threatened with a warning?

[t3h d3vastator]

seeing as I got no answer from the mod in question i wanted to see what the ombudsman opinion is on this.

i had a vendetta thread which i posted in to say that it was over and that it could be closed. viewtopic.php?f=124&t=154215

on 29th october is said it could be closed as the vendetta was over (no i didn't use report function).

2 days later the thread is still open. so i make a comment "hello any mods alive????"

2 more days later thread still open, and i posted this "3 days later.......

hmm i guess mods don't do anything these days.

CLOSE IT!"


now i understand that i could have used the report function, but i have a habit of forgetting that there is a report function and i only remember upon my third close request.

i also understand that i could have been a little bit nicer in my responses but i didn't expect the thread to be ignored by mods for like 4 days.

thank you by the way to whoever closed it.

i then later got a PM from a green mod called H1N1 which went like this....

Subject: t3h d3vastator vs GalaticSystem

so all seems good. peace is now at hand. this vendetta can be closed.

hello any mods alive????

3 days later.......

hmm i guess mods don't do anything these days.

CLOSE IT!

want a warning?

For what???

i asked what he was suggesting a warning for and he never responded.

now looking at my posts i did not as far as i can see break a single forum rule. as i have said i know i could have been a bit nicer in my posts and the thread might have been locked earlier if i hadnt kept forgetting to use the report function.

however please can the ombudsman explain why i should receive such a "threat" (cant think of a better description for it) of a warning for my requests to close the thread?

which rules did i break?

all i can see is an attempt from a mod to get me to respond to him again and subsequently break a rule and get a warning. funnily enough he had no response to when i replied "For what?".

is it standard practice for mods to send out PMs saying "want a warning?".

now i know this section is usually for complaints about warnings being given, but seeing as this is a mod/user issue i felt it should be addressed here, especially as the mod didn't bother to reply.

i also understand if fellow mods come and post here to support their fellow mod which is understandable and you'll probably tell me that i should have been more respectful with my posts. and also because i'm a nobody on these forums then who will support me? i accept that hardly anyone will see this from my point of view.

all i want from you ombudsman is to know whether you agree and accept with the sort of pm that i received from H1N1 and whether it was deserved. i'd also like to know which forum rule i broke that constitued almost being given a warning.

i'd also like to know if this is standard procedure to send out pms like that?

i dont want a big argument or fight here between myself and everyone that supports H1N1 because no-one knows me. i just want the ombudsmans opinions. im not here for a fight, im keeping it friendly and not disrespectful.

thank you.

t3h d3vastator

[Zeratul]

the way to get such topic done away with, would have been one of these three:
report a post and ask for topic to be locked
let it die and fall to the bottom
pm a mod asking for its locking...

we're not going to comment on the case here, as its for the ombudsmen to look into...

[t3h d3vastator]

the way to get such topic done away with, would have been one of these three:
report a post and ask for topic to be locked
let it die and fall to the bottom
pm a mod asking for its locking...

we're not going to comment on the case here, as its for the ombudsmen to look into...

i did explain your first point about using the report function.

i dont believe in the whole let the thread die issue because someone can easily bump an old war thread and then it looks like its not over.

i could have pmd a mod but i thought posting would also work.

I have told others the same thing, a mod will close it when they see it, so just let it die down instead of keep bumping it up, or perhaps even report it to get it closed

so no mod saw my post in 4 days?

anyway, as i said what i want here is the ombudsman opinion on mods sending out messages with a semi threat about a warning.

[Zeratul]

mods are not omnipresent...

we for example, never see GC posts unless they are linked to us, as we dont read that section...

[t3h d3vastator]

mods are not omnipresent...

we for example, never see GC posts unless they are linked to us, as we dont read that section...

i understand that but you are an admin not a mod.

you are telling me that none of the 5 or 6 mods were present in the GC for those 4 days?

and i am not arguing about the fact the thread was not closed in 4 days. i have already explained that i could have handled it better. this thread is about a mod sending me a pm saying "want a warning?" when i broke no rule instead of posting in the locked thread saying something like please use the report function in future or something like that.

[t3h d3vastator]

Section 4: Spam

b. Replies
Replies will be considered spam if they do not contribute to the discussion of the topic. This may include off topic posting or an excessive number of posts 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.

so all seems good. peace is now at hand. this vendetta can be closed.

hello any mods alive????

3 days later.......

hmm i guess mods don't do anything these days.

CLOSE IT!

viewtopic.php?p=1918084#p1918084

seems like spam

it is not spam. i was bringing the thread to the attention of the mods for it to be closed.

spam would be as it says excessive posts contain just smilies or if i started posting about my dog or something random like that. but no i was posting a message for the mods to close the vendetta since it had ended.

[Juliette]

What you were (and are) doing was (and is) being non-productive and annoying.
PM a mod if it is THAT important to you that your thread is closed. Don't keep posting in that thread, effectively keeping it alive.


*sigh*
Whatever. You've been served. To quote my loverly boss: Want a warning? *grin*

[t3h d3vastator]

did you get a warning?

no and i already mentioned that in my earlier post. this is about the pm that H1N1 sent me. please read the thread again if you did not follow it properly.

spam would be as it says excessive posts contain just smilies or if i started posting about my dog or something random like that. but no i was posting a message for the mods to close the vendetta since it had ended.

Spam is also double and triple posting.

It is also necromancing threads(needless reviving dead topics).

And finally it is posting irrelevant messages. Your posts were, irrelevant, needlessly reviving a dead thread and you triple posted. More than enough reason to actually warn you.

As stated, if you really felt the need to get the mods attention you should have used the report function or simply PM'd one.

my posts were not irrelevant, they were relevant to the thread because i was indicating the vendetta had ended and that the thread should be closed. i have already explained why i did not use the report function, but the posts were not irrelevant. if i posted about my dog then that would be irrelevant.

please show me where i triple posted???

[t3h d3vastator]

from what I can tell, this thred is complaining about you getting a notice from a mod, that if you proceed to do what your doing you will be officially board warned.

i would hardly call it being given a notice that i would get a warning.

was there a reason as to why i might get warned? no
was there any advice on what i was doing wrong or the best way of going about it? no

it just seemed like a threat. he didnt like my post so he just sent a useless pm saying "Want a warning?". how helpful is that? i don't see it as advising me that i am heading for a warning.

As I said, I would like the ombudsman to look at this and the pm in particular. i would hope it is not just written off immediately and that i am told to deal with it.

[t3h d3vastator]

there was a reason for your verbal warning, Double Posting is against the forum rules...

please show me in this below exactly where it says "double posting is against the rules"

[spoiler]Section 4: Spam
a. Topics.
Topics will be considered spam if they fit into one of three categories.
i) They appear in the wrong section of the board.
ii) The poster has made more topics than is reasonable for one user within the day. (For a rough guide most users won’t start more than two topics in a single forum within a day however if they are all of interest and relevant to the forum then there is some flexibility to this rule.)
iii) The topic has already been locked by a moderator and the user has reposted the topic.

Consequence:
Topics in the wrong section will generally be moved to the correct section. Users who post too many topics or repost locked topics will be given one warning point.

b. Replies
Replies will be considered spam if they do not contribute to the discussion of the topic. This may include off topic posting or an excessive number of posts 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.

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

c. Locking threads.
There are some occasions where a thread or topic breaches the spamming guidelines however not in a serious enough way to give a warning to the users. In the following cases a moderator may lock and/or move a thread.

i) Irrelevance of the topic in the section it was posted (the topic will then be moved/deleted as appropriate with an explanatory note by the mod (if moved) or the original author notified via pm (if deleted)).

ii) In cases of over spamming/large amount of off-topic posts in a reasonably short amount of time that would otherwise involve more than reasonable amounts of moderating. (The topic will be locked with an explanatory note by the mod, and a fresh topic with the same title (Part II, III, etc) created).

iii) In cases where the general discussion of the conversation has changed from it's original intent. (The topic will be locked/split with an explanatory note by the mod).

In each case of locking or moving topics, then the original author, as the topic 'owner' is the only one who should contact the mod(s) or Ombudsperson if they have an issue with the decision or to request re-opening or re-moving.
d. Image size.
Images larger than 600 pixels wide need to be posted inside of a ‘spoiler box’.

Consequence:
A mod will place your image inside a spoiler box. Repeat offenders will be given one warning point.[/spoiler]

I have highlighted all (i think) of the areas that touch a little on more than one posting. The first highlighted bit is not relevant to this case as 2 posts is not considered excessive. Same goes for the 2nd highlighed bit.

so i fail to see where exactly in the rules that 2 posts one after the other is against the rules.

Eary saying "want a warning" may not be super helpful, but then again you could simply have replied politely via PM asking what the warning would be issued for..

i replied "For what?". ok i didnt say please, but it was polite enough.

[t3h d3vastator]

1. How long did you wait for Earendil to respond before you getting your panties in a knot?
2. Double posting is spam, spam is against the rules, therefore double posting is against the rules.

1. maybe not enough. but that is not the basis of my complaint.

2. if 2 posts are completely relevant and on track of a thread then why would they (or the 2nd one) be considered spam. just because the person didn't edit the previous post? rather silly to me.

lets say you had a war thread. a war thread is there to discuss a war and/or to post attack logs of a war. if there is not much discussion going on but there is a lot of ingame battles going on then there may only be one side posting stats in the thread. i think it is reasonable if one day someone posts a battle report and then the next day if there haven't been any new posts and there is a new battle report that the same person can post another post with the new battle report and not just edit the first post, because then people wouldn't go back in to a thread that they have already looked at and has not been bumped by a new post because the first one was edited. (i hope that made sense).

[Juliette]

1. How long did you wait for Earendil to respond before you getting your panties in a knot?
2. Double posting is spam, spam is against the rules, therefore double posting is against the rules.

1. maybe not enough. but that is not the basis of my complaint.

It is the basis for denying the validity of your complaint though. You seem to have lost your argument.

2. if 2 posts are completely relevant and on track of a thread then why would they (or the 2nd one) be considered spam. just because the person didn't edit the previous post? rather silly to me.

It seems using your otherwise considerable intellect is silly to you too, so forgive me for not caring about your opinion about the rules. Want them changed, follow another procedure, unlikely to succeed.

lets say you had a war thread. a war thread is there to discuss a war and/or to post attack logs of a war. if there is not much discussion going on but there is a lot of ingame battles going on then there may only be one side posting stats in the thread. i think it is reasonable if one day someone posts a battle report and then the next day if there haven't been any new posts and there is a new battle report that the same person can post another post with the new battle report and not just edit the first post, because then people wouldn't go back in to a thread that they have already looked at and has not been bumped by a new post because the first one was edited. (i hope that made sense).

*sigh* You know it didn't.

[t3h d3vastator]

lets say you had a war thread. a war thread is there to discuss a war and/or to post attack logs of a war. if there is not much discussion going on but there is a lot of ingame battles going on then there may only be one side posting stats in the thread. i think it is reasonable if one day someone posts a battle report and then the next day if there haven't been any new posts and there is a new battle report that the same person can post another post with the new battle report and not just edit the first post, because then people wouldn't go back in to a thread that they have already looked at and has not been bumped by a new post because the first one was edited. (i hope that made sense).

*sigh* You know it didn't.

I re-read through it and yes it did. let me set out a scenario.

1. a war is declared, a vendetta thread opened.
2. discussion is made and battles reports posted.
3. several days have gone by where no-one has posted, but the war is still ongoing.
4. because of this the thread has dropped halfway down the page.
5. the latest battle reports are to be posted in the thread byt the previous person.

6a. said person edits previous post with new battle report. thread remains halfway down the page. no-one checks an old war thread on the off chance someone updated the last post.

6b. said person adds new post to the thread with latest battle report pushing it back up for people to see and encouraging replies to the war discussion.

which is better for a war thread, 6a or 6b?

[muffafuffin]

there is also a bump function.

not to mention that in the case of multiple threads of the same things mods close the duplicate or merge it (the duplicate being the newer one). again its just another matter of giving the mods a chance to get to the work placed for them.

[t3h d3vastator]

there is also a bump function.

this is true. but sometimes it does not seem to appear.