Question answered, thread closed. = New Rule

[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.

[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?

[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.

[Mykel]

Originally Posted by Sam

I've still answered this.

Your answer to this is that "it is not against the rules for the moderator to do this." There is only one problem with this: The moderators don't have a set of rules. If there were to be one set of rules, wouldn't it most certainly to be to enforce the rules?

Not one person has said it is against the rules. That isn't the point. No one is argueing your point on that.

We simply think it is wrong and would like a discussion about it. Neither one of you have yet to address the main issue. You have danced around it and have picked apart meaningless pieces of arguements that don't apply.

Originally Posted by Darlene159

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....

How do people like him ruin it? So what you basically are saying is that because people like him say things that aren't approaite, that the rest of us don't get a fair say?

You are punishing us all for his (and people like him) actions?

Listen to that. That is absolutely horrible moderating. There have been more than a few competant posts in this thread about the subject at hand, and you have yet to reply to one of them. You instead have stuck to replying to the ignorant ones and you seem to think that those prove your point.

Answer the tough questions, not the easy ones. We all know that was a stupid comment on his part, you don't have to point out the obvious. Point out why you are closing threads that don't break the rules.

[Googi]

Originally Posted by Sam

I've still answered this.

Where?

[Sam]

Originally Posted by Googi

Where?

here:

Originally Posted by Sam

...
However, I think we got the message from you (community) and we will handle it in the future more sensitive.