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

[Brdavs]

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.

Well goody, when can I expect my preemptive ban, to facilitate a smoother forum experience lol?

I challenge the mods notions that they get to act purely based on expected outcomes and their appropriation of my decisions.

If TTF/FUA references are problematic, police and remove those. If you think the war is over for that account... "yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man". Its over when the fat lady sings. So dont gag her. And dont cut in on her with yer own tunes.

You are here to police breaches of rules as they are layed out. Not to tell me what the nature of my relationship to someone is and act preemptivly to avoid breaches. Unless I`m missing a section of the rules?

[Rocky]

I think your getting ahead of yourself BR. EMP did exactly as he was supose to. He asked for the spam and discusion to stop, it didn't. So he removed the posts as in anycase.

Why are you struggling so hard to understand and accept this?

because its not a 1 way case,
the point about it being ontopic is very debatable, shown by this 3 page thread.

[Brdavs]

Tetrismonkey

I`m challenging the percieved notion that those posts were "spam".

And even you cant provide me anything but your "gut feeling" that those posts "have something to do with the war, but are best suited for PMs" lol.

Apparently cos deni thinks thers potantial for actual spam there.


I`m sorry, but for me thats not enough, not by a long shot. Wth do we have rules for then if mods just get to pick and choose what is spam by no objective standard whatsoever other than what seems appropriate to them personaly at the time? "I dont like where this is going so I deem it spam". Hold a minute...

[Rocky]

im intrigued where you think is appropriate to discuss it tbh, forumwise
maybe a seperate thread for surrenders like with the server war... except that its a whole thread then for just 1 surrender.

practically i think it would have been better just to leave it in the war thread, considering both sides were ok with it being discussed there, but if empy and Co want to be so involved in the war thread and butt in all the time, the next best thing is to make a seperate thread.

[Rocky]

as i said practically it would have been much easier and less complicated to leave it in the thread, just like practically it is also easier to remove who posts when something is offtopic(the other thread)
but that being said, if empy wants to get involved soo badly, the next best thing to do is to make a new thread, for 1 surrender.

If that is the final judgement to be given, then i think it needs to be made clear for everyone, because in the past, surrenders of accounts in a war which are sold have been discussed in the thread out of practical reasons.

i now await for an admin to clear this up.

[jedi~tank]

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.

Well goody, when can I expect my preemptive ban, to facilitate a smoother forum experience lol?

I challenge the mods notions that they get to act purely based on expected outcomes and their appropriation of my decisions.

If TTF/FUA references are problematic, police and remove those. If you think the war is over for that account... "yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man". Its over when the fat lady sings. So dont gag her. And dont cut in on her with yer own tunes.

You are here to police breaches of rules as they are layed out. Not to tell me what the nature of my relationship to someone is and act preemptivly to avoid breaches. Unless I`m missing a section of the rules?

Hmmm are you the boss or owner of something around here?

[Rocky]

so making a new thread is the new policy on accounts wishing to surrender from a war. Because you don't want it in the war threads, ok, id announce it then, put it in the rules or something because this happens all the time, and until now its been allowed.

[Empy]

I honestly didn't think this would be such a big deal... I just asked if you would take the discussion about getting the account surrendered to PM's or MSN. I don't understand how something like that can get blown up in to this?

If you want to have a discussion about if a debate about an account being surrendered should be done in a war topic for a war the account used to be in (or I guess is still in by one definition) then let's start over. You could convince me that some posts regarding that would be on topic, but not that ones that were posted, and don't try to spin them in to something they're not.

I suggest the people involved here just stop posting for 24 hours, and come back with much less argumentative and insulting tones. That includes myself. Having a mature discussion about the Forum Guidelines and their enforcement is possible if we all just try.

[Brdavs]

Tetrismonkey

I`m challenging the percieved notion that those posts were "spam".

And even you cant provide me anything but your "gut feeling" that those posts "have something to do with the war, but are best suited for PMs" lol.

Apparently cos deni thinks thers potantial for actual spam there.


I`m sorry, but for me thats not enough, not by a long shot. Wth do we have rules for then if mods just get to pick and choose what is spam by no objective standard whatsoever other than what seems appropriate to them personaly at the time? "I dont like where this is going so I deem it spam". Hold a minute...

What gut feeling. Its in the rules. Ill break it down for you.

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.

Now, as the account no longer is in mH or held by a mH member, it is not involved in the topic. To further explain this point, the topic is called TL vs mH&Chaos, not TL vs mH&Chaos and sold accounts not surrendered.

Therefore, the player is no longer in mH, or the account, so any discusion about said account no longer in that alliance, is considered spam.

The topic at hand is a war between TL and mH. I don't know how else to explain it any clearer to you....

I`ll respond you fist with this quote of yours:

Humm

It does have a bit to do with the war, no doubt about that. However, the thread is NOT the place for the debate and process for that account. The account is out of mH, thus, out of THAT war THREAD. If im not mistaken, the topic is TL vs MH. How does an account that is NOT in mH, get discussed in that thread and not considered spam.

Take it to PMs or MSN. Thats what I would have done if still a mod. You all are running in circles here without seeing it from the Mods perspective. Your arguing specifics about the rules, when clearly they arn't there, because the rules merely give a broad overview of what is and isn't acceptable.

And reitterate: NONE of you are called to say when or when other peoples wars end. That is NOT in your job descritpion. If that account is still considered the part of the war the war thread is the place for discussion around that account. Its not yet a vandetta, we`re trying to figure out just what it is.

+ You or empy DO NOT get to picks topics or mode of private/public discussion for me tetrismonkey, not as long as they are within forum rules as they are leayed out black and white on paper. Has to do with war? War thread. Not war thread *if* your modding highness doesnt "deem it better suited for PMs"!

And I`ll fight the system tooth and nail if you think this is a type of system thats acceptable! Some take it uppon themselves to do much much more than enforce the preordained rules. You do as you wish, but again, dont think to dictate to me things. Not the least to not properly object to what I feel is mismodding in a place and manner fitting to do so.

Hmmm are you the boss or owner of something around here?

I am the boss of my own affairs, for now. You and your mod contingent have yet to formalize a rule to take that away from me. But you`re trying VERY hard, I`ll grant you that.

For years we discussed "runners" and "empire enemies" in threads in war threads in the GC and other parts of the forum. Now all of the sudden empy pulled a new precedans out of thin air. I just want to know why and based on what this change of policy. And I`d like it addded in writing to the now established rules by admins if this is now the standard.

I honestly didn't think this would be such a big deal... I just asked if you would take the discussion about getting the account surrendered to PM's or MSN. I don't understand how something like that can get blown up in to this?

If you want to have a discussion about if a debate about an account being surrendered should be done in a war topic for a war the account used to be in (or I guess is still in by one definition) then let's start over. You could convince me that some posts regarding that would be on topic, but not that ones that were posted, and don't try to spin them in to something they're not.

I suggest the people involved here just stop posting for 24 hours, and come back with much less argumentative and insulting tones. That includes myself. Having a mature discussion about the Forum Guidelines and their enforcement is possible if we all just try.

I honestly dont know what the big deal is either...

Why you had to go on one of your many ego trips in that thread and destroy a discussion that was perfectly in the confinds of the rules layed out just cos you had a fancy to do so.

And all I keep hearing from our valliant mods is "its better suited (in your never humble opinion that is) for MSN" and "had the potential to get derailed judging by past experience". So basically your fickled fancies and guesswork.

Non satisfactory. I can take a 48h brake and I`ll still tell you the same.