Bad warning is bad

[semper]

I agree, Semper! Good thing my opinions were about the opinions put forth by the OP and sanctioned by the mods!

Unless you're going to say that disagreeing is a crime now? Not that it matters anyway, it wasn't a crime then.

Nope. Your opinions were not relevant to the topic.

Let's put this simply.

Clarkey posted a goodbye thread to inform the community of his imminent departure. He left a few messages in that thread.. that needed not be replied to. The topic of discussion as his imminent departure and a chance to say goodbye.

Certain forum users responded to these opinions in a volatile way. It was let go for a time.. but eventually you were asked to leave the thread on topic and cease the arguing, focusing back on it's purpose.. that of to say goodbye.

You replied in direct defiance of this... warning. Where as the spam could normally be let go.. at a certain point it cannot. Ergo the warning... you ignored this, you got a board warning.

In all sections except the spam section it is only ok to post your opinion if it is relevant to the thread subject, otherwise it is spam. As the subject of the thread in auestion had been established as a farewell thread, not a discussion thread.. your post's were off topic and spam. You ignored the verbal warning, so you were given a board warning.

This is further backed up by Clarkeys response to the warning given.

[semper]

Why does Clarkey's response to the warning given mean anything? (I really have no idea)

Because he accepts the warning..which means the creator of the thread acknowledges that they were in fact breaching he rules.

Apologies.

Thanks for the replies. I'll try and respond to them all if i get time.

Furthermore... one of the focal points for the actual argument is because of the threads existence.. one thing Clarkey keeps hammering home as his 'ability to bid farewell'... which again is a direct indication to the subject of the topic and a further indication as to why Jack, himself and AA were off topic by arguing over their personal issues opposed to bidding farewell... even more so after being warned.

This is a goodbye thread not a debate or conversation thread. Some people liked him, others did not and they're not mocking you for liking him, SO keep it out of here

You yourself.. Eary.. identify their actions as a breach of the rules.

[Empy]

Was the flamebait still in the first post when Jack posted? As well, was Clarkey responding to Jack?

[Jack]

Was the flamebait still in the first post when Jack posted? As well, was Clarkey responding to Jack?

Yes and when Clarkey finally removed most of the debate stuff, I stopped posting in the thread.

[Empy]

Was the flamebait still in the first post when Jack posted? As well, was Clarkey responding to Jack?

Yes and when Clarkey finally removed most of the debate stuff, I stopped posting in the thread.

Okay well taking that credibly... (although the second question wasn't answered?) if the first post still contained flamebait (points that had nothing to do with him leaving but points that clearly would incite responses from those directly named) then that set a precedent that it was okay to discuss such points since the one who started the topic had them in the first post. If that was not the case the topic itself would be spam and Jack would not be at fault.

If Clarkey was responding to Jack, that even more so strengthens the fact it was not off TOPIC (as defined by the first post in the topic, as always).

[Jack]

Was the flamebait still in the first post when Jack posted? As well, was Clarkey responding to Jack?

Yes and when Clarkey finally removed most of the debate stuff, I stopped posting in the thread.

Okay well taking that credibly... (although the second question wasn't answered?) if the first post still contained flamebait (points that had nothing to do with him leaving but points that clearly would incite responses from those directly named) then that set a precedent that it was okay to discuss such points since the one who started the topic had them in the first post. If that was not the case the topic itself would be spam and Jack would not be at fault.

If Clarkey was responding to Jack, that even more so strengthens the fact it was not off TOPIC (as defined by the first post in the topic, as always).

I meant yes to both questions, sorry for the confusion.

As for the editing. You don't have to take my word for it. The post shows when it was edited.


Last edited by Clarkey Reborn on Wednesday December 02, 2009 16:05:56, edited 1 time in total.

My last post was at 15:10:49.

viewtopic.php?p=1948620#p1948620

[semper]

Was the flamebait still in the first post when Jack posted? As well, was Clarkey responding to Jack?

Yes and when Clarkey finally removed most of the debate stuff, I stopped posting in the thread.

Okay well taking that credibly... (although the second question wasn't answered?) if the first post still contained flamebait (points that had nothing to do with him leaving but points that clearly would incite responses from those directly named) then that set a precedent that it was okay to discuss such points since the one who started the topic had them in the first post. If that was not the case the topic itself would be spam and Jack would not be at fault.

No it didn't. If that was the case then Clarkey wouldn't have accepted the warning, nor would the first post have been predominantly directed at saying farewell. Are we to say that breaking that a positively toned opening post means it's ok to post a happy smiley in response? Something I have seen handed out warnings for in the last week and the contesting was turned down.

Clarkey's acceptance of the crime... his pointing out on numerous occasions that the thread was intended as a goodbye thread (NOT a discussion thread) all indicate that discussing these personally issues were not the intended reason.

If you're going to question Clarkey's integrity on that.. then I point out the fact that Jack also stopped posting in contesting after he was given a board warning which could also as likely be the reason he did not continue.. as too could the fact the thread was locked and he was not given ample chance all in opposition to his claims it was because the flame bait was removed. Let us remember here of what Clarkey recently did? he deleted Jack's accounts and destroyed the spam temple.. Jack and others had plenty of motive to argue, derail with spam and flame in that topic and in hindsight defend it with lies and a clear mind.

Clarkies reasoning for having that part of his post there was simple. He had been banned.. and left unable to defend himself (backed up by the fact he was using a multi and he begg's not to have the topic deleted but makes no reference to being banned). He had, as far as he knew, ONE opportunity to get his last words out and felt the need to make his peace. As such one has to ask whether it was truly intentional flame bait at all.. opposed to a desperate last act to say his final farewell when he didn't think he could discuss it, defend himself.. or even explain himself with a clear mind.

If Clarkey was responding to Jack, that even more so strengthens the fact it was not off TOPIC (as defined by the first post in the topic, as always).

No. It just means he was defending himself and he got punished as well.. and as already stated.. he accepted the punishment and acknowledged during the argument the true reason for the topic, to say farewell. Innocent until proven guilty.

Clarkey edited his post upon my request after the warnings had been issued.

[Empy]

Was the flamebait still in the first post when Jack posted? As well, was Clarkey responding to Jack?

Yes and when Clarkey finally removed most of the debate stuff, I stopped posting in the thread.

Okay well taking that credibly... (although the second question wasn't answered?) if the first post still contained flamebait (points that had nothing to do with him leaving but points that clearly would incite responses from those directly named) then that set a precedent that it was okay to discuss such points since the one who started the topic had them in the first post. If that was not the case the topic itself would be spam and Jack would not be at fault.

No it didn't. If that was the case then Clarkey wouldn't have accepted the warning, nor would the first post have been predominantly directed at saying farewell. Are we to say that breaking that a positively toned opening post means it's ok to post a happy smiley in response? Something I have seen handed out warnings for in the last week and the contesting was turned down.

Clarkey's acceptance of the crime... his pointing out on numerous occasions that the thread was intended as a goodbye thread (NOT a discussion thread) all indicate that discussing these personally issues were not the intended reason.

If you're going to question Clarkey's integrity on that.. then I point out the fact that Jack also stopped posting in contesting after he was given a board warning which could also as likely be the reason he did not continue.. as too could the fact the thread was locked and he was not given ample chance all in opposition to his claims it was because the flame bait was removed. Let us remember here of what Clarkey recently did? he deleted Jack's accounts and destroyed the spam temple.. Jack and others had plenty of motive to argue, derail with spam and flame in that topic and in hindsight defend it with lies and a clear mind.

Clarkies reasoning for having that part of his post there was simple. He had been banned.. and left unable to defend himself (backed up by the fact he was using a multi and he begg's not to have the topic deleted but makes no reference to being banned). He had, as far as he knew, ONE opportunity to get his last words out and felt the need to make his peace. As such one has to ask whether it was truly intentional flame bait at all.. opposed to a desperate last act to say his final farewell when he didn't think he could discuss it, defend himself.. or even explain himself with a clear mind.

If Clarkey was responding to Jack, that even more so strengthens the fact it was not off TOPIC (as defined by the first post in the topic, as always).

No. It just means he was defending himself and he got punished as well.. and as already stated.. he accepted the punishment and acknowledged during the argument the true reason for the topic, to say farewell. Innocent until proven guilty.

Clarkey edited his post upon my request after the warnings had been issued.

Most of what you said was completely irrelevant. The facts of the situation, what Clarkey did, irrelevant. If Clarkey accepted the warning? Irrelevant. If it was his last chance to cry out and defend himself and he did so? Proves my point.

No matter what he said his intention was reading his first version of the post which was what the topic of the thread can be determined from when Jack was posting is that he was saying goodbye, and bringing up points in so doing. Points brought up in the opening post, so no one can respond to those points even though the first post contained them? It does not matter later if Clarkey decided he wanted to say the thread was just a goodbye.

I would agree it was spam if the first post was as it is now, but it wasn't. It contained points which clearly begged a response which Jack decided to respond to. The starter of the topic chose to respond to Jack's responses in kind, clearly proving his intentions of the thread to be about that at the time or he would not have responded at all, regardless of what he decided to say later.

[zeekomkommer]

the thread is now LOCKED

now to awnser some questions wich were not awnsered:

if there is flamebait in a topic it does not give you the right to reply to it after a moderator in function posted no more spam from this point on. in this case the flamebait was posted before a moderator doing so. regretfully verbal warnings like that cannot go back into a topic and warn for it. since that rule didn't aply then the flamebait wasn't and wasn't suposed to be modded.

now if a reply is made to an offtopic post after a mod said: no more offtopic replys that that includes every reply that's offtopic made by anyone.

now i don't see any proof here that the post was indeed on topic.

now you can claim a mod is biassed all you want, as long as the warning has been given acording to the rules it doesn't mather since the rules are not bias.