I would like to know why this thread was closed

http://www.wordforge.net/showthread.php?t=46222

Is discussion about DarthSikle now impermissible in the Red Room?

In your case, no. You may participate in threads started by others, if you like, but this forum is the appropriate one for the type of policy discussion you appear to want to engage in.

Oh? Why?

It is a valid question.

Why was the thread closed?

Because in my judgement it's a discussion better suited to the format and rules of this forum rather than those of the Red Room.

That is why you closed it? Is that why you ignored my private message asking for a reason as to why it was closed? I personally think it's rather inappropriate for you to ignore such a PM.

A thread started about the person in question in the Help Desk was closed. Rather than bother to inform me of this, you waited until I put forward an official complaint. I am sorry, but I am under the impression that you want me to start such a thread in the Help Desk so that it could be locked and shuffled under red tape. This is not an accusation, but merely a suspicion.

Considering the off-the-wall discussion present in the Red Room, I don't see why you would see such a topic as being. A 'candlelight vigil' thread for DS was started without its progress being impeded by the staff. How you can leave such a thread open when one as relatively innocuous as mine is closed it simply not understood by me.

What is so funny?

Again, any discussion you, Zodiak, wish to initiate regarding the banning of darthsikle can be held in this forum, under it's format and rules.

Is this a response to my latest PM, asking why this

http://www.wordforge.net/showthread.php?t=46225

thread was closed? I think I made it clear that I was gauging the opinion of the average member. I have read the staff reasons for his banning.

Please address my query in post 6. Specifically:

And it's Zodiac. Thanks.

Its very simple Zodiac, darthsikle was banned for two reasons.

1) Nearly all of his 600 posts were trolling or flaming, which is part of our rules.

2) He refused to acknowledge a very simple request to change his signature.

I'm not asking why he was banned. I'm asking why that thread was closed.

Because you are asking questions appropriate to the format and rules of the Help Desk, rather than the Red Room.

I made it rather clear in the thread

that I was not asking the staff. I was asking for the opinions of members. The thread is not suited for the Help Desk and even if it were, that is not a good reason to simply close it, and ignore PMs asking why it was closed, in anticipation of threads being created in the Help Desk!

I refused to change my avatar once. I wasn't banned. Spaceturkey warned me for it and changed it himself. I see no difference with sigs.

Again, your threads are being closed because your queries and challenges to the decision are best addressed in this forum rather than the Red Room. Do NOT start any other threads regarding the darthsikle banning in the Red Room.

How is my asking the general membership what they think of his banning suited for the Help Desk?

Oh?

Really?

Why not?

I shall expect you to close the candle-light vigil thread any moment now, then. Unless I personally am not permitted to start threads related in any way to DarthSikle.

In the Red Room, of course.

Zodiac, allow me to make a suggestion. Title and initial post as such:

"How does everyone feel about..." Then it's no longer a staff inquiry. It's an inquiry into the feelings and beliefs of fellow WF'ers.

Worked well here: http://www.wordforge.net/showthread.php?t=36388&highlight=feel

I think the title and post showed that it wasn't. But if we establish that it wasn't then maybe it can be unlocked.

Unless making threads about DS is against the rules. Then we'll have to bid adieu to the candlelight vigil as well.

1. Your query to the membership regarding the DS banning is a query or challenge to Tamar's decision. In my judgment, your queries and challenges to that decision are best handled in this forum.

2. That directive does in fact apply to you personally, since it is apparent that you desire to query and challenge the decision. The threads started by others represent more traditional accepted Red Room responses to the decision.

I don't understand why every other controversial subject except the banning of DS are permitted to thrive in the Red Room. What is the rationale for not allowing topical threads about DS's banning to die or thrive on their own merits and based on the general interest or lack thereof of the membership in said topics. Why does the staff censor what aspects of DS's banning can and cannot be discussed in the Red Room? Reference the "Candlelight vigil" thread, amongst others.

And if DS discussions are anathema at the moment, then there are several threads in the Red Room as of this moment that need to be closed as well to preserve consistency and integrity of current policy, if you can call it that.

I am indeed troubled by these very disturbing trends in topic censoring that is currently going on in a forum (the Red Room) which is meant for broad and unrestrained discussion of controversial topics. Does an adjustment in Red Room rules need to be made in order to accommodate these recent troubling topic censoring decisions by the staff?

No it is not. It is an attempt to gauge their opinion on the matter. It is not a query or a challenge as to Tamar's decision.

Are people not allowed to talk with others about staff decisions? Perhaps you did not make this clear enough. I wished to know other peoples' opinions as to Tamar's decision. Not question it or appeal it.

Very well. But that thread is not one of them.

Ah. So because it is "apparent" I am personally wish to query and challenge (I wish to challenge it? Fascinating) I am not permitted to start any threads related to DS's banning? And query's pertaining to it?

I think that is a clever way of not having to close the vigil thread that was started for him. Do you mean to tell me that there have been no staff decision gripe threads in the Red Room which haven't been closed? If there have, I think the precedent this latest debacle sets might be detrimental to how things are run here.

I see.

Face, if you're reading: Could you please start that thread regarding other members' feelings regarding DS's ban? I'm not allowed to. Thanks either way.



I think you should just come out and say you don't want me to start a shitstorm over DS's banning, and that the Red Room is not an acceptable place for all 'trolling,' even if it isn't "extreme."

If that's how you feel.

Ah, so now you're soliciting others to do so.


Inadvisable.

I am sorry, I inferred that it was I alone who was personally barred from started DS threads, primarily from these statements:

Whereas another, more neutral party would not be. If it's ultimately against the rules than I do not stand by it.

Can others not start such threads anymore as well?

This seems contradictory to your post about me somehow encouraging others to break rules by starting DS-related threads, rules specifically designed for me. Please elaborate?

The fact is, Zodiac, your arguments are ineffective, despite how valid you apparently think they are.

And even if they are valid enough reasons, you've put yourself in a position which puts your credibility at an ever-descending level.

In short, not many people are going to take you seriously, and as a result, any unfair actions taken upon you will more than likely go unchallenged.

Sure, there may be several posters who believe it was a step in a dangerous direction for WF, but eventually, it would be noticed that nothing really changes at all, and you were abandoned to save space for trollers with less of an agenda.

The thing is, your freedom here has been taken advantage of, and this is no voting democracy. We understand our limits, whether noted by the rules or not, which are understood through common sense, and even common courtesy.

When you become a detriment to the functionality of the board, you become a very expendible part of it. If your words mean nothing, you are of no use to an entire WordForge.

I personally do not believe that the administration is going to care whether or not you go back to TK, with your tail wagging, going on and on about how you beat the system and got banned at WordForge.

At best, you'll over-congratulate yourself, and board life moves on.

So, it is a fact that they are invalid, but they might be valid?

So what you're saying is that I will be treated differently by the staff because I'm.... different? Interesting.

What???

So, no rules, just mob justice? I'd rather read that from a staff member.

Sorry, but how am I a detriment to the functionality of the board?

All in all I find your post interesting, considering how you stated that my arguments were "invalid" yet tried to paint a picture of WF behaving as though if they were valid and would discard them simply because I am a... troll, right? If you disagree with this assessment please read your post again.

That fact was that your arguments are ineffective, despite your thoughts of your own validity. I said nothing of the validity of your arguments, only your own view of it.

And yes, they may be valid. But the point is, no one really cares.

That's precisely what Im saying, though you must dive a bit further into HOW you're different, (which I wont do, because you already know), in order to understand WHY you would be treated so differently.

You must've actually understood this part, or you'd be arguing it until you're blue in the face.

And Im sure one would openly admit it, if it happens to be the truth. It gets you no where but back to TK, either way.

And like I said before, you'd go back, over-congratulate yourself, and board life will move on.

Simple: Your trolls are so frequent as to drag attention away from real issues, and posters with real opinions. You abstruct the nature of true discussion of issues all too commonly.

Oh, it's a fine enough assessment.

Though I have trouble finding the relevancy of my first expressing your arguments to be "invalid," and following by expressing it's inconsequential nature whether valid or invalid.

I'm not concerned with the why or how. I'm surprised that you would concede that I am being treated differently because I am, apparently, a lower-class of WFer.

There is a clause about banning people who have not contributed and have only trolled. Either Wordforge bans me because a good deal of posters do not 'like' me (Despite the majority of them initiating hostilities with myself,) or it alters its rules to make it OK to ban me. Either way, there's no way the board as a whole couldn't be considered hypocritical for it.

Where's Listy?

Umm......ok?

I'm stalling board life or something? I'm simply a member who doesn't consider WF his home board.

My trolls are frequent? Compared to what?

I should be punished for dragging away attention?

Just ban all trolls then, God. Just watch out or else a good chunk of WFers would go along with me. ????

I gotta go get some more beer but I'll be back. I'm really looking forward to more discussion