Quoting: Shibbal18
I said fair play to the mods for moving the one team without content to the forums. This was not the information given to us though, we were told they were deleted not moved, and it seems that the first 2 teams were just deleted not moved from a quick check (I may be wrong).
As far as anyone can tell, one was moved (I mean, we're here, aren't we?) and that two were deleted. I can't tell which of the teams is which, but I think that's less of the point. Even beyond the speculation, how many identical threads do we need in such a short span?
I see this individual thread as an equal opportunity to any AGM thread: if Toews really is set to retire, you can still discuss who to trade, at what return, and next steps to take. I get that there's a lack of exposure in the forums, but I appreciate that some form of consensus may be reached in an environment like this one without needing to devolve from that kind of over-exposure. You typically won't have "LeafsFanBillyBob12345" claiming troll or proposing Kane for 6 first round picks in this forum; the Blackhawks discussion forums in this case are much more specialized.
At the same time, I suspect you're involved with this thread because Kane was sent to Buffalo, and there is a loss of that engagement if you don't see the Sabres' icon. I get that. I'm not sure - beyond like tagging - what the workaround to that is.
Quoting: Shibbal18
Given the current situation on the internet, its only natural for users to relate it back to censorship and most of those were jokes. But I dont agree with "The AGM(s) immediately associated with Toews retiring exists solely to speculate around that retirement, never mind the trades." because if someone drops something like that, we could only expect users to create teams based on that topic even if its the same user. If it has roster moves to discuss, its an ACGM team based off of speculation. So thats what users are getting hung up on.
I really think the nature of this situation really boils down to the degree of speculation surrounding a very unfounded Toews retirement. Bullsh*tting a source really is what I believe to be the issue here. Had it been phrases as more of a "What if...?", I don't think we're having this conversation.
I think the relevancy of the name and an overall lack of context is still a sticking point here - and to use the specificity of this case as an example - half a dozen plus trades completely dismantling the Hawks without any context in the AGM description section does not lend itself well to the topic of "I have insider info on Toews retiring this week". The discussion goes two ways: the trade values are off or that the OP lacks credibility. Having seen my fair share of both camps (moderating really makes this place not fun) I know for a fact that only a vast minority approaches both. The majority of the discussion would have been (as we saw in this thread) about the OP's credibility. It's entirely off-topic despite there having been trades to discuss. At that point, do the trades matter? Are they relevant in the single context of "Toews is retiring per unnamed source"? Again, a source or a more general "What if...?" thread likely focuses more on the trades and the context of tearing down shop in name of a rebuild.
I'm trying to approach this as if I were the moderator in question that moved and deleted the previous posts, and I hope this somewhat justifies what we're up to here, or at the very least answers your immediate questions.