StarGateWars Forums

**Filtered** off haz
why i don.t have delete account option?

Zeratul wrote:First post in that thread is now no longer under the user account "haz".

ohhh after long time someone understand
thanks

R0B3RT wrote:

Zeratul wrote:First post in that thread is now no longer under the user account "haz".

ohhh after long time someone understand
thanks

Isn't that what we have been talking about for the last page or so? If you had actually said that was the problem, I would have replaced my post with the original author straight away. There is not a problem with that.

Only administrators can change post author and the act of copying a single post from a long thread is a complex thing.

We did ask earlier if you wished the author changed (second paragraph, in this post), but we could not see a clear request for that from your reply to that post.

thanks for help zeratul why not refresh the moderators after a vote with clean player From: ~Thamuz~
Sent: Tue Sep 25, 2012 9:36 am
To: R0B3RT
Reply with quote Report private message Delete message
Just been reading all this mate and i totally agree with you, was one of the reasons why i sold up.
Forum staff here are all friends and stick together even if there in the wrong, if you then complain about anything it gets brushed under the carpet, even if you take things to the ombudsman they can only suggest things to the forum admins and it gets overruled and brushed under the carpet as well.
There used to be a time on these forums when forum staff were rotated, now if any mod or admin leaves they recruit within there own circle of friends and nothing changes.
best thing you can do is get lots of other players to send an email to the urgent email for the game owner, if enough players do it he's go to listen. ~T
i.m not happy to see a good player stop play this game after moderator action

Haz wrote:

Empy wrote:As I said, it says nowhere in the guidelines that Mods can re-create threads.

It doesn't say anywhere that they can't recreate the threads either.

Doesn't say anywhere you can't delete every single post on the forums. By your logic above that's okay then too.

Haz wrote:

Empy wrote:The discretion part refers to whether or not to lock a thread and for how long. It couldn't possibly refer to creating a new thread when that is not mentioned anywhere.

That is your interpretation, not mine. It does not specifically say that a new thread could be created, but that it is up to the mods discretion as to where to go from there.

Yea, it's my interpretation, and I wrote the guidelines... and NO it doesn't say it's up the mods discretion as to whether or not to make a new thread. That's not an option.

Empy wrote:

Haz wrote:

Empy wrote:As I said, it says nowhere in the guidelines that Mods can re-create threads.

It doesn't say anywhere that they can't recreate the threads either.

Doesn't say anywhere you can't delete every single post on the forums. By your logic above that's okay then too.

I did not say that. Nor would I ever say deleting posts would be OK. In the rules it doesn't say that deleting posts is OK either...

Empy wrote:

Haz wrote:

Empy wrote:The discretion part refers to whether or not to lock a thread and for how long. It couldn't possibly refer to creating a new thread when that is not mentioned anywhere.

That is your interpretation, not mine. It does not specifically say that a new thread could be created, but that it is up to the mods discretion as to where to go from there.

Yea, it's my interpretation, and I wrote the guidelines... and NO it doesn't say it's up the mods discretion as to whether or not to make a new thread. That's not an option.

Your intrepretation is not the only one of value here. Just because you have happened to edit the rule thread a few times, that does not mean that your interpretation is automatically the correct one.

Haz wrote:

Empy wrote:

Haz wrote:

Empy wrote:As I said, it says nowhere in the guidelines that Mods can re-create threads.

It doesn't say anywhere that they can't recreate the threads either.

Doesn't say anywhere you can't delete every single post on the forums. By your logic above that's okay then too.

I did not say that. Nor would I ever say deleting posts would be OK. In the rules it doesn't say that deleting posts is OK either...

Okay so then we agree. You're wrong because your logic is flawed.

Haz wrote:

Empy wrote:

Haz wrote:

Empy wrote:The discretion part refers to whether or not to lock a thread and for how long. It couldn't possibly refer to creating a new thread when that is not mentioned anywhere.

That is your interpretation, not mine. It does not specifically say that a new thread could be created, but that it is up to the mods discretion as to where to go from there.

Yea, it's my interpretation, and I wrote the guidelines... and NO it doesn't say it's up the mods discretion as to whether or not to make a new thread. That's not an option.

Your intrepretation is not the only one of value here. Just because you have happened to edit the rule thread a few times, that does not mean that your interpretation is automatically the correct one.

We had a mis-communication here I thought you quoted the Moderator Rule Enforcement Guidelines and not the Forum Guidelines. No I didn't write the Forum Guidelines except for some edits you're right.

If you refer to the MREG (just made that acronym up now) then it will outline the proper procedure to take regarding the particular rule you quoted, and if it says that a thread should be locked and recreated by a Mod then I'll shoot myself straight in the foot. I can't remember what it says.

The whole point of the MREG is so that there are no "different interpretations" which is exactly the debate we're having now. They tell you how the rules are to be interpreted and how to handle instances of rule breaking (in general cases). So in this case you either followed them (and were right in the action you took) or didn't follow them (and were wrong in the action you took).

Empy wrote:

Haz wrote:

Empy wrote:

Haz wrote:

Empy wrote:As I said, it says nowhere in the guidelines that Mods can re-create threads.

It doesn't say anywhere that they can't recreate the threads either.

Doesn't say anywhere you can't delete every single post on the forums. By your logic above that's okay then too.

I did not say that. Nor would I ever say deleting posts would be OK. In the rules it doesn't say that deleting posts is OK either...

Okay so then we agree. You're wrong because your logic is flawed.

It is your own logic that is flawed. Nowhere did I state that deleting posts is ok, yet you created a parallel between that, and recreating a war thread instead of keeping said thread closed for days while it is cleaned out and warnings given.

Empy wrote:

Haz wrote:

Empy wrote:

Haz wrote:

Empy wrote:The discretion part refers to whether or not to lock a thread and for how long. It couldn't possibly refer to creating a new thread when that is not mentioned anywhere.

That is your interpretation, not mine. It does not specifically say that a new thread could be created, but that it is up to the mods discretion as to where to go from there.

Yea, it's my interpretation, and I wrote the guidelines... and NO it doesn't say it's up the mods discretion as to whether or not to make a new thread. That's not an option.

Your intrepretation is not the only one of value here. Just because you have happened to edit the rule thread a few times, that does not mean that your interpretation is automatically the correct one.

I didn't happen to edit it a few times, I wrote all of it. And unless someone with a greater understanding of the English language can prove me wrong, as I've said, since it says nowhere in the Guidelines that a Mod can lock a thread and create a new one the "discretion" part of the guidelines cannot possibly refer to that. It refers whether or not a thread should be cooldown locked, and for how long (this is because the guidelines mention that as the correct course of action).

OK which thread are we talking about? The rule thread? Because that is what I am basing this all off... the one which has been created by past admins, and edited since by the current administration. The rule thread which every user is to abide by. It says nowhere in the rule thread that you can, and it says nowhere in the rule thread that you can't. So it is up to a moderators discretion. I would have thought this would be a reasonable modding action.

I think Zeratul summed it up nicely earlier:

Zeratul wrote:The act of closing a thread and opening a new version is actually an act of kindness. What would you prefer?
a) thread closed for days while a dozen (or more) warnings are issued for posts therein before it is unlocked
or
b) a clean slate where you avoid those warnings and potential bans and continue posting without delay

Haz wrote:

Empy wrote:

Haz wrote:

Empy wrote:

Haz wrote:

Empy wrote:As I said, it says nowhere in the guidelines that Mods can re-create threads.

It doesn't say anywhere that they can't recreate the threads either.

Doesn't say anywhere you can't delete every single post on the forums. By your logic above that's okay then too.

I did not say that. Nor would I ever say deleting posts would be OK. In the rules it doesn't say that deleting posts is OK either...

Okay so then we agree. You're wrong because your logic is flawed.

It is your own logic that is flawed. Nowhere did I state that deleting posts is ok, yet you created a parallel between that, and recreating a war thread instead of keeping said thread closed for days while it is cleaned out and warnings given.

No. You said since the rules don't state you can't lock a thread and recreate it, then it's okay. So by that same logic you used, it should also be okay to delete every post on the forums. Since the rules don't say you can't do that.

Haz wrote:

Empy wrote:

Haz wrote:

Empy wrote:

Haz wrote:

Empy wrote:The discretion part refers to whether or not to lock a thread and for how long. It couldn't possibly refer to creating a new thread when that is not mentioned anywhere.

That is your interpretation, not mine. It does not specifically say that a new thread could be created, but that it is up to the mods discretion as to where to go from there.

Yea, it's my interpretation, and I wrote the guidelines... and NO it doesn't say it's up the mods discretion as to whether or not to make a new thread. That's not an option.

Your intrepretation is not the only one of value here. Just because you have happened to edit the rule thread a few times, that does not mean that your interpretation is automatically the correct one.

I didn't happen to edit it a few times, I wrote all of it. And unless someone with a greater understanding of the English language can prove me wrong, as I've said, since it says nowhere in the Guidelines that a Mod can lock a thread and create a new one the "discretion" part of the guidelines cannot possibly refer to that. It refers whether or not a thread should be cooldown locked, and for how long (this is because the guidelines mention that as the correct course of action).

OK which thread are we talking about? The rule thread? Because that is what I am basing this all off... the one which has been created by past admins, and edited since by the current administration. The rule thread which every user is to abide by. It says nowhere in the rule thread that you can, and it says nowhere in the rule thread that you can't. So it is up to a moderators discretion. I would have thought this would be a reasonable modding action.

I think Zeratul summed it up nicely earlier:

Zeratul wrote:The act of closing a thread and opening a new version is actually an act of kindness. What would you prefer?
a) thread closed for days while a dozen (or more) warnings are issued for posts therein before it is unlocked
or
b) a clean slate where you avoid those warnings and potential bans and continue posting without delay

I know you were talking about the Forum Guidelines (now). There is a thread in the Moderator Section called the "Moderator Rule Enforcement Guidelines" which when someone breaks a rule you are supposed to reference to see to how to deal with it. You clearly didn't do that, since you just said you read the Forum Guidelines to figure out how to handle the situation. As I said above the logic "It says nowhere in the rule thread that you can, and it says nowhere in the rule thread that you can't. So it is up to a moderators discretion" is flawed. Just because it doesn't say you can't, doesn't mean you can. The Moderator Rule Enforcement Guidelines outline what you are supposed to do, and they don't say you are supposed to lock a thread and recreate it, ever.

Also when I read Zeratul's post here is what I see;
a) The mods can do their jobs
or
b) The mods can choose to be lazy and not do their jobs

Is it sad that I legitimately enjoy arguing endlessly about this utterly pointless **Filtered**?

Empy wrote:Is it sad that I legitimately enjoy arguing endlessly about this utterly pointless **Filtered**?

Nope.

Or was that rhetorical?

Psyko wrote:

Empy wrote:Is it sad that I legitimately enjoy arguing endlessly about this utterly pointless **Filtered**?

Nope.

Or was that rhetorical?

A little of both

You people need to start spoilering images that stretch the forum or I'm going to start handing out warnings.

d. Image size.
Images larger than 600 pixels in height and/or width need to be posted inside of a "spoiler box".

Consequence:
A mod will place your image inside a spoiler box and issue a verbal warning. Repeat offenders will be given one warning point.