Closing Threads

[Verthanthi]

http://forums.trenchwars.org/showthread.php?t=14911

While Galleleo may have been arguing a specific case, he also was pointing out an issue he has with the rules. I beleive one of the main points to the staff forum (granted he posted it in UC, but whatever) is to complain about rules that need changing. This sort of thing should be left open. Except for threads discussing that one issue which we all know isn't going to change.

[dchao]

I wouldn't be suprised if this tread gets closed soon...ironically.

[Salubrious]

Kim patrols the TW forums with an iron steel fist and a nine-tailed whip.

[Kim]

Well whatever the case is, we're going to have to wait for Rodge to come on and explain some of it.

My reason for banning him for one day, and I told Foobarz this personally, is because he revived 3 threads which were 1-2 months old, despite it clearly being stated in the rules, which are conveniently placed at the top of every page. The ban originally should've ended hours ago, however it was lengthened due to Rodge's decision. I'm not going to lift the ban in light of Rodge's decision, although he didn't leave a message to me about why this was done. If this is so, Rodge must've thought my decision for ban duration was too light.

Also ban issues are not a public discussion of whether the ban was justified or not. There is contact information (via private messages) on the Forum Leaders link, if you have inquiries.

[Fit of Rage]

While Cot-style is definately not cool, I think that this kind of moderation is defianately needed to keep some of the riff-raff of the fourms.

[Nickname]

uh, kim seemed to handle it perfectly fine to me. All he missed was the "use pms" thingy but thats ok, he's just new.

HAH! 2 threads in the TW Staff now have kim being called new. :up:

[Cylor]

I'm behind Kim 100%, just like the Red Army behind Mao (lolz, Chinese reference...because Kim is Asian...get it?).

[Verthanthi]

Kim, I don't care about foobarz. Ban him for eternity, it would hardly matter to me. However, galleleo brought up a valid point which was contrary to our set rules. Instead of discussing them, the thread was closed. That is what I am questioning. And thankfully, dchao was incorrect.

[Kim]

I posted it here, because this thread is prob gonna end up here.

But Banning Foobz was wrong, he hasnt been on this forum in like 4 months or so, so for him it wasnt really reviving, he didn't read those threads before, and therefor couldn't post in them before. I just think you were to harsh on him, its not like he has been here within the last month several times and only now chose to revive those threads.

Okay let's just clarify this for a second so we're off on the same foot. You want to discuss...
1) I'm or TW Staff is too strict on everyone in general, or towards the first offenders, or
2) Since he has never read those threads before, he shouldn't be banned for replying to them, because in perspective those threads are new to them.

The reason why I closed that thread is because Gal was pertaining specifically to why foobarz was banned, and that specific thread should be closed because it was requesting that I would supply an explanation for the ban. As I've said earlier, discussion of a forum ban is between the player and the staff members privately, and should not be discussed in an open manner.

[Richard Creager]

Exactly, just like the reason people are sent to prison camps should not be discussed openly.

[Sarien]

I thought it was general convention that as long as what the person replied was relavent and on topic (as opposed to just being spam) it wasn't really breaking any rules. Not saying any specific instance about foobarz, as I didn't read the thread in question. But seeing as how people do read the forum on different schedules doesn't that seem like a prudent idea?

[Kim]

I thought it was general convention that as long as what the person replied was relavent and on topic (as opposed to just being spam) it wasn't really breaking any rules.

You said it yourself.
1) http://www.trenchwars.org/forums/showthread.php?t=13366
2) http://www.trenchwars.org/forums/showthread.php?t=13379

First one was about Rejected Basers and their activities during TWL 7.
Second one was about -Final-'s run for Triple Crown in TWL 7.

[Rodge_Rabbit]

Good morning,

Sarien is right in this case. We have not included thread revival is illegal in the forum rules, because it is technically legal. However, there are cases were we put a stop in it. That is when a user is not adding new input in a thread with related information or a valid question. In 95% of the revival cases this is not done.
A user is always warned in this cases, and if they still continue a ban is issued. In the case of Foobarz, he make take the ban up with me and we will work something out.

[DOTSY]

why would you ban someone that just post in an old thread.. or i think i am missing some points here...

[schope]

Good morning,

Sarien is right in this case. We have not included thread revival is illegal in the forum rules, because it is technically legal. However, there are cases were we put a stop in it. That is when a user is not adding new input in a thread with related information or a valid question. In 95% of the revival cases this is not done.
A user is always warned in this cases, and if they still continue a ban is issued. In the case of Foobarz, he make take the ban up with me and we will work something out.

Stop being to strict,

i think the guy just revived those threads cause they were talking about him and he was afk for some time and couldnt repply to it, so he did it when he came back.

Lack of good sense here. Law isnt allways a strick rule with a sanction thats simple to apply.

W/e.