Appeal

[Juliette]

Plus look at the vendetta - my posting was still in context as I pointed out earlier with the relevent quote: one of a few which gives context to it.

Still with the circular reasoning.

I know you cant be active all the time but if the topic does spirral out of control why not delete it and say - ok it was full of spam and post a new one say "Here youa re lads - its fresh with none of the crap in it and off you go but keep it to the point".

Oh trust me, when we'd do that, we'd have a much bigger mess on our hands.

Leaving bits of post and splitting up doesnt help at all - creates two threads with little sense and people like me moaning and bickering about it.

Your issue is that we leave ENTIRE posts instead of leaving bits and scraps of post. Don't confuse yourself. Your issue is with the remaining shreds of a post which you feel you must reply to, in an off-topic way, inside someone's on-topic post. What you're asking is we consider paragraph A valid, and paragraph B invalid. We're not editors. We're moderators. If you want editors to keep you in track, go work for a newspaper.

Still to delete spammed threads - I am sure that would send a message loud and clear - post related or no postings at all.

Then what's to stop Philip from spamming your thread in order to get it deleted? Besides, we do not delete threads at all. Can you blame us for hoping fro some common sense in users? If a user decides to foolishly go against common sense, then that is their responsibility. The administration 'owns' the forums (indirectly), and carries responsibility for it. Us moderators, we keep people in line, on topic.. but in the end, being on topic is the users' own responsibility. Can't handle that? Bam! Warning. It's comparable to a shepherd throwing a rock at a straying sheep to get it back in the group. If you don't like it, then fair enough.

Apologies if you find me annoying Still - I have my case and will leave it at that for the Onbudsman to make the Decision
And thanks to the mods for providing their perspective and insight - I know its not an easy job at times - I moderate forums myself

No.. I'm glad you're actually explaining why you think the way you think. That's never annoying, even if what you think/say is something I might disagree with.

[Lord Yojimbo]

Its a circular argument indeed (linked to the same position I am putting forward) but cant help but realise it does come down to that - removing spam is editing the context of the thread which is fair enough if it has degenerated in to spam but still citations are not exempt to this - i dont see it as editing - i see it as the removal of all aspects of the off topic context but in this case with citations present it still leaves the context in my book which makes my responce relevent -

we may agree to disagree here

[Mordack]

The timing on this confuses me. One person has told me that the post was made and the warning was issued after the thread was split, but somone else has told it was done beforehand. Obviously I'm going to need to look through the logs or something if possible.

Juliette has a point, but I'm still not sure the post was 'spam.'

[Lord Yojimbo]

The timing on this confuses me. One person has told me that the post was made and the warning was issued after the thread was split, but somone else has told it was done beforehand. Obviously I'm going to need to look through the logs or something if possible.

Juliette has a point, but I'm still not sure the post was 'spam.'

Indeed - but still as you read the postings - the cited details are still there to be read and thus adds its context to the thread as a whole. Even in the same post I wished the lads well in their vendetta which was not off topic either

[Mordack]

I'll try and get hold of Jack in the next twelve hours or so to discuss this case. I think I've come to a conclusion, but I'd like to hear his opinion.

Thank you for your patience, and expect to see a recommendation from us over the weekend.

[Lord Yojimbo]

I'll try and get hold of Jack in the next twelve hours or so to discuss this case. I think I've come to a conclusion, but I'd like to hear his opinion.

Thank you for your patience, and expect to see a recommendation from us over the weekend.

ok thats cool - - thank you

[Jack]

I find that the warnings are valid. The issuing mod clearly stated that there was to be no more spam, and whether deliberately or not, you disregarded that warning. Unfortunately adding a couple standard fair "good luck" lines isn't enough to justify an otherwise off topic post.

Sorry for the massive delay for a response!

[Lord Yojimbo]

and the remaining context cited? does that not put my posts into context and tus remove them from spam as I pointed out these cited contextual quotes in question as still present within the thread?

[Jack]

Nope, the conversation was supposed to stop in that thread.

[Lord Yojimbo]

ok well i will have to agree to disagree - and accept the decision of the appeal

thank you for your time all

[Mordack]

This was quite an awkward case. Partly because of the timing, and partly because of the debate it induced on the nature of spam, off-topicness and thread moderation.

Had I been Knight, I'd probably have gone for a PM instead of a warning. Given that the timing was so muddled, and given that your post wasn't "spam" in the spammiest sense of the word. I think he was a little heavy handed, if I'm being honest, but in terms of the forum guidelines then I'm afraid he was well within his rights to warn you.

[Lord Yojimbo]

within the rules indeed - but i will agree that it was abit harsh and the rules are not restrictive in the sense that the mod has the right to menouver in his issuing of warning

maybe clarity is necessary for future cases to prevent the mess that can ensue from situations like this

[Juliette]

We already have a complete set of rules.
Accounting for every possible move/situation before then is not an option.

Ask Deep Blue. Even that one couldn't cut it, and that required a library of millions of lines.

[Lord Yojimbo]

We already have a complete set of rules.
Accounting for every possible move/situation before then is not an option.

Ask Deep Blue. Even that one couldn't cut it, and that required a library of millions of lines.

indeed - ill have to agree with you there