Pool "tug-of-war" etiquette?

What's the etiquette when users start having tug-of-wars over posts in a pool and neither side is giving up?

Do we need a mod to come in and settle it?

Not sure, but there is precedent for such: forum #51609, regarding post #763635 and its inclusion in Disgustingly Adorable.

I brought this up due to a tug of war in pool #3435 "Unseen Awesomeness" over post #541556.

I hate to bug the mods about something so minor, but the head butting between me and this guy doesn't look like it's going to end until a mod settles the issue.

Personal view: it should not be in the pool because this is the aftermath of something horrible.

View by rulings/precedents: it should be in the pool because a majority are behind its placing- and thus i will not touch it.

What I suggest: this would need a higher member of the administratum to clarify and nail down.

z905844 said:

View by rulings/precedents: it should be in the pool because a majority are behind its placing- and thus i will not touch it.

Pools aren't suppose to be about favoritism or popularity. They're suppose to be about running themes in posts that can't be covered by tags. The problem with this post is it's too extreme and no longer follows the same theme as the rest of the pool. It would be like putting incest posts in the family bonding pool.

You know, the more I look at this pool, the more I wonder if pool #1844 "Speculation Fuel" makes it redundant. Both pools are about basically the same thing.

Hoobajoob said:

You know, the more I look at this pool, the more I wonder if pool #1844 "Speculation Fuel" makes it redundant. Both pools are about basically the same thing.

I have been of this opinion ever since pool #3435 was started

Hoobajoob said:

I brought this up due to a tug of war in pool #3435 "Unseen Awesomeness" over post #541556.

Figured as much. Just saying that there was precedent for calling in the mods over sufficiently intractable pool edit wars.

I personally have no opinion on this particular issue, but in general, I'd think twice about re-adding a post to a pool after it's been removed, or re-removing a post after it's been re-added (especially if more than one person has been removing or re-adding the post); the main exception to this would be clear cases of pool vandalism.

Alanis_the_Evoker said:

I personally have no opinion on this particular issue, but in general, I'd think twice about re-adding a post to a pool after it's been removed, or re-removing a post after it's been re-added (especially if more than one person has been removing or re-adding the post); the main exception to this would be clear cases of pool vandalism.

Yeah, I know. The normal etiquette I follow is adding or removing posts only once and doing nothing if someone changes it, hoping someone else backs me up. However I see this as an exception because I firmly believe it doesn't belong in that pool. My comparsion above about incest in the family bonding pool covers my stance on this. Guro doesn't belong in that pool in the same way.

I'm making a big deal about this because that pool already steps on the toes of the speculation fuel pool. Trying to widen it's criteria like this makes it redundant.

Come to think of it, the image suits the Speculation Fuel pool more than Unseen Awesomeness.