Archy slap him, send him to school cos I cant take nomore

[Rocky]

a member of alpha posted in the thread about the account which was in our war, r8 then replied to him about the account which is in the war, see all war related.
The fact that a member of alpha is talking to a member of TL about an account in our war, is completely on topic, it may be not directly talking about us fighting but its a part of our war, and to be discussing it in our thread can't exactly be taken as spamming, or off topic talk. if you post in the thread something that doesn't make sense or is wrong, why does he have to follow it? the mods are there to enforce the rules not make them up.

and this is posted in the mod feedback, so it is here so that brdavs can let you know how he feels and so that you don't make the same mistake again...hopefully.

edit: Brdavs basically said it

I want to reply to the coloured part of your post Rocky as I do not want anyone to take your advice and get themselves unneeded warnings.

If a mod asks you to stop doing something (be it spam or talking of a specific matter) please do as he asks you to. Not complying will only lead to warnings that can be avoided.

If you do not agree with him, then please do as Bardvs did and post in the designated sections so the issue can be discussed.

Following Rocky's advice to ignore the mod posts if you do not agree with them is thus not a good idea.

Why should anyone follow something if the mod is asking something that is not in the rules we have agreed to abide by? For example in this case if the mod ask someone to discuss something ontopic elsewhere, why do it elsewhere?

thats the way ive done it all this time and Im not 100% sure, but i don't think ive ever been warned so.....

I won't comment further on your post, as I do not see to derail the topic.

I will just stress out again, that not following a moderator's order will get you a warning.


I hope that is clear now.

thats an interesting point actually, point out to me where it says that in the rules??

maybe you should add it, if you want to enforce that.
or maybe ive missed it...

[Brdavs]

Thats why the "command" of empy was to take it to MSN and not to split the thread. But last I checked, dictating whats forum and whats MSN worthy is not part of his job description.

I do believe there was an / which usually means and/or. He was suggesting where to take it instead of where it can not be talked about.

Oh wow, PMs OR MSN. He is so generous.

I`m still waiting to be pointed at the forum rule that alows him to dictate the form in which people can discuss certain issues that are ontopic (since I`m yet to be given a convincing counter reason that they are infact not) based purely on his oppinion and perception of the matter.

We were all fine doing it there. Its intimatly conected with the war of the topic. There were no forum rules broken. Yet the discussion is plugged based solly on one mods oppinion that the subject matter is "better suited for PMs/MSN". What objecitve criteria can he base that on? Is it a new forum policy that all conflict resolution talks are now done behind the scenes by any chance?

[Empy]

Brdavs your post was removed because you failed to abide by my request to discontinue the discussion about account surrender procedures between TL and Alpha.

Why did I post and say to discontinue talking about the account now being in Alpha? It is not pertinent to the war. You say to Alpha "This account engaged in hostilities against us and has yet to surrender, therefore we are going to continue massing it." Great! That doesn't have anything to do with the MaYHeM/TL war because the account is no longer in MaYHeM. You still may not like the account, but that doesn't matter to MaYHeM, does it?

It is a discussion not suited for debate in the topic, but more suited to be worked out between Alpha and TL in PMs and MSN. I've said that in every single post of mine. If TL wants to continue hostile actions against the account which is now in Alpha then create a Vendetta Topic. No one is going to merge it back in to the Mh/TL topic.

I'm going to try and not respond again after this because we're going in circles.

[Brdavs]

You will not dictate to TL when it considers its conflicts concluded empy or on what criteria it bases them. That is not in the scope of your authority. As you do not dictate OE who their empire enemis they reserve the right to pursue are.

You may think it a jerk move to do it. Like I posted (and you removed), I personally agree and would argue against doing it in said discussion.

But I`ve been denied that chance to articulate that based on grounds I deem unsufficient. I put it to your peers and superiors for further judgment. If it they agree with you I see no choice but to split the discussion in question into a seperate thread. Cos you have no grounds to banish it from the forum alltogehter as long as all participants are ok with conducting their discussion there, your personal preferences aside.

Personally I would deem a seperate thread unneccessary overkill, but hey, if you want to overcomplicate your life, be my guest.

We will have 3 threads I suppose. One for the war. One to discuss this unique and imho very war related "situation". And one for a vendetta, if it ever comes that far. Yay for buerocracy?

[lone dragon]

Only puttin in a opinion, but I dont see this thread justifying your case nor doing anything else but annoying or upsetting mods. Why not just take it to the omb or wait til voting is done then take your case to where it needs to be. This way you get a fair hearing and get to hear what you want to know without being warned, but as I said its just a suggestion.

[Brdavs]

Only puttin in a opinion, but I dont see this thread justifying your case nor doing anything else but annoying or upsetting mods. Why not just take it to the omb or wait til voting is done then take your case to where it needs to be. This way you get a fair hearing and get to hear what you want to know without being warned, but as I said its just a suggestion.

It shows you`re relativly new to these forums. By the time elections are done and the thing gets anything resembling a fair hearing this game will be under for half a decade lol.

If this section upsets the mods they should close it down. Apparently they`re well versed with pulling plugs for what can best be described arbitrary reasons, in case you hadnt noticed.

I only offer criticism to encourage selfreflection and selfimprovment.

[lone dragon]

Only puttin in a opinion, but I dont see this thread justifying your case nor doing anything else but annoying or upsetting mods. Why not just take it to the omb or wait til voting is done then take your case to where it needs to be. This way you get a fair hearing and get to hear what you want to know without being warned, but as I said its just a suggestion.

It shows you`re relativly new to these forums. By the time elections are done and the thing gets anything resembling a fair hearing this game will be under for half a decade lol.

If this section upsets the mods they should close it down. Apparently they`re well versed with pulling plugs in case you hadnt noticed.

I only offer criticism to encourage selfreflection and selfimprovment.

Well not quiet new but very dormant in the main and very quiet, but I see it this was the mods are resolved to their charter I dont know if ya know Australia and centerlink is the most ambivalent bureaucracy they cannot do anything that conflicts the rules that the ombudsman's job so if you want to encourage selfreflection and selfimprovment maybe you need a new angle.

[~Massin4Christ~]

It was spam... that is why I posted. The entire reason I posted was because of the posts the like of which Matt quoted. The discussions was to be ended, and I said as much. Yet you ignored me and continued it anyways, therefore I removed your post.

It was not spam... Maybe you need to educate yourself?

Spam is the abuse of electronic messaging systems (including most broadcast media, digital delivery systems) to send unsolicited bulk messages indiscriminately. ...

[deni]

It was spam... that is why I posted. The entire reason I posted was because of the posts the like of which Matt quoted. The discussions was to be ended, and I said as much. Yet you ignored me and continued it anyways, therefore I removed your post.

It was not spam... Maybe you need to educate yourself?

Spam is the abuse of electronic messaging systems (including most broadcast media, digital delivery systems) to send unsolicited bulk messages indiscriminately. ...

You are wrong.

Spam is what it is considered to be spam on this forums and that is explained in the rules

[Rocky]

4.
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.

Replying to moderator posts in a topic is defined as spam. The discussion of the moderator's actions belongs in the designated forums or private messages.



the case being argued, is that discussing the exit of an account which is part of the war, in the war thread, is considered as spam.
which makes little sense because the account is still in the war according to TL, and thus discussions about its exit is relevant to the war, thus the term spam cannot be used to describe any of the posts that were removed

Rocky

[BarelyAllen]

Don't get mad at me, I just want to say, it sort of is about the war, as it is an issue that arose from the war, and is about deciding who is involved in the war. Just an opinion.

[BarelyAllen]

Got me beat there.

[Rocky]

the account is part of the war, it is no vendetta, the account is still in the war and therefore discussions about it are relevant in the war thread.
Nowhere does it say war threads are only there for ingame fighting of the two sides, you can discuss all aspects of a war in the thread. Because it is all relevant to the war.

the key word being "relevant"

also its not about the sale of the account, its about the account's exit from the war.

[Brdavs]

Don't get mad at me, I just want to say, it sort of is about the war, as it is an issue that arose from the war, and is about deciding who is involved in the war. Just an opinion.

Wrong

That would be a vendetta then, not an alliance vs. alliance.

Its not really a vendetta untill the situation has been given a chance to be clarified and resolved peacefully as we`d all like to see it. What better place to clarify it than in the war thread?

I mean I find it rather humorous that (judging by m4c seperate thread) both sides on this would rather see empy not interveene and allow the discussion to run its course... yet mods somehow see fit to deem whats appropriate for us to consentually and civily discuss there.

Just dont now tell me your argument is that an account exiting the war discussion is derailing the thread about the war in question, to be considered spam lol. That`d be weaksauce and you know it. Weaker than thinking you get to tell us when our wars are over.


I dont see what you guys gain by perpetuating this "embargo". Its just preserving your pride by not going back on a silly decision at this stage.

[deni]

Considering the previous history of the thread (how often it got derailed already and to what extent), Empy made a legit decision to try and smoother discussions about changes of account ownership and their new ingame allegiances at an early stage and thus prevent the thread for derailing again.

This was already happening seeing how issues from the FUALL/TTF war were brought up.