First Account.

Want to address a Forum Mod directly? Here you go...
If you want a SPECIFIC mod, use PM, but for any mod, this is the quickest place...
User avatar
semper
The sharp-tongued devil you can't seem to forget...
Posts: 7289
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 2:24 pm
Race: God
ID: 0
Location: Forever watching...always here...
Contact:

First Account.

Let me make a first point. I don't particularly care to have my personal warning removed (I shall wear it as a badge of honour for defending the community's right in this case), the consequences of my actions are naught to the point they attempt to illustrate.

Empy wrote:This topic is about posting your original account's ID to see who has it now, not about posting if you have the same account. Admittedly a little confusing, but now you know! Please try to keep on topic.

~Empy


Semper wrote:REALLY? What if they post their account ID and they still have it? Put the mod tool down Empy.. this instance is a little stupid.. I can understand the need to stay on topic but some exceedingly minor deviation relevant to the topic is hardly going off topic on a wild tangent about flying pens that know how to do a fine tango whilst singing 'hey baby'...


Now.. I know that directly replying to mods is, in general naughty, hell I'm pretty certain it was I that pioneered that rule but at the same time I feel Empy's entire case is.. well.. ridiculous. I'd point it out in a PM, but why? He's been blatantly stupid in front of anyone who reads the topic to begin with.. the cat's already out of the bag.

Furthermore I address the direct constriction on the topic itself. If every topic completely stayed to the letter of it's original post's topic (as Empy is trying to unlawfully enforce in his mod post) then how would any discussion evolve or grow? How would this forum have ever truly become what it is, we'd have to delete the entire debate or spam section immediately! I find that this message by Empy directly contradicts that and also is a direct act against the benign freedom of the users of the forums or in other words a breach of our rights and rules to freedom that is in no way a harm. As such I took it upon myself to act in accordance with those who police our society here and decided to pay no heed to their rules.

All areas of discussion have wings and branches. In this case a global moderator put a toe over the line of abuse of power and I intend, for the sake of all to highlight this fact. I am sure there are many examples, as ever of many rules being broken, or allowed to be eaten with a pinch of salt. I'd make the point to Empy to chill with the green ink.

To further the discussion of how this issue was handled I point out the quoted reason as to why I was warned (Replies 'b', spam). This quote was given by Haz, the mod dealing with the issue (and may I say on the whole he has done a good job). Now my original post was edited from the topic and moved to the public dump.. yet this is not part of the consequences stated in the rule quoted at me, it is an action outside of the rules made above and beyond the path that had been highlighted by the mod dealing with the case. I find it insulting that my words would be thrown to the dump and do take offence at that and would like to highlight my third complaint as that.

Forum Rules wrote:Consequence:
A polite note from a moderator will be personally issued requesting the user cut down the amount of irrelevant posts. Repeat offenders will be given one warning point.


The mod acted against the prescribed forum rules, the public 'bill of rights' if need be. Again.. a case of a mod NOT following their rules, with no punishment I assume (not that I am seeking one) yet I am 'punished'?

I can understand the mods need to police topics but I feel this entire issue has been mis handled. If we apply either unspoken rules or purely written rules a mod is violating the understood script and I have also been slighted by the direct implication my words are garbage from an office of 'professional' forum police.

MAIN AIM OF THIS TOPIC:
- To have empy's in-topic warning removed (not re-phrased) or to keep it there and allow my posted objection to remain in that topic without any further punishment.
Image
Accolades/Titles:
Spoiler
Started Playing: April 2005
Honours (5): Hall of Fame 2009. Annual Awards Host 2008, 2009, 2013, 2014 and 2015.
Winner (12): RP'er of the Year 2008, Runner Up Poster of the Year 2008, Debater of the Year 2008, War of the Year 2008, Poster of the Year 2009, Alliance of the Year 2009 (Nemesis Sect, Creator), Alliance War of the Year 2009 (Nempire vs Mayhem, Instigator), RP'er Runner Up 2009, Knew You'd Be Back 2010, Conflict of the Decade (FUALL v TF), Conflict of the Decade Runner Up (Ga vs TF), Alliance of the Decade (TDD).
Nominated (8): Writer of the year 2007, Avatar of the Year 2007, Poster of the Year 2007, Villain of the Year 2008, Player Sig 2008, Race Player of the Year 2009, Most Missed 2010, Alliance Leadership 2010, Most Missed 2011.
Commands (3): Supreme System Lord 2008, 2010, 2011 and 2012. System Lord Council 2006 - present. Dark Lord and Emperor of the Nempire 2009 - 2011.
Alliances (9): DDE, EA, OSL, TFUR, DDEII, AI, RM, WoB, Nemesis.
Forum Roles (4): Former Misc GM, Race Mod (Goa'uld), Debate forum patriarch and mod.
Guild
Forum Addict
Posts: 4826
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2008 11:18 am
Alliance: Retiring
Race: Draeden
ID: 1916018
Location: writing a booklet so people understand my humour :D

Re: First Account.

Semper wrote:If every topic completely stayed to the letter of it's original post's topic (as Empy is trying to unlawfully enforce in his mod post) then how would any discussion evolve or grow? How would this forum have ever truly become what it is, we'd have to delete the entire debate or spam section immediately! I find that this message by Empy directly contradicts that and also is a direct act against the benign freedom of the users of the forums or in other words a breach of our rights and rules to freedom that is in no way a harm.


so.. when you warned me for deviating slightly from a topic you made, your saying you shouldnt have ? awesome ill have one warning removed thanks semper :-)
Retired but still on a rampage
Spoiler
Rudy Peña wrote:Yea, OE is the the next FS in terms of snipers. We proud ourselves on it to the point we give out awards and see who can mass the most with a 0 def.
Drahazar wrote:Im happy to snipe anyone i want, why should i build any defences for you people
George Hazard wrote:FM is like a rite of passage for alliances.
You haven't truly made it to manhood until you've slept with the town prostitute.
Image
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Image
Image
Image
Image
User avatar
Clarkey
Multi Hunter
Posts: 14366
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2005 4:23 am
ID: 0
Contact:

Honours and Awards

Re: First Account.

Just because the thread creator (who coincidentally happened to be a mod) posted stating what "he" wants people to talk about does not mean that the topic of discussion should be set in stone.

I also dont find it appropriate that Mods should be stating what the thread is intended to be about, and if it was appropriate why is it not done in other topics?

Other topics have often evolved without any Mod intervention, yet this topic started by a Mod as a User is not allowed any form of evolution?

I personally feel the spam and off-topic situation is too stringently dealt with on the forum overall.
Image ImageImageImage
Empy
Derper
Posts: 7215
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2008 7:02 pm
Race: Eldar
Location: The other side of the fence

Re: First Account.

Topic is about people posting who has their first account now, assuming they've changed accounts over their SGW career.

Posts made in the thread that derail the topic from that, will be treated as spam, and removed. Such posts were made, they were treated as spam and removed, and I posted to help ensure in the future no more off-topic posts would be made.

The topic of each thread must be defined somehow, every topic can't just be a free for all of posting whatever anyone wants, that's what the spam temple is for. The creator of a thread has the right define what the topic will be upon creating it. If you want to talk about something other than what the thread has been defined to be about, then you are 100% free to create another thread, no one will stop you.

In this case, as I said, Odin said the topic will be about posting who has your first account now, assuming you have changed accounts over your SGW career. It was clearly pointed out that the topic will not be to talk about having the same account over your entire career. Therefore, any posts making such remarks were treated as spam, and removed.
Image

Image[url=steam://friends/add/76561198036220818]Image[/url]
Spoiler
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
User avatar
Clarkey
Multi Hunter
Posts: 14366
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2005 4:23 am
ID: 0
Contact:

Honours and Awards

Re: First Account.

viewtopic.php?f=101&t=183768

This here states that spam and off-topic posts are allowed as long as the original topic of the thread remains, and it is returned to in a reasonable amount of posts.

The topic hardly derailed and it was not imo given enough time (posts) for it to be returned in a reasonable amount of posts.
Image ImageImageImage
Empy
Derper
Posts: 7215
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2008 7:02 pm
Race: Eldar
Location: The other side of the fence

Re: First Account.

They did derail the topic, after just 1 post about still having your first account 2 more immediately followed. Had they not been removed, and my post made, I'm fairly certain more people would've seen the posts and said to themselves, "hey, I still have my first account too! I'll post!" To prevent that I removed them and made my post.
Image

Image[url=steam://friends/add/76561198036220818]Image[/url]
Spoiler
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
User avatar
Clarkey
Multi Hunter
Posts: 14366
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2005 4:23 am
ID: 0
Contact:

Honours and Awards

Re: First Account.

Sorry but I disagree, that is not a derailment.

Take the Covert 39 thread for example.
viewtopic.php?f=101&t=185406

This didn't stay strictly on topic yet it was allowed to breath and come back on topic without any quick mod intervention. Yet the thread in question was treated differently.

As I said spam and off-topic is dealt with way too stringently.
Image ImageImageImage
User avatar
Juliette
Verified
The Queen
Posts: 31802
Joined: Sun Feb 06, 2005 6:57 pm
Race: Royalty
ID: 4323
Alternate name(s): Cersei Lannister
Location: Ultima Thule

Re: First Account.

I have to say I agree with Clarkey's assessment of the level of derailment, whatever that means.

On another note, since when is a regular user allowed to 'dictate' the topic of their thread to a point where General's GM has to personally intervene to prevent 'derailment'? :-k Did we change away from the 'dynamic topic', which allows for deviation from someone's original topic and natural 'group conversation'?
How often have we changed the 'original topic' of a thread because the conversation went in another direction? :)



Finally, after looking this over, I believe this can be resolved by a simple conversation between GM and user. Since there is no contesting of an issued warning, nor an urgent reason to require ombudsman mediation, I will move this thread to "Talk to the Mods directly" where you are free to post your agreement/disagreement with mods. ;)

*moved*

[spoiler]The issue of the value of 'in-thread warnings'/'verbal warnings'/'warnings' deserves some consideration.[/spoiler]
Image
Empy
Derper
Posts: 7215
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2008 7:02 pm
Race: Eldar
Location: The other side of the fence

Re: First Account.

T-X wrote:On another note, since when is a regular user allowed to 'dictate' the topic of their thread to a point where General's GM has to personally intervene to prevent 'derailment'?
How the hell else are you supposed to know what a topic is supposed to be about? Seems to me the only logical way to is to look at the first post...

T-X wrote: :-k Did we change away from the 'dynamic topic', which allows for deviation from someone's original topic and natural 'group conversation'?
The situation is different, because the posts were talking about something that was clearly stated the topic was NOT about. They weren't just slightly deviating and drifting the conversation back and forth.

T-X wrote:How often have we changed the 'original topic' of a thread because the conversation went in another direction? :)
I don't know who this "we" is but I never have, and would never do that... the original topic of a thread, is the only topic of a thread, if someone wants to talk about something else then they should make a different thread, NOT derail the topic and start a different discussion.
Image

Image[url=steam://friends/add/76561198036220818]Image[/url]
Spoiler
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
User avatar
Jack
Evil Reincarnated
Posts: 13044
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 8:42 pm
Alliance: The Empire
Race: Dragonborn
ID: 6475
Location: Whiterun

Re: First Account.

Semper wrote:Let me make a first point. I don't particularly care to have my personal warning removed (I shall wear it as a badge of honour for defending the community's right in this case), the consequences of my actions are naught to the point they attempt to illustrate.

Translation: I care, but I don't want it to be obvious, so I'm going to pretend like I don't shortly before I go into a tirade about the subject I totally don't about! Also, run-on sentences, **Filtered** yeah!

Semper wrote:hell I'm pretty certain it was I that pioneered that rule

Cute, but no.

Semper wrote:Now.. I know that directly replying to mods is, in general naughty, hell I'm pretty certain it was I that pioneered that rule but at the same time I feel Empy's entire case is.. well.. ridiculous. I'd point it out in a PM, but why? He's been blatantly stupid in front of anyone who reads the topic to begin with.. the cat's already out of the bag.

No need for the preface, the "but" makes it worthless.

Translation: I know I violated the rules, I don't care and think that I should be given an exception because I said so.

Semper wrote:Furthermore I address the direct constriction on the topic itself. If every topic completely stayed to the letter of it's original post's topic (as Empy is trying to unlawfully enforce in his mod post) then how would any discussion evolve or grow?

Unlawfully? Lulz. There is a time and a place for deviation and not all deviations are created equal. Empy felt like the deviation taken place was disruptive to the original intent of the thread. If you disagreed with him, great, there's plenty of places to take your concern. The thread in question isn't one of them. Therefore, this part of your argument is irrelevant.

Semper wrote:How would this forum have ever truly become what it is, we'd have to delete the entire debate or spam section immediately!

Further irrelevance. The rules for debate and spam wildly differ from those of General.

Semper wrote:I find that this message by Empy directly contradicts that and also is a direct act against the benign freedom of the users of the forums or in other words a breach of our rights and rules to freedom that is in no way a harm. As such I took it upon myself to act in accordance with those who police our society here and decided to pay no heed to their rules.

You have no rights here, only privileges. Learn the difference.

Semper wrote:To further the discussion of how this issue was handled I point out the quoted reason as to why I was warned (Replies 'b', spam). This quote was given by Haz, the mod dealing with the issue (and may I say on the whole he has done a good job). Now my original post was edited from the topic and moved to the public dump.. yet this is not part of the consequences stated in the rule quoted at me, it is an action outside of the rules made above and beyond the path that had been highlighted by the mod dealing with the case. I find it insulting that my words would be thrown to the dump and do take offence at that and would like to highlight my third complaint as that.

Narcissism at it's finest. Splitting posts has been SoP forever. To expect otherwise is just plain silly.

Semper wrote:The mod acted against the prescribed forum rules, the public 'bill of rights' if need be. Again.. a case of a mod NOT following their rules, with no punishment I assume (not that I am seeking one) yet I am 'punished'?

This forum has no bill of rights. The rules are to limit users moreso than anything else. Further, your accusation that Haz acted against the prescribed rules is meritless, there is no rule stating that mods will not or can not split posts in these circumstances.

Semper wrote:I can understand the mods need to police topics but I feel this entire issue has been mis handled.

Absolutely. It was mishandled by you.

Semper wrote:If we apply either unspoken rules or purely written rules a mod is violating the understood script

The 'understood script' is that offtopic posts can be dumped and may cause the poster to receive a warning. This is especially true when the user responds to a mod post in the topic the post was made.

Semper wrote:I have also been slighted by the direct implication my words are garbage from an office of 'professional' forum police.

Forum police, that's cute. When do we get our badges? :-D

As for being 'slighted' poor baby. Would you like me to call momma for you so that she can cuddle you and tell you that everything will be alright?

Semper wrote:MAIN AIM OF THIS TOPIC:
- To have empy's in-topic warning removed (not re-phrased) or to keep it there and allow my posted objection to remain in that topic without any further punishment.

Translation: I want the forum rules to be enforced in a way I deem acceptable and if not, then I expect an exception from the rules.
Ya'll acting like you know what monster is
Me have 25 years in the monster biz
All monsters think you can fuss with this
Well you can talk to me Snuffleupagus
Me sneak into your house, me leave before dawn
Your daughters will be pregnant and your cookies will be gone
Image
Malx wrote:Make kids not cancer!
User avatar
Jack
Evil Reincarnated
Posts: 13044
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 8:42 pm
Alliance: The Empire
Race: Dragonborn
ID: 6475
Location: Whiterun

Re: First Account.

T-X wrote:General's GM has to personally intervene to prevent 'derailment'?

Cute but no. This statement is deliberately misleading. Just because a GM takes a mod action, does not mean that it was required for a specific mod/GM to take action, it just means that they were the first one there.
Ya'll acting like you know what monster is
Me have 25 years in the monster biz
All monsters think you can fuss with this
Well you can talk to me Snuffleupagus
Me sneak into your house, me leave before dawn
Your daughters will be pregnant and your cookies will be gone
Image
Malx wrote:Make kids not cancer!
User avatar
Drought
Forum Expert
Posts: 1142
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 11:52 am
ID: 0
Location: dde

Re: First Account.

Semper wrote:.. a global moderator put a toe over the line ..


And you use a shotgun to counter it.




T-X wrote:.. I believe this can be resolved by a simple conversation between GM and user.


Would have been a stalemate, this whining is as good as it gets :-D


Popcorn and drinks are in place.
Image
a very bad hairdo
Image
User avatar
Juliette
Verified
The Queen
Posts: 31802
Joined: Sun Feb 06, 2005 6:57 pm
Race: Royalty
ID: 4323
Alternate name(s): Cersei Lannister
Location: Ultima Thule

Re: First Account.

Empy wrote:
T-X wrote:On another note, since when is a regular user allowed to 'dictate' the topic of their thread to a point where General's GM has to personally intervene to prevent 'derailment'?
How the hell else are you supposed to know what a topic is supposed to be about? Seems to me the only logical way to is to look at the first post...
:lol: Of course. That is not the point. One starts a conversation on topic A, the thread takes off, people talk about topic A and related topic B. Gradually, the focus shifts to topic B. The OP returns to the thread and says "This is not what this thread is about", while it essentially is about that. A thread does not exist of a first post and a bunch of replies to that first post. A thread exists of a first post, replies to that first post, and replies to the replies. (See where I am going? I trust you are, point made.)

Empy wrote:The Author simply starts the discussion going by starting the thread. After that they have ZERO control over the thread. Zero, Zip, Nadda, None. If anyone does it would be the Forum Staff (Mods, Admins, etc).

If a post does not pertain to the topic of the thread, then it should be moved, but too many posts are considered off topic or spam. Get over it, someone makes a post you don't like, or it's someone you don't want in the topic? Deal with it, you should be prepared for ANYONE to post ANYTHING about your topic when you start the thread, or don't start it.
viewtopic.php?p=1880001#p1880001

Empy wrote:
T-X wrote: :-k Did we change away from the 'dynamic topic', which allows for deviation from someone's original topic and natural 'group conversation'?
The situation is different, because the posts were talking about something that was clearly stated the topic was NOT about. They weren't just slightly deviating and drifting the conversation back and forth.
Bear with me for a second, please. :) A topic is defined by the author to be about 'Apples, the Fruit'. People start talking about 'Pears', 'Linux' and 'Chickens'. Which of these subjects is 'slightly deviating' according to you? Common sense would say they all are, but posts about 'chickens' more so than the others, while a few posts about 'pears' are relatively on topic. Now, if the topic is defined as "Apples, the Fruit AND DEFINITELY NOT PEARS", do posts about 'pears' become 'more off topic'?
The point of this illustration: Since when does an original author have the 'right' to state what a thread is not about? Sure, starting a conversation requires setting a topic, but does it need to be defined what a thread is not about? :?
Empy wrote:
T-X wrote:How often have we changed the 'original topic' of a thread because the conversation went in another direction? :)
I don't know who this "we" is but I never have, and would never do that... the original topic of a thread, is the only topic of a thread, if someone wants to talk about something else then they should make a different thread, NOT derail the topic and start a different discussion.
Peculiar. Must be something we (but not you, fine) 'used' to do in General when a thread had shifted .

Dovahkiin wrote:
T-X wrote:General's GM has to personally intervene to prevent 'derailment'?
Cute but no. This statement is deliberately misleading. Just because a GM takes a mod action, does not mean that it was required for a specific mod/GM to take action, it just means that they were the first one there.
Don't patronise me, Bubbles, and don't put words in my mouth. I never said he was REQUIRED to intervene. I said he did, despite his mods being there. ;) Now this is not the subject at hand, and I would appreciate it if you did not derail this discussion with passive-aggressive 'witticisms'. (I use the term loosely, because re-using old jokes by other people is hardly witty.)
Image
User avatar
Jack
Evil Reincarnated
Posts: 13044
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 8:42 pm
Alliance: The Empire
Race: Dragonborn
ID: 6475
Location: Whiterun

Re: First Account.

Nice try, princess.

T-X wrote:Don't patronise me, Bubbles, and don't put words in my mouth. I never said he was REQUIRED to intervene. I said he did, despite his mods being there. ;)

Actually, you said:
T-X wrote:General's GM has to personally intervene to prevent 'derailment'?

Has to means something is necessary, a necessity is something that is required. The use of personally just solidifies that fact. ;)

T-X wrote:Now this is not the subject at hand, and I would appreciate it if you did not derail this discussion with passive-aggressive 'witticisms'. (I use the term loosely, because re-using old jokes by other people is hardly witty.)

Again, nice try. My response is merely a rebuttal of your statement, so if it is off topic, then you are yourself as well. That just makes this a blatant attempt to discourage opposing viewpoints. Wont work. Besides, you don't have any power here anyways, so why even bother with the request?
Ya'll acting like you know what monster is
Me have 25 years in the monster biz
All monsters think you can fuss with this
Well you can talk to me Snuffleupagus
Me sneak into your house, me leave before dawn
Your daughters will be pregnant and your cookies will be gone
Image
Malx wrote:Make kids not cancer!
Empy
Derper
Posts: 7215
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2008 7:02 pm
Race: Eldar
Location: The other side of the fence

Re: First Account.

T-X wrote:
Empy wrote:
T-X wrote:On another note, since when is a regular user allowed to 'dictate' the topic of their thread to a point where General's GM has to personally intervene to prevent 'derailment'?
How the hell else are you supposed to know what a topic is supposed to be about? Seems to me the only logical way to is to look at the first post...
:lol: Of course. That is not the point. One starts a conversation on topic A, the thread takes off, people talk about topic A and related topic B. Gradually, the focus shifts to topic B. The OP returns to the thread and says "This is not what this thread is about", while it essentially is about that. A thread does not exist of a first post and a bunch of replies to that first post. A thread exists of a first post, replies to that first post, and replies to the replies. (See where I am going? I trust you are, point made.)
A thread exists of a discussion around a certain topic. Doesn't matter who you're replying to, the first post, or a reply to the first post.

T-X wrote:
Empy wrote:The Author simply starts the discussion going by starting the thread. After that they have ZERO control over the thread. Zero, Zip, Nadda, None. If anyone does it would be the Forum Staff (Mods, Admins, etc).

If a post does not pertain to the topic of the thread, then it should be moved, but too many posts are considered off topic or spam. Get over it, someone makes a post you don't like, or it's someone you don't want in the topic? Deal with it, you should be prepared for ANYONE to post ANYTHING about your topic when you start the thread, or don't start it.
viewtopic.php?p=1880001#p1880001
What I said there and what I said here do not contradict one another. Even if they did... I think I'm allowed to change my opinion in 2 and 1/2 years.
Empy wrote:Case and point. The Author simply starts the discussion going by starting the thread. After that they have ZERO control over the thread. Zero, Zip, Nadda, None. If anyone does it would be the Forum Staff (Mods, Admins, etc).
They have zero control, correct. The author of a topic cannot ask for a post to be removed and expect for it just be removed because they started it. The decision to remove posts lies 100% with the Forum Staff, not the author. To make that decision though the forum staff need a point of reference of what is on topic, and what is off topic. That point of reference is the first post, made by the author of the topic.

Empy wrote:If a post does not pertain to the topic of the thread, then it should be moved, but too many posts are considered off topic or spam. Get over it, someone makes a post you don't like, or it's someone you don't want in the topic? Deal with it, you should be prepared for ANYONE to post ANYTHING about your topic when you start the thread, or don't start it.
Too many posts are considered off topic or spam, when the posts are just people bantering back and forth with each other and having fun. That's what this post is about, and that's what the post Clarkey referenced is about.

T-X wrote:
Empy wrote:
T-X wrote: :-k Did we change away from the 'dynamic topic', which allows for deviation from someone's original topic and natural 'group conversation'?
The situation is different, because the posts were talking about something that was clearly stated the topic was NOT about. They weren't just slightly deviating and drifting the conversation back and forth.
Bear with me for a second, please. :) A topic is defined by the author to be about 'Apples, the Fruit'. People start talking about 'Pears', 'Linux' and 'Chickens'. Which of these subjects is 'slightly deviating' according to you? Common sense would say they all are, but posts about 'chickens' more so than the others, while a few posts about 'pears' are relatively on topic. Now, if the topic is defined as "Apples, the Fruit AND DEFINITELY NOT PEARS", do posts about 'pears' become 'more off topic'?
Topic is about Apples, the fruit. Pears are slightly off topic, but it depends if the author wanted to talk more about apples, or fruit. Linux is way off topic, chickens are way off topic. If the author makes the clear distinction that the topic is about APPLES not just any fruit, then pears are just as off topic as Linux or chickens.

If someone starts a topic about whose hands your first account is in now, then posts about still having your first account are slightly off topic, and posts about Linux and chickens are way off topic. If the author makes the clear distinction that the topic is about WHO HAS YOUR OLD ACCOUNT, and not STILL HAVING YOUR ACCOUNT, then posts about still having your account are just as off topic as Linux or chickens.

T-X wrote:The point of this illustration: Since when does an original author have the 'right' to state what a thread is not about? Sure, starting a conversation requires setting a topic, but
does it need to be defined what a thread is not about? :?
They've always had the right to state what a thread is about. If someone starts a topic talking about the ingame economy, no one can come in and start talking about the price of tea in China and expect their post to remain. If the author did not have the right to state what the topic of a thread would be, their certainly is no other way to decide... and so how do you know what posts are on topic and which are off?

Some topics are broad, and can encompass many different sub-topics... the topic about the ingame economy could involve talking about many different things, and so the topic could move back and forth between many different things and there is nothing wrong with that. I assume we all agree on that point. But in the specific case we're talking about, there was SPECIFIC topic started with a SPECIFIC point. It was not about "your first account" only, it was about "who has your first account now, assuming you've changed accounts." So talking about your first account, when you still have your first account, and have not changed accounts must be off topic!

If people started talking about how their account ended up in the hands of who has it now, or about the people who have their first account, or just about their first account (how good it was, how bad it was) then those would all be fine. They're not specifically what the topic was about, but they're pretty close and I think it's a fair discussion to be having given the scope of the topic that was started. I think THESE are the instances you're all talking about that should be, have been, and will always be (I hope) allowed. I agree! What we're talking about right now though, is different.
Image

Image[url=steam://friends/add/76561198036220818]Image[/url]
Spoiler
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Post Reply

Return to “Talk to the Mods Direct”