to them. Posting the information does not relate directly to the bargain, but it does relate directly to the choice to purchase the movie.

Moving to the Retarded Analogy Forum.

Did ya just gloss over the part about not crying when youre called on it?

jonathan.e was quick to point out in the first post of the original thread that it was to be kept on topic. This assumes that he thought there might be problems with Silva films(imagine that). Why not just lock the thread immediately before the comments can be made? It's not like a store-wide sale or anything, just one title at one particular e-tailer.

1) I disagree and I think many on here disagree that a discussion about the director of a film is not off topic in reference to a deal. As someone else has brought up, if I posted a deal about Battle Field Earth and someone else bashed the film, or the director. That seems very on topic. And I feel that your modding out everyone's comments has in fact spawed most of this discussion about Salva and made the actual deal back seat. For me personaly, if I saw a few comments bashing a director I would take very little notice. But when I see a thread where every comment has been edited by the mod. I get intrested in what they had to say. So much so that I went to this forum.

2) I meant in no way to make a personal attack. But reading DVDTalk at least as much as I and many people do. Is related to to much free time. The diffrence is that when I get bored all I can do is post. And I honestly believe if you had just let the Powder deal thread go without interfearance, it would have stayed more on topic than it has from all the modding.

3) The thread was never hijacked, and I really do not have a strong POV on this issue. But I do feel that discussion is good, and I would rather see a bit of offtopic stuff than a thread with nothing but edited comments. Your intentions were good, but instead of just making a friendly "Keep it on topic people" post. You your edits made more people want to point out what tdirgins was stoped from saying.

Expecting people to heed a warning and follow simple instructions is asking too much now?

Ok, so explain why the analogy is faulty?

If it came out the dvdsoon was able to give such great prices because they sold kiddie porn on the side. And could afford to sell normal DVDs at a loss to us bargin hunters. Would that be on topic? And would it be fair to say "This deal is no deal because you are supporting something I feel is wrong"?

Personaly I have no axe to grind with Silva my issue is at the idea that a comment on where your money goes from getting a "deal" is considered hijacking.

If you dont see how commenting on the director of a movie wouldnt be better off in the MOVIE Forum or the DVDTalk forum maybe the rules here are a little too complex for you. May I suggest an AOL chat room?

If the warning and instructions are unreasonable yes.

Just like if tdirgins has said at the start of this post "If you dont agree with me don't post".
Ahh yes, thats right I dont see it your way so I should be sent to AOL? That would make the forums a fun place wouldnt it?

And the issue isnt if a comment wouldnt be better off somewhere else. Comments on a director might go in both places you suggested. But they are also relavant in response to someone telling me what a great deal his movie is. As I have said before, your idea of a deal and mine dont have to be the same. But just because YOU dont think that where your money goes affects how good a deal is, does not mean I have to agree with you.

Excellent counterpoint. Perhaps you could elaborate? In both the real and fictional case I mentioned people would be giving their money/support to someone guilty of child abuse. Is comparing child pornography to child molestation retarded? Or perhaps you felt supporting a business is much different than supporting an individual? I'm curious. And for someone so worried about following forum rules, claiming that what someone posts is "retarded" is pretty close to a personal attack.

Edited to add an example of a threadcrap from the official thread: