political freebies likevote for hillary, gore, and impeach bush should be in a seperate freebie podium!

:iagree: and i Mod alert many of them. Once a free sticker is posted, it's bound to start a political feud. UGH!

Why is the new "no-repost for old members" rule not being enforced?
Please, answers from moderators only. Thank you.

Why is the new "no-repost for old members" rule not being enforced?
Please, answers from moderators only. Thank you.

I am a bit confused on this as well...:nod:

The new rule states no repost...so I MA one that was posted in 2004 (with link, of course!)
and it IS the very same offer still good...
and the Mod doesn't merge them stating it is too old.

I thought that was what the new rule was about..once a freebie is posted..it's posted...
if a seasoned member reposts...no worries, it happens....but, merge it so it gets bumped!
(and if you want an old thread seen again because it still works...bump it saying so!)

so...I second that Q....
Why is the new "no-repost for old members" rule not being enforced?
Please, answers from moderators only. Thank you

I am a bit confused on this as well...:nod:

The new rule states no repost...so I MA one that was posted in 2004 (with link, of course!)
and it IS the very same offer still good...
and the Mod doesn't merge them stating it is too old.

I thought that was what the new rule was about..once a freebie is posted..it's posted...
if a seasoned member reposts...no worries, it happens....but, merge it so it gets bumped!
(and if you want an old thread seen again because it still works...bump it saying so!)

so...I second that Q....
Why is the new "no-repost for old members" rule not being enforced?
Please, answers from moderators only. Thank you

I thought the new freebie rule was 1 year. But I see where it says that is only for new members. Sounds like a tough thing to keep consistency on since Mods may have to check each name they are not familiar with to see if they are new?... Does new mean within the first 10 posts? I dunno. Probably should just be 1 year for everybody. Then after a year, the old threads should be archived and off the site to clear up space, imo.

I am a bit confused on this as well...:nod:

The new rule states no repost...so I MA one that was posted in 2004 (with link, of course!)
and it IS the very same offer still good...
and the Mod doesn't merge them stating it is too old.

I thought that was what the new rule was about..once a freebie is posted..it's posted...
if a seasoned member reposts...no worries, it happens....but, merge it so it gets bumped!
(and if you want an old thread seen again because it still works...bump it saying so!)

so...I second that Q....
Why is the new "no-repost for old members" rule not being enforced?
Please, answers from moderators only. Thank you

Oh my! Someone agrees with me???!!! :lmao:

Maybe we'll get an answer?

I thought the new freebie rule was 1 year. But I see where it says that is only for new members. Sounds like a tough thing to keep consistency on since Mods may have to check each name they are not familiar with to see if they are new?... Does new mean within the first 10 posts? I dunno. Probably should just be 1 year for everybody. Then after a year, the old threads should be archived and off the site to clear up space, imo.


Sounds like I'm not the only one confused.

I have an idea when you will get a definative answer but I'm not a mod so I'm not allowed to answer.

Just kidding. :lol: Never stopped me before, anyway.

You will receive a definative answer to all your questions in this order of scheduling:

(1) When hell freezes over.

(2) When pigs fly

(3) When they make up their minds. ( the mods, not the pigs.) ( I'm itching to add to this pig joke, but for my own safety I guess I'd better not. :nod: )

*sigh* I'm so confused lately. Just when I think I have the new rulings down pat and the answer has been clearly given, either the mod backs up and changes what I thought the new rules were by saying something isn't really against the rules, but they just "don't like it" and those doing it have been told to stop, but then it continues, so do "those" doing it being told to stop include everybody or just some people?? Or then other things occur in the forums that don't match the new rules and nothing is done, or things are moved or merged, or not moved or merged when they need to be....... and not always according to what I had understood was the new standard. :confused:

I feel like things here aren't really black and white, and easy to understand where the lines are, anymore ( or maybe I just never noticed before ) but instead SD has, of late, become afflicted with a gloomy touch of grey. Too many grey areas can cause innocent people to stumble and fall. It also sets the stage for a few egotistical people trying to see if they can get by with the same stuff that you can't, just to show they're more important and are exempt from some rules. Just my opinion.

I think I could navigate the forums better lately if I had a fo'ty of Schlitz first. Or maybe I just wouldn't care, anymore. :lmao:

I have an idea when you will get a definative answer but I'm not a mod so I'm not allowed to answer.

Just kidding. :lol: Never stopped me before, anyway.

You will receive a definative answer to all your questions in this order of scheduling:

(1) When hell freezes over.

(2) When pigs fly

(3) When they make up their minds. ( the mods, not the pigs.) ( I'm itching to add to this pig joke, but for my own safety I guess I'd better not. :nod: )

*sigh* I'm so confused lately. Just when I think I have the new rulings down pat and the answer has been clearly given, either the mod backs up and changes what I thought the new rules were by saying something isn't really against the rules, but they just "don't like it" and those doing it have been told to stop, but then it continues, so do "those" doing it being told to stop include everybody or just some people?? Or then other things occur in the forums that don't match the new rules and nothing is done, or things are moved or merged, or not moved or merged when they need to be....... and not always according to what I had understood was the new standard. :confused:

I feel like things here aren't really black and white, and easy to understand where the lines are, anymore ( or maybe I just never noticed before ) but instead SD has, of late, become afflicted with a gloomy touch of grey. Too many grey areas can cause innocent people to stumble and fall. It also sets the stage for a few egotistical people trying to see if they can get by with the same stuff that you can't, just to show they're more important and are exempt from some rules. Just my opinion.

I think I could navigate the forums better lately if I had a fo'ty of Schlitz first. Or maybe I just wouldn't care, anymore. :lmao:

As usual, you crack me up!

But, seriously, I hope we all get clarification.

:iagree: and i Mod alert many of them. Once a free sticker is posted, it's bound to start a political feud. UGH!

freebies are freebies, whether or not you agree with the content of the freebie. Easy to skip those threads we don't like.

I thought the new freebie rule was 1 year. But I see where it says that is only for new members. Sounds like a tough thing to keep consistency on since Mods may have to check each name they are not familiar with to see if they are new?... Does new mean within the first 10 posts? I dunno. Probably should just be 1 year for everybody. Then after a year, the old threads should be archived and off the site to clear up space, imo.


1 year for new members who've been here a month or less, no-reposts allowed for everyone else, is the new rule. No, the mods don't have to check anywhere. It says what date you became a member right next to your post/rep counts.

Why is the new "no-repost for old members" rule not being enforced?
Please, answers from moderators only. Thank you.
Hi mystufftosell :)

As far as I know, it is being enforced.

Without a specific example, I'm not sure what you are referring to. :dontknow:
Was there a certain Mod-Alert that you put in that was not handled in the way you expected?

I guess we would need to know specifically which one it is in order to answer.

We won't go back and merge a thread that was posted 2 months ago with a thread from a year before since the rule was not yet in effect 2 months ago.
Not sure if that is what you are referring to or not.

here's one brisar...(and I have a few in my MAs)

just to be clear - I am not picking on any poster or Mod...

http://forums.slickdeals.net/showthread.php?p=7553935#post7553935

I MAd

old one is marked dead but same exact link and it works...so alive again...repost, please merge ...http://forums.slickdeals.net/showthread.php?sduid=144851&t=243745&highlight=spice+mate

I received the Mod response:
since the old one has been dead for some time, and not updated, leaving as is. thanks

This reply doesn't make sense to me with the new rule and I have had a few MAs answered similarly. :dontknow:


another Mod response I received for a different thread said:
It's well over one year and the old thread had zero response, so I'll leave them separate.

It seems some of the Mods may not be clear on the rule either.

There will be a 1 year repost rule but it will only apply to new users.

Users who are members of the site for more then a month, will have an unlimited time on reposts so all reposts are merged no matter the date. If a moderator determines that an oustanding freebie deserves a new thread, then the repost will not be merged.

For example, if Joe Noobie posts a freebie that was posted by someone over a year ago, his freebie is left unmerged. On the other hand, if Joe Veteran posts the same freebie, it will be merged.

The repost rule is not retroactive so please don't mod alert them.

I read that to say that any member who has been here over a month and posts something that is a repost ...it gets merged into the original post, no matter how old that original post is. am I misunderstanding it?

(I do also see the Mods can use their discretion line)

javaFlower ...

I guess that is where the Mod Discretion comes in

Taken From the Freebie Forum Rules ....

"A repost is a duplicate post of an offer that has already be posted on the board.
There will be a 1 year repost rule but it will only apply to new users.
Users who are members of the site for more then a month, will have an unlimited time on reposts so all reposts are merged no matter the date.
If a moderator determines that an outstanding freebie deserves a new thread, then the repost will not be merged."


For the first example that you cited, the deal had been dead for a long time.
It is my understanding that when a deal has died (especially for a long time) that when and if that deal comes back to life, it may be reposted (much like in the Hot Deals forum). Some freebies don't die at all and go on and on for 1 year, 2 years, etc...
It is my understanding that those are the deals that cannot be reposted (the ones that live on).

I think there are some unwritten rules, too, that just make all of this not so clear.
When you note how things work in Hot Deals, I am clueless...don't really go there much, post there even less.

thanks brisar...

I appreciate the response.

I love the repost new rules... just a thought... please stop allowing links/posts on the freebie forum that are not yet free... If you keep allowing those posts anyone can post this site will offer something free etc... I just simply think it's wrong to post an offer or link that maybe it will be free in the future... that could mean 1 day to 25 years.

Hi mystufftosell :)

As far as I know, it is being enforced.

Without a specific example, I'm not sure what you are referring to. :dontknow:
Was there a certain Mod-Alert that you put in that was not handled in the way you expected?

I guess we would need to know specifically which one it is in order to answer.

We won't go back and merge a thread that was posted 2 months ago with a thread from a year before since the rule was not yet in effect 2 months ago.
Not sure if that is what you are referring to or not.



Thank you, Brisar, for the reply.

No, nothing 2 months ago....

Here are a few examples (Don't know why the old links I MAd aren't coming up now. I've searched again, to provide the corrected old links. Hope they all work now.):

*********

http://forums.slickdeals.net/showthread.php?p=7460747#post7460747

I MA'd as a repost of:
http://forums.slickdeals.net/showthread.php?sduid=144851&t=6470&highlight=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.attractant1000.com%2Fposter%2F

correct link:
http://forums.slickdeals.net/showthread.php?sduid=144851&t=230626&highlight=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.attractant1000.com%2Fposter%2F

And received this reply:
"I'm not merging that, it's wayy too old!"

Yet, I see, has been since merged.... hmmm.... Just not for me?

*****************

I also MAd this one:
http://forums.slickdeals.net/showthread.php?p=7463219#post7463219

as a repost of:
http://forums.slickdeals.net/showthread.php?sduid=144851&t=202430&highlight=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.daytimer.com%2Fempowerthem%2F

correct link:
http://forums.slickdeals.net/showthread.php?sduid=144851&t=202430&highlight=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.daytimer.com%2Fempowerthem%2F

I received this message to my MA:
"Not merged, the other thread is 525 days old."

***************

Here's another I MAd:
http://forums.slickdeals.net/showthread.php?p=7466105#post7466105

repost of:
http://forums.slickdeals.net/showthread.php?sduid=144851&t=74013&highlight=coolcuff.com

correct link:
http://forums.slickdeals.net/showthread.php?sduid=144851&t=74013&highlight=coolcuff.com

and, this one has two old, still valid threads. Here's the other:
http://forums.slickdeals.net/showthread.php?sduid=144851&t=47052&highlight=coolcuff.com

Comment received:
"not merged. please quit with the ridiculous repost mod alerts"

Note: I didn't think following the rules was ridiculous.....

*************

Here's another:
http://forums.slickdeals.net/showthread.php?p=7466419#post7466419

MA'd as a repost of:
http://forums.slickdeals.net/showthread.php?sduid=144851&t=88517&highlight=japanese+name+translation

correct old link:
http://forums.slickdeals.net/showthread.php?sduid=144851&t=88517&highlight=japanese+name+translation

Comment I received:
"Too old for me to merge"

*****************

Another one:
http://forums.slickdeals.net/showthread.php?p=7479252#post7479252

I MA'd as a repost of both:
http://forums.slickdeals.net/showthread.php?sduid=144851&t=452394&highlight=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.adobe.com%2Fproducts%2Ftryadobe%2Fbetatesting.html
and
http://forums.slickdeals.net/showthread.php?sduid=144851&t=242628&highlight=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.adobe.com%2Fproducts%2Ftryadobe%2Fbetatesting.html

correct links:
http://forums.slickdeals.net/showthread.php?sduid=144851&t=452394&highlight=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.adobe.com%2Fproducts%2Ftryadobe%2Fbetatesting.html
and
http://forums.slickdeals.net/showthread.php?sduid=144851&t=242628&highlight=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.adobe.com%2Fproducts%2Ftryadobe%2Fbetatesting.html

Here is the comment:
"If it's over a year, don't bother with the mod alerts. "

But, now I see it was merged to the Feb. thread.... Why wasn't it merged when I MAd it?

******************
http://forums.slickdeals.net/showthread.php?sduid=144851&t=575186&highlight=blank+USA

I MA'd as a repost of:
http://forums.slickdeals.net/showthread.php?sduid=144851&t=69846&highlight=blanks%2Fusa

correct link:
http://forums.slickdeals.net/showthread.php?sduid=144851&t=69846&highlight=blanks+usa

comment I received to my MA:
"Fro crying out loud, its from January of 2005!! not merged"

********************

http://forums.slickdeals.net/showthread.php?p=7486976#post7486976

I MAd as a repost of:
http://forums.slickdeals.net/showthread.php?sduid=144851&t=81688&highlight=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.iamloved.org%2Ffree_buttons.asp

correct link: (two old posts on this one)
http://forums.slickdeals.net/showthread.php?sduid=144851&t=262078&highlight=iamloved.org
http://forums.slickdeals.net/showthread.php?sduid=144851&t=81688&highlight=iamloved.org

I received this message:
"Again, I'm not going to merge something that old!"

***************

Shall I go on?

How can something be "to old to merge", if there is a no-repost rule?

I love the repost new rules... just a thought... please stop allowing links/posts on the freebie forum that are not yet free... If you keep allowing those posts anyone can post this site will offer something free etc... I just simply think it's wrong to post an offer or link that maybe it will be free in the future... that could mean 1 day to 25 years.

:iagree:

I would like to request a new and firm rule prohibiting the poster of a thread from including things in the thread title like "lol" and their "thoughts" or "opinions" or useless malarkey ( a.k.a. shite ). Nothing belongs in the thread TITLE other than information pertaining to the freebie itself. I don't mind "Read the OP" as that just warns one there may be further information in the original thread post that one may need. "Dead" is also a necessary given and likewise "Alive Again", B&M, etc. etc., which are all necessary information and updates, and are likewise needed and appreciated.

I am talking only about USELESS chitter chatter and feelings and thoughts and saying whatever the thread poster wants to force people to read, and that includes those of us who do not even plan on clicking on the thread. It's plainly just blatant attention-mongering. It does not belong on the main page, frankly, nor for that matter in any thread title. I can live with people putting their opinions and thoughts and lol's, etc in a thread post as, although it's not usually appreciated by most, ( and invites the appearance of those still playing mod who pop up to lecture on taking it to the Lounge or the Podium ) it doesn't really bother me much, as I can skip reading the posts themselves if I so choose.

However, one cannot skip reading a thread title at least once before ( gagging and ) hiding it. Some may even be ones a person may want to leave showing, and having to see five or more lines of gibberish is EXCEEDINGLY ANNOYING. Any OP who insists on giving his/her thoughts and feelings and lol's should have to put them in his/her thread POST, not in the TITLE. If a thread title is five lines and they are information needed, then that is fine and much appreciated, but if it's crap, please make it stop.

It would be appreciated if some rule could be set in place and enforced that would stop this being allowed in the thread titles. Thank you.

I would like to request a new and firm rule prohibiting the poster of a thread from including things in the thread title like "lol" and their "thoughts" or "opinions" or useless malarkey ( a.k.a. shite ). Nothing belongs in the thread TITLE other than information pertaining to the freebie itself. I don't mind "Read the OP" as that just warns one there may be further information in the original thread post that one may need. "Dead" is also a necessary given and likewise "Alive Again", B&M, etc. etc., which are all necessary information and updates, and are likewise needed and appreciated.

I am talking only about USELESS chitter chatter and feelings and thoughts and saying whatever the thread poster wants to force people to read, and that includes those of us who do not even plan on clicking on the thread. It's plainly just blatant attention-mongering. It does not belong on the main page, frankly, nor for that matter in any thread title. I can live with people putting their opinions and thoughts and lol's, etc in a thread post as, although it's not usually appreciated by most, ( and invites the appearance of those still playing mod who pop up to lecture on taking it to the Lounge or the Podium ) it doesn't really bother me much, as I can skip reading the posts themselves if I so choose.

However, one cannot skip reading a thread title at least once before ( gagging and ) hiding it. Some may even be ones a person may want to leave showing, and having to see five or more lines of gibberish is EXCEEDINGLY ANNOYING. Any OP who insists on giving his/her thoughts and feelings and lol's should have to put them in his/her thread POST, not in the TITLE. If a thread title is five lines and they are information needed, then that is fine and much appreciated, but if it's crap, please make it stop.

It would be appreciated if some rule could be set in place and enforced that would stop this being allowed in the thread titles. Thank you.:iagree:

I would like to request a new and firm rule prohibiting the poster of a thread from including things in the thread title like "lol" and their "thoughts" or "opinions" or useless malarkey ( a.k.a. shite ). Nothing belongs in the thread TITLE other than information pertaining to the freebie itself. I don't mind "Read the OP" as that just warns one there may be further information in the original thread post that one may need. "Dead" is also a necessary given and likewise "Alive Again", B&M, etc. etc., which are all necessary information and updates, and are likewise needed and appreciated.

I am talking only about USELESS chitter chatter and feelings and thoughts and saying whatever the thread poster wants to force people to read, and that includes those of us who do not even plan on clicking on the thread. It's plainly just blatant attention-mongering. It does not belong on the main page, frankly, nor for that matter in any thread title. I can live with people putting their opinions and thoughts and lol's, etc in a thread post as, although it's not usually appreciated by most, ( and invites the appearance of those still playing mod who pop up to lecture on taking it to the Lounge or the Podium ) it doesn't really bother me much, as I can skip reading the posts themselves if I so choose.

However, one cannot skip reading a thread title at least once before ( gagging and ) hiding it. Some may even be ones a person may want to leave showing, and having to see five or more lines of gibberish is EXCEEDINGLY ANNOYING. Any OP who insists on giving his/her thoughts and feelings and lol's should have to put them in his/her thread POST, not in the TITLE. If a thread title is five lines and they are information needed, then that is fine and much appreciated, but if it's crap, please make it stop.

It would be appreciated if some rule could be set in place and enforced that would stop this being allowed in the thread titles. Thank you.

:iagree: Consider this post, me signing this petition. :nod:

Why is the new "no-repost for old members" rule not being enforced?
Please, answers from moderators only. Thank you.

I repeat my question...Brisar, please see above for examples.....Thank you.

As Mr. SD Mentioned, each moderator can use his/her discretion when it comes to merging reposts.

As Mr. SD Mentioned, each moderator can use his/her discretion when it comes to merging reposts.

So, what's the use of a "rule"?

:confused: :confused:

I have explained this to you already, MSTS. Since you seem to have forgotten the conversation, kindly check your PM's for a refresher.Forum rules, especially for boards as large as this, are necessarily quite often subjective. In other words, most things are left to moderator discretion since it is impossible to make a rule for every single possible situation. Unfortunately, some people don't understand this and want every situation to have a rule.

Furthermore... to attempt to create rules for every situation would be counter productive. The rules would grow into such a large and complicated entity that they would no longer be useful to members, or to mods. People would not read the lengthy rules, just as they do not read lengthy instructions or disclaimers included with consumer goods. The complexity of the rules would also frustrate the members. This would serve as a barrier to entry reducing the number of people who bring deals to our attention, and in the end, the number of deals to which we have access. That's completely counter to the stated aim of this website.

I have explained this to you already, MSTS. Since you seem to have forgotten the conversation, kindly check your PM's for a refresher.

Thank you... I have not forgotten the PMs I received from you. I still have them, and I have been obeying everything.

As Mr. SD Mentioned, each moderator can use his/her discretion when it comes to merging reposts.


I was only responding to brisar's request for specific examples.

Frankly, I'm not at all surprised in kel_be's answer, however, it's still hard not to be disappointed in how this has all been handled.

Frankly, I'm not at all surprised in kel_be's answer, however, it's still hard not to be disappointed in how this has all been handled.

You and me, both.