Question answered, thread closed. = New Rule

[Infernix]

We need to add to the list of fourm rules that when all questions are answered the thread is to be closed, just like the infractions thread. Dont you all think?

http://forums.graalonline.com/forums...t=69314&page=2

[Googi]

Either that or the moderators should stop pretending that it's a rule.

[konidias]

Yeah that's a tad extreme. Threads shouldn't be closed because the mod thinks all the questions have been answered... That's just being mod-happy there.

Who is really to judge when a thread has served it's purpose? I don't think even admins have the right to judge that. It's a forum made for communication and closing a thread for that reason is like cutting off communication.

It's the equivalent of hanging up someone's phone in the middle of the conversation because you think they've said everything there is to say. It's pretty rude if you ask me.

[Devil]

Besides the point, if the thread stayed open for a few more days, people could ask more questions in that thread whether it's related to the topic at hand or not, instead of those players making multiple threads after that one has been closed originally.

[Darlene159]

Wow, you guys are going to make a big deal about a thread closer due to the question answered now?
lol, do you guys just look for things to complain about?

Nowhere did I say that a rule had been broken....nowhere.
The thread was simply closed because the question was answered, and the thread was only used to argue.

You guys really need to stop thinking that every single little thing that we do needs to be defined in the rules. The rules would be 10 miles long.

Stop constantly complaining.

[Demisis_P2P]

Originally Posted by Darlene159

Wow, you guys are going to make a big deal about a thread closer due to the question answered now?
lol, do you guys just look for things to complain about?

Nowhere did I say that a rule had been broken....nowhere.
The thread was simply closed because the question was answered, and the thread was only used to argue.

You guys really need to stop thinking that every single little thing that we do needs to be defined in the rules. The rules would be 10 miles long.

Stop constantly complaining.

We could just as easily say 'stop constantly doing little things for us to complain about'

[Devil]

Haha, this is never going to end.

[Mykel]

Originally Posted by Darlene159

Wow, you guys are going to make a big deal about a thread closer due to the question answered now?
lol, do you guys just look for things to complain about?

Nowhere did I say that a rule had been broken....nowhere.
The thread was simply closed because the question was answered, and the thread was only used to argue.

You guys really need to stop thinking that every single little thing that we do needs to be defined in the rules. The rules would be 10 miles long.

Stop constantly complaining.

It isn't argueing. It's debating. As long as no one insults anyone (in which case you would delete the post[s], not close the thread), it doesn't matter if the thread goes 1000 pages of repetitive discussion.

I think the reason you close those threads is because you don't want to have to read them and moderate them. Otherwise, what is one good reason to close it? Only one.

And try to use an un-bias point of view and look at "argueing" as you say as actual "conversation" that we are supposed to be allowed to be involved in on a forum.

[Darlene159]

Originally Posted by Mykel

It isn't argueing. It's debating. As long as no one insults anyone (in which case you would delete the post[s], not close the thread), it doesn't matter if the thread goes 1000 pages of repetitive discussion.

I think the reason you close those threads is because you don't want to have to read them and moderate them. Otherwise, what is one good reason to close it? Only one.

And try to use an un-bias point of view and look at "argueing" as you say as actual "conversation" that we are supposed to be allowed to be involved in on a forum.

In case you haven't noticed, the rules of these forums are not debatable (which includes the infraction system which is obviously part of the rules which is why they are found in the Rules Forum!!). You either follow them, or you don't.

[konidias]

Okay wow, now this is starting to become intolerable even for me, and I've been trying to accept everything so far.

Darlene, judging by your sig I'm guessing you don't respect yourself. Because you sure aren't respecting the people of this forum right now.

This is not some "silly little thing". You do it a lot and it's annoying people a lot. Even ME, and I could care less about the other things people harass you about. But closing threads because questions were answered?

I agree with Mykel. Let us have our 1000 pages of repetitive discussion if we want. Who is it really hurting? Why are you ending people's conversations for them? Are you going to end this thread abruptly by closing it as well?

[Darlene159]

Originally Posted by konidias

Darlene, judging by your sig I'm guessing you don't respect yourself. Because you sure aren't respecting the people of this forum right now.

No need at all to get personal. I do not lack repect either for myself, or others.

I agree with Mykel. Let us have our 1000 pages of repetitive discussion if we want. Who is it really hurting? Why are you ending people's conversations for them? Are you going to end this thread abruptly by closing it as well?

Why do I have to keep repeating myself?
Unixmad does not want forum rule discussion/debates on the forums. He has told me this. Why not go to him with this question? I don't own these forums, therefore I do what he wants. Why is that so hard to understand? I have typed this so many times that I think my fingers might bleed.

[konidias]

In my opinion you're not showing very much respect for these people who have a valid complaint.

This isn't a discussion or debate about a forum rule, because this isn't an actual forum rule. This is just you over-moderating things. There is no rule that says no more discussion is allowed when a thread's questions have been answered...

Your response shouldn't be to make a rule of it, your response should be to admit that it's a little over the top and give us a break. Nobody is going to give you a break until you ease up a bit. This is getting silly and I'm sure if you sit back and think about it, it's pretty silly to close threads for the reason you close them. Come on... really. I'm hoping you're mature enough to admit to your mistakes. Not just use the old "we aren't allowed to discuss it" excuse.

I doubt Unixmad told you directly that you have to close any thread that you FEEL has served it's initial purpose...

edit: Honestly I think all we're looking for is YOUR opinion of this. Not "we can't discuss it" or "I do what he wants". I think you're a pretty rational person and that you'd see that closing threads just so people will stop communicating is pretty irrational.

[Googi]

Originally Posted by Darlene159

and the thread was only used to argue.

Which isn't a rule violation.

[WanDaMan]

Just make a new thread for each new question or comment on the rules if they're being closed after it's being answered :O

[Darlene159]

Originally Posted by konidias

In my opinion you're not showing very much respect for these people who have a valid complaint.

This isn't a discussion or debate about a forum rule, because this isn't an actual forum rule. This is just you over-moderating things. There is no rule that says no more discussion is allowed when a thread's questions have been answered...

Your response shouldn't be to make a rule of it, your response should be to admit that it's a little over the top and give us a break. Nobody is going to give you a break until you ease up a bit. This is getting silly and I'm sure if you sit back and think about it, it's pretty silly to close threads for the reason you close them. Come on... really. I'm hoping you're mature enough to admit to your mistakes. Not just use the old "we aren't allowed to discuss it" excuse.

I doubt Unixmad told you directly that you have to close any thread that you FEEL has served it's initial purpose...

edit: Honestly I think all we're looking for is YOUR opinion of this. Not "we can't discuss it" or "I do what he wants". I think you're a pretty rational person and that you'd see that closing threads just so people will stop communicating is pretty irrational.

I closed the thread because the question had been answered. I suppose I did it as a way to organise the forums. Really, I don't see the big deal about closing a thread in which the question had been answered, and did not think it would be a big issue when I did it.
I don't mind explaining myself, really I don't, but I do not want to have to argue with members for pages and pages withing a thread, or in multiple areas on the forum, repeating myself constantly on the same issue.

It would be stupid to make a rule stating that when questions in threads are answered, the thread is closed. That is a moderators decision, not a rule. How would this rule be broken? It can't be, therefore it wouldn't be a rule.

In normal circumstances, it probably wouldn't have been a big deal to leave the thread open, but considering the few angry members who are angry with the infraction system will use any excuse, or any opening to start up their rant again, another reason it was closed, but it was closed mostly just simply because the question was answered, and why should I have to continually give infractions, and remove posts from people who use the thread as an opening for attacks, when the question had been answered?

I don't like giving infractions, or warnings, so I guess that was on my mind also when closing the thread. Wanting to prevent having to give members infractions.

Originally Posted by Googi

Which isn't a rule violation.

Actually, it is.

Originally Posted by From Forum Rules

i.) When in a forum discussion if you provoke another user into an ‘insultive/flame argument’ rather than a discussion you will be warned/banned for doing so. You can express a disagreement with someone, without attacking them. If you reply to someone provoking you to insult/harass/attack the user who provoked you, then you too will be warned/banned. You shouldn’t return the attack, just report to a mod via forum PM for it to be looked at.

Keep in mind that there is a difference between debating, and people getting angry and getting insultive.

[Googi]

Originally Posted by Darlene159

Keep in mind that there is a difference between debating, and people getting angry and getting insultive.

There is no rule against arguing. Rule I does not ban arguing.

[konidias]

Originally Posted by Googi

There is no rule against arguing. Rule I does not ban arguing.

People are always going to argue... Especially when there is so much to argue about. I don't see how it can possibly be moderated. There would probably be far less arguing if it wasn't.

[Darlene159]

Originally Posted by konidias

People are always going to argue... Especially when there is so much to argue about. I don't see how it can possibly be moderated. There would probably be far less arguing if it wasn't.

There is no rule against arguing per say. There is nothing at all wrong with people disagreeing with each other. there is nothing at all wrong with having a debate in which there are many different sides/opinons. This is the way people learn to view other peoples sides of things, and is a very good thing.
It would be nice if we could have more "discussions" like this on these forums without people insulting other people. Such as calling others idiots, stupid, ignorant, *****s, etc....
A debate is suppose to be people giving their opinions on different things, not to get angry because they are being disagreed with, and insult.

I have seen a few good debates on these forums, but I have seen many more debates that ended up more of a flame war then anything else, which, as Unixmad puts it, makes the forums an unfriendly place, which he clearly does not want.

[Googi]

Originally Posted by Darlene159

There is no rule against arguing per say. There is nothing at all wrong with people disagreeing with each other.

Yet it is a valid reason for thread closures?

[Sam]

Originally Posted by Googi

Yet it is a valid reason for thread closures?

I don't see any rule against closing a thread, especially when the topic was answered.

[konidias]

Originally Posted by Sam

I don't see any rule against closing a thread, especially when the topic was answered.

I don't see any rule against closing every thread after the first post but that doesn't make it okay to do so.

[Rufus]

Originally Posted by Sam

I don't see any rule against closing a thread, especially when the topic was answered.

Why have a forum with masses of closed threads? It would just look terrible.

[Sam]

Originally Posted by konidias

I don't see any rule against closing every thread after the first post but that doesn't make it okay to do so.

Hehehe, you know that this is a feeble argument, because we do not close every thread after the firt post. And to spam or insult or whatever doesn't also make thing better, but some ppl still do it.

However: I am sure Moonie or any mod will not have a problem to reopen a thread on request, if there is not a very important factor to leave it closed.
For me it still makes sense to close threads when the topic is discussed or the answer was given. On the other side I read almost everyday from forum users the sentence "why you post in a 3 month old thread" or like this.
So why leave threads open if people upbraid if someone post a month later in this open, old thread...?

[konidias]

I was exaggerating. The point is, just because it's not against the rules for a mod to close a thread for the reason of "everything has been answered" doesn't mean it should be okay to close them.

It's impossible to argue why it's better to close threads than it is to leave them open. Leaving them open... sure someone might complain if an old thread is revived... But at least someone had a chance to reply. If you close it, nobody can reply to that thread.

All you're doing is encouraging people to post entirely new threads just to reply to some subject that was in a closed thread.

I can't believe we're even having a debate over this. It should be pretty clear that closing threads just because you think they've served their purpose is just dumb. There is no other way to describe it. You're not doing the community a favor by locking up conversations. Plus the excuse of "I wanted to prevent a flamewar" just shows that you have no faith in the community to control themselves, so why should we bother to behave when you've already determined we are troublemakers?

[WanDaMan]

You can't win eitherway. Loop hole?

[Sam]

Originally Posted by konidias

I was exaggerating. The point is, just because it's not against the rules for a mod to close a thread...

I've said it because it makes me mad to read this "it's not against the rules argument" every day.

Originally Posted by konidias

It's impossible to argue why it's better to close threads than it is to leave them open. Leaving them open... sure someone might complain if an old thread is revived... But at least someone had a chance to reply. If you close it, nobody can reply to that thread.

You're not doing the community a favor by locking up conversations. Plus the excuse of "I wanted to prevent a flamewar" just shows that you have no faith in the community to control themselves, so why should we bother to behave when you've already determined we are troublemakers?

As I've said before, there is a way to ask for reopening. And, Konidias, do you really think ppl calm down in a minute a stop flaming?
However, I think we got the message from you (community) and we will handle it in the future more sensitive.

[Mykel]

Originally Posted by Sam

However: I am sure Moonie or any mod will not have a problem to reopen a thread on request, if there is not a very important factor to leave it closed.

Actually, no. I sent Moonie a PM about the thread that was closed because the "question was answered" and she replied back, and then when I replied back saying many of the same things that have been said here, she simply stopped replying.

Originally Posted by Sam

I've said it because it makes me mad to read this "it's not against the rules argument" every day.

Guess what? If you choose to take actions that aren't within the rules, then we are going to say something about it. The threads will stop as soon as the actions are up to par.

You have to consider yourselves the rule keepers (or police officers if you will) of the forums. You police the forums for rule violations. However, when you start taking actions, deleting posts, and closing threads that break no rules, you will be judged by your forum userbase. Unix wants you to enforce the rules, and no one has a problem with that, we have a problem with you enforcing non-rules.

[Infernix]

Well I certainly use other fourms other than graal fourms and I have to say. Last I heard a moderators job was to make sure rules were followed. When a rule is not broken a moderator has no right to step it. So in this case I believe that Moonie had no right to even touch the thread.

And Im srry Moonie if you cant admit your mistakes, your nothing but the George Bush of GraalOnline fourms.
I would rlly appreciate it and Im sure others would to if you would just stop making opinionated and rash decisions. Maybe check up on other popular fourms around the net and see how they do it.

[Skyld]

Originally Posted by Infernix

Well I certainly use other fourms other than graal fourms and I have to say. Last I heard a moderators job was to make sure rules were followed. When a rule is not broken a moderator has no right to step it. So in this case I believe that Moonie had no right to even touch the thread.

And Im srry Moonie if you cant admit your mistakes, your nothing but the George Bush of GraalOnline fourms.

If you're going to say something, make it constructive and sensible. Otherwise, do not say it, okay?

[Sam]

Originally Posted by Mykel

You have to consider yourselves the rule keepers (or police officers if you will) of the forums. You police the forums for rule violations. However, when you start taking actions, deleting posts, and closing threads that break no rules, you will be judged by your forum userbase. Unix wants you to enforce the rules, and no one has a problem with that, we have a problem with you enforcing non-rules.

Nobody said the forums are a participatory democracy. The mods have a job assignment by the management of Linux cyberjoueurs. If my boss Moonie, or her boss Unixmad tells us to stop doing something or to do something we have to do it. But Unixmad gave us a of wide scope, so if we feel getting attacked we will also stop leaving a margin with things.

[Mykel]

Originally Posted by Sam

Nobody said the forums are a participatory democracy. The mods have a job assignment by the management of Linux cyberjoueurs. If my boss Moonie, or her boss Unixmad tells us to stop doing something or to do something we have to do it. But Unixmad gave us a of wide scope, so if we feel getting attacked we will also stop leaving a margin with things.

What you have said has absolutely nothing to do with what I said. You just made a rash generalization for "we can do whatever we want whenever we want because we can."

No one said it was a democracy. Did we vote on the rules? No. Did we vote on the new infraction rules? No. Do we vote on anything new that happens on these forums? No. Only recently has Unix actually reached out to us and asked us for our opinion (in the thread about lifetime classic).

However, no one said they have a problem with this lack of a democracy. If we had a democracy, things would be unruly. The majority of forum users understand this.

The problem we have is with you making up new rules because you think they apply. If they are rules, then enforce them as rules. But when you start doing random closings and post deletions. I say once again, no one has a problem with the lack of democracy. In fact, I would say it is understood on a professional basis.

[Googi]

Originally Posted by Sam

I don't see any rule against closing a thread, especially when the topic was answered.

Point out where I said that closing them is a rule violation.

[Sam]

Originally Posted by Mykel

What you have said has absolutely nothing to do with what I said.

Okay so I misunderstood that:

Originally Posted by Mykel

You have to consider yourselves the rule keepers (or police officers if you will) of the forums. You police the forums for rule violations. However, when you start taking actions, deleting posts, and closing threads that break no rules, you will be judged by your forum userbase. Unix wants you to enforce the rules, and no one has a problem with that, we have a problem with you enforcing non-rules.

Originally Posted by Googi

Point out where I said that closing them is a rule violation.

I didn't said you said that.

[Mykel]

Well then?

When is it that you are going to stop seeing us as whiney little kids and actually treat us like paying customers and uphold a professional attitude.

Call my psychic, but I'd be willing to bet that around about the same time that you guys made that change, there would be a drastic change in complaints (or lack thereof) and problems in general on the forums.

[Tyhm]

Suggestion:
Yeah, let's close a thread when the original question's answered, and split it off into new threads for new major questions. Or, list a specific exception to the No Thread Necromancy rule about starting a new thread about a closed one's topic.

'cuz yeah, I was reading that, I wanted to respond. I dig that closing threads would make navigation easier, as every thread will actually be about its topic instead of having to find the Hubworld idea under the Free Classic thread...*shameless self-promotion*

[Googi]

Originally Posted by Sam

I didn't said you said that.

Then what's the relevance? You're saying something that nobody is disputing.

[Sam]

Originally Posted by Googi

Then what's the relevance? You're saying something that nobody is disputing.

I've said: it is not against a rule to close a thread. I was referring to you in that wise, you use to say that "it's not against the rules" when mods telling anyone to stop doing something. You got it?

[Darlene159]

Originally Posted by Infernix

your nothing but the George Bush of GraalOnline fourms.

Perfect example of why so many discussions don't work on the Graal forums. It is people like you that ruin it for the rest....

[Googi]

Originally Posted by Sam

I've said: it is not against a rule to close a thread. I was referring to you in that wise, you use to say that "it's not against the rules" when mods telling anyone to stop doing something. You got it?

Moderators shouldn't close threads because a question has been answered because doing so is needless, not because doing so is a rule violation.

[Sam]

Originally Posted by Googi

Moderators shouldn't close threads because a question has been answered because doing so is needless, not because doing so is a rule violation.

I've still answered this.