jpcloet wrote:Face it Owen, the thread post was inappropriate and I would easily class it under the "Intentionally Annoying".
Yeah... in the same way that you
could technically class it under the "No Multiple Accounts" offence. Y'know, you could say it, but you'd clearly be in error.
Anyway, now that you've completely departed from your original reasoning and have decided that my thread apparently breaks a very different rule from the ones you originally alleged... perhaps you would be so kind as to explain to us all how that thread was in any way 'intentionally annoying'. It would also be helpful if you could identify precisely who it is that you think would be annoyed by that friendly invitation to join a game.
After all, you've had plenty of time to think of a tenable reason now... surely you'll have no problems coherently substantiating it, right?
jpcloet wrote:While you may think you are being clever, only a few see it that way.
It's not so much that we think that
we're being clever, it's that we think that
you're being irrational and juvenile.
jpcloet wrote:If that thread was in callouts, it would have been locked immediately, and I would have asked DM to reword his post in an appropriate way.
Oh yeah?
What guidelines would it have broken there exactly? Or would have locked it because of the unwritten rule that "
all callouts must be worded in a homogeneous and unimaginative fashion"?
jpcloet wrote:Standing up for a clan mate is honorable
...but pointing out a carnival of poor moderating behaviour is even more so.
jpcloet wrote:I'm not sure why you think this fight is worth fighting over.
Because it's yet another fantastic demonstration of a specific category of moderating errors that are endemic to CC.
This is a set of simple errors that you guys keep on making. We'd like you to stop being so inconsistent, to stop applying double standards, and to learn to better respond to legitimate questioning of your errors. That's why we think this incident is worth bickering over: because it's a microcosm of a larger issue.
Of coures, your faux-reasonable "
oh come on, let's all drop it" line is really just another great example of the whole "gloss over the issue and attempt to sweep it under the carpet tactic" with which CC's moderators repeatedly attempt to deflect legitimate complaints rather than dealing with their root causes.
Which is of course just one of the counter-productive moderator-practices that this thread is complaining about.
clapper011 wrote:there are not so much "unwritten" rules, making the guidelines much easier to follow.
Oh really?
Then why are we currently posting in which a thread complaining that another thread has been locked when it did not break a written rule? If there really aren't so many 'unwritten rules' around here any more, then why the hell are you still locking threads for breaking them?
clapper011 wrote:about the reason for the lock...well you will have to ask the moderator who locked it
That'd be so much easier if they'd (1) signed the thread when they locked it, making themselves accountable, or (2) subsequently owned up to being the lock originator. Don't you think?
clapper011 wrote:it does not take a genius to realize that, that particular thread would have only lead to an over abundance of flaming and personal attacks
Really?
Because so far as I can tell, it didn't contain a single one of those things at the time that it was locked, and seemed to be heading in a totally benign direction.
Seriously, if we accept "
Might well lead to an abundance of flames" as a criteria for locking threads, then you'd have to lock every single religious topic and/or conspiracy-theory thread that ever got posted on this site, as well as shutting down half of the C&A sub-forum.
Also, since when was "
Might lead to flames in the future" an explicitly stated "no-no" laid out in the guidelines? Sounds like yet another of these niggling little 'unwritten clauses' to me...
)
