StarGateWars Forums

Empy wrote:

~Wolverine~ wrote:So whats the logic behind not being allowed to post in reply to a mods modding?

Because the majority of the time it's off-topic and there is a dedicated sub-section for discussing moderator's actions, and why they're muppets.

~Wolverine~ wrote:

Empy wrote:

~Wolverine~ wrote:So whats the logic behind not being allowed to post in reply to a mods modding?

Because the majority of the time it's off-topic and there is a dedicated sub-section for discussing moderator's actions, and why they're muppets.

ya i get that and like your majority there.

But what harm does it do? The fact that a mod has to comment means theres more then likely spam there in the first place, and should be closed anyway.

Its pointless. Its not like your all high and mighty and nobodys allowed to reply to you, just cause you wrote in a different colour of writing.

Haz wrote:

~Wolverine~ wrote:

Empy wrote:

~Wolverine~ wrote:So whats the logic behind not being allowed to post in reply to a mods modding?

Because the majority of the time it's off-topic and there is a dedicated sub-section for discussing moderator's actions, and why they're muppets.

ya i get that and like your majority there.

But what harm does it do? The fact that a mod has to comment means theres more then likely spam there in the first place, and should be closed anyway.

Its pointless. Its not like your all high and mighty and nobodys allowed to reply to you, just cause you wrote in a different colour of writing.

It's nothing to do with someone thinking they are "all high and mighty". It is that discussion of mod actions does not belong in the thread where the action occured. More often than not, the discussion of the mod action would bring the thread discussion off topic.

Juliette wrote:Not if everyone just plays by the **Filtered** rules, it is not.

~Wolverine~ wrote:

Juliette wrote:Not if everyone just plays by the **Filtered** rules, it is not.

but what if the rules are pointless, its not like im posting porn or being racist?

Haz wrote:

~Wolverine~ wrote:

Juliette wrote:Not if everyone just plays by the **Filtered** rules, it is not.

but what if the rules are pointless, its not like im posting porn or being racist?

If you think they are pointless, you don't break the rules. I think the speed limit on my street is ridiculous. I don't break the law and speed though.

If you disagree with the rules, make a thread, and provide valid reasoning as to why a rule shouldn't exist.

Haz wrote:

~Wolverine~ wrote:

Empy wrote:

~Wolverine~ wrote:So whats the logic behind not being allowed to post in reply to a mods modding?

Because the majority of the time it's off-topic and there is a dedicated sub-section for discussing moderator's actions, and why they're muppets.

ya i get that and like your majority there.

But what harm does it do? The fact that a mod has to comment means theres more then likely spam there in the first place, and should be closed anyway.

Its pointless. Its not like your all high and mighty and nobodys allowed to reply to you, just cause you wrote in a different colour of writing.

It's nothing to do with someone thinking they are "all high and mighty". It is that discussion of mod actions does not belong in the thread where the action occured. More often than not, the discussion of the mod action would bring the thread discussion off topic.

Haz wrote:Also, your verbal will be removed. The reason shall be explained in an hour or so, after I've completed work

b. Replies
Replies will be considered spam if they do not contribute to the discussion of the topic, or derail the topic from the intended purpose as defined in the opening post. This may include multiple replies that contain nothing more than emoticons or small words such as ‘lol’. While it is appropriate to indicate something is amusing, drowning out a whole thread with such posts makes it hard to follow for all users. The act of replying to a moderator post falls under this category, provided said post was not in forum issues or one of its subsections. Private messages (PMs) are not subject to this rule.

Haz wrote:

Haz wrote:Also, your verbal will be removed. The reason shall be explained in an hour or so, after I've completed work

OK here it is:

b. Replies
Replies will be considered spam if they do not contribute to the discussion of the topic, or derail the topic from the intended purpose as defined in the opening post. This may include multiple replies that contain nothing more than emoticons or small words such as ‘lol’. While it is appropriate to indicate something is amusing, drowning out a whole thread with such posts makes it hard to follow for all users. The act of replying to a moderator post falls under this category, provided said post was not in forum issues or one of its subsections. Private messages (PMs) are not subject to this rule.

Whilst discussing this verbal, it was noticed that we had overlooked a new change to the "Replying to a moderator post" rule. As it had not been there before, and the SoC #1 Vote was based on the consequence of the rule, not the rule itself, I had assumed that only the consequences changed, and not the rule. Whilst I personally disagree with the rule edit, at the time of the post it was within the rules and as such, I must abide by it.

I apologise for the confusion, and for the falsely given warning. A note has been made in your usernotes nullifying your verbal warning.

~Wolverine~ wrote:

Haz wrote:

Haz wrote:Also, your verbal will be removed. The reason shall be explained in an hour or so, after I've completed work

OK here it is:

b. Replies
Replies will be considered spam if they do not contribute to the discussion of the topic, or derail the topic from the intended purpose as defined in the opening post. This may include multiple replies that contain nothing more than emoticons or small words such as ‘lol’. While it is appropriate to indicate something is amusing, drowning out a whole thread with such posts makes it hard to follow for all users. The act of replying to a moderator post falls under this category, provided said post was not in forum issues or one of its subsections. Private messages (PMs) are not subject to this rule.

Whilst discussing this verbal, it was noticed that we had overlooked a new change to the "Replying to a moderator post" rule. As it had not been there before, and the SoC #1 Vote was based on the consequence of the rule, not the rule itself, I had assumed that only the consequences changed, and not the rule. Whilst I personally disagree with the rule edit, at the time of the post it was within the rules and as such, I must abide by it.

I apologise for the confusion, and for the falsely given warning. A note has been made in your usernotes nullifying your verbal warning.

Why dont you just delete the rule all together then?

~Tziki~ wrote:

Haz wrote:

~Wolverine~ wrote:

Empy wrote:

~Wolverine~ wrote:So whats the logic behind not being allowed to post in reply to a mods modding?

Because the majority of the time it's off-topic and there is a dedicated sub-section for discussing moderator's actions, and why they're muppets.

ya i get that and like your majority there.

But what harm does it do? The fact that a mod has to comment means theres more then likely spam there in the first place, and should be closed anyway.

Its pointless. Its not like your all high and mighty and nobodys allowed to reply to you, just cause you wrote in a different colour of writing.

It's nothing to do with someone thinking they are "all high and mighty". It is that discussion of mod actions does not belong in the thread where the action occured. More often than not, the discussion of the mod action would bring the thread discussion off topic.

and yet, that is how it is. many a time ive had a mod message me saying "do not reply to a mod, i am a mod" with an underlying message of "I have different colour name, i am all powerful and you will be punished for the simplest of things"


in all honesty, many mods allow their personal feeligns towards a player influence their own rule enforcement. It was only the other day i noticed a new mod had been appointed, and the first thing this mod did was warn me about a sig rule of which he himself was breaking, aswell as other mods.

whilst mods help enforce rules, it should not be a rule violation to tell a mod they are wrong.

if you wish for this to be a rule, you need to ensure that all mods are from england/america or another country of which their native language is english, so as that any posts (of which are all english on these boards) can be interpretted properly and not misunderstood by a mod that is unable to speak the language fluently. And ofcourse, mods that are able to be criticised publically without throwing in the "im a mod damn you, you will respect my authoritoir!!"

Haz wrote:

~Wolverine~ wrote:

Haz wrote:

Haz wrote:Also, your verbal will be removed. The reason shall be explained in an hour or so, after I've completed work

OK here it is:

b. Replies
Replies will be considered spam if they do not contribute to the discussion of the topic, or derail the topic from the intended purpose as defined in the opening post. This may include multiple replies that contain nothing more than emoticons or small words such as ‘lol’. While it is appropriate to indicate something is amusing, drowning out a whole thread with such posts makes it hard to follow for all users. The act of replying to a moderator post falls under this category, provided said post was not in forum issues or one of its subsections. Private messages (PMs) are not subject to this rule.

Whilst discussing this verbal, it was noticed that we had overlooked a new change to the "Replying to a moderator post" rule. As it had not been there before, and the SoC #1 Vote was based on the consequence of the rule, not the rule itself, I had assumed that only the consequences changed, and not the rule. Whilst I personally disagree with the rule edit, at the time of the post it was within the rules and as such, I must abide by it.

I apologise for the confusion, and for the falsely given warning. A note has been made in your usernotes nullifying your verbal warning.

Why dont you just delete the rule all together then?

I didn't say I disagreed with the whole rule, just the new edit of it. And I do not have the "power" to remove rules.