Question answered, thread closed. = New Rule

[Googi]

Originally Posted by Darlene159

and the thread was only used to argue.

Which isn't a rule violation.

[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.

[zim5354]

Originally Posted by Darlene159

I suppose I did it as a way to organise the forums.

They are not only yours, your not the only person that paied for them if I want to post on a topic thats not out of hand (that one wasnt) or if I want to contribute to the awnser a closed topic does no good now does it?

Originally Posted by Darlene159

That is a moderators decision, not a rule.

We need a rule that states that moderators cannot MAKE UP THE RULES AS THEY GO. if you want to avoid this just inforce the rules that are actually written down http://forums.graalonline.com/forums...ad.php?t=64922 there.

Originally Posted by Darlene159

the few angry members who are angry with the infraction system will use any excuse, or any opening to start up their rant again.

Its not the system its how its inforced. When two people basically decide whats wrong or right it differs from person to person you know...Not to mention they have been getting handed out like candy.

Originally Posted by Darlene159

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

Thing is what you and your other mod palls view as insulting (No naming people in the topic or your post is deleted kk?) is normal to everyone else.

[QUOTE=Darlene159;1229623]There is no rule against arguing per say. There is nothing at all wrong with people disagreeing with each other.
/QUOTE]
How come so many of my freakin post were deleted then for "arguing" please refer to the rules next time.

Originally Posted by Darlene159

Unixmad puts it, makes the forums an unfriendly place, which he clearly does not want.

This makes the fourms unfriendly when someone sees it and thinks of prison camp "Gee I really wana subscribe to prison camp."

[konidias]

zim, it's "enforce" lol.

I just think MoonGoddess in particular is over the top with the rules. This is just my opinion and here is what I think should actually be done in the following situations:

1. one or two people start arguing in a thread and taking it off topic but some others are still discussing things

- what NOT to do (ie, Darlene's way): close the thread

- what to do: reply to the thread with a warning that those people are getting out of hand and punishment will occur if they continue. if they do continue, then punish them. do not punish everyone in the thread by closing it.

2. someone says something remotely insulting to someone else

- what NOT to do (ie, Darlene's way): delete the post and warn the person who made it

- what to do: leave it alone! if the person being "insulted" really feels that bothered by it, let them PM you and then you can deal with it. don't just instantly delete anything that vaguely resembles an insult.

3. someone posts a negative opinion about a rule or the way the forums are being run

- what NOT to do (ie, Darlene's way): tell them to deal with it because "the rules are the rules" or give the excuse that "I'm doing whatever Unixmad tells me to do". or the other option, of just deleting/closing the thread so the issue is not resolved. or the other option of telling them to make a support ticket or post in the support forum or some other nonsense.

- what to do: try to see things from the poster's point of view. apologize for any inconvenience you may have caused (these are the customers for crying out loud, don't argue with them) try to change how you do things so that people won't complain so much. if you feel it's not in your power to make a change, then talk to unixmad or someone who can do something about it. do not adapt a "the customer doesn't have a say, it's unixmads way or no way" policy

edit: a proper way to handle my post would not be to argue with me about it. the best thing to do would be to simply acknowledge it. you just said you don't want to argue, so don't. but that also doesn't mean "well I don't want to argue so, THREAD CLOSED!"

[Darlene159]

Originally Posted by konidias

1,2,3

1) Your idea might be ok up to a point.

2 and 3 would be going directly against Unixmad, and No, I am not going to do it.

[konidias]

Originally Posted by Darlene159

1) Your idea might be ok up to a point.

2 and 3 would be going directly against Unixmad, and No, I am not going to do it.

Are you afraid of him or something? Why not just talk to him about it? You probably have the most pull with him out of anyone here.

#2 would save you a lot of work too... I don't see any downsides to it. #3 is about keeping the customer happy... you'd think with Graal's money problems Unixmad would want to be doing a lot more of that.

[Darlene159]

Originally Posted by konidias

Are you afraid of him or something?

Since when is doing the job you were hired to do being afraid of the boss?
Whether I get paid or not, Unixmad is still the boss, he owns these forums.

I talk to Unixmad with things I have a problem with. I don't have a problem with his rules.
If he has a problem with what I do, I trust he will discuss it with me.

[zim5354]

Originally Posted by Darlene159

1) Your idea might be ok up to a point.

2 and 3 would be going directly against Unixmad, and No, I am not going to do it.

Thing is your making up rules as you go. Honestly look at the rule sheet then look at the post you deleted I bet 3/4ths of them are not written down there. As for flaming why dont you just say "Hey guys cool it or im deleting your posts." in the thread?

[The Evil Within]

You guys get so worked up over topics being closed..It's rather amusing. =]