I'm pretty sure it wasnt continuing the discussion of the closed thread, it was discussing what that particular post represented. the original thread was discussing how to word complaints and critisim to cryptic, the new thread was discussing what the game means to different people using that post as an example.. where the original thread was a thunderstorm directed at cryptic, the other was a coffee morning.
If we look at a 14 page thread, the vast majority of the time the discussion on page 14 is not going to be the discussion on page 1. His thread started by quoting the old post (roughly 8 paragraphs), followed by one paragraph supporting the ideas in the old post, one paragraph praising the old post, and then one paragraph about how it applies to himself. That post would have fit perfectly in the old thread.
If I started discussing a post from a thread that's (for example) 2 years old, there is little difference between starting a new thread or posting in the same thread, except that the former would be an active attempt on my part to not necro. (Which is actually completely permissible.)
If we look at a 14 page thread, the vast majority of the time the discussion on page 14 is not going to be the discussion on page 1.
good point, but are you suggesting that, regardless of the direction a thread goes, all information or ideas within it should be off limits? If the thread was labelled 'how do i paint my shed green?' and a single post said, 'i used to have a red shed!' would that then exclude any new thread about red sheds?
His thread started by quoting the old post (roughly 8 paragraphs), followed by one paragraph supporting the ideas in the old post, one paragraph praising the old post, and then one paragraph about how it applies to himself. That post would have fit perfectly in the old thread.
The old thread was titled 'how do you want it', the topic was asking how do we pass on information, in what manner is it acceptable, what is unnaceptable and, according to the closing dialogue by the Smirk that you qouted from..
Thanks to everyone who cam in to add to the discussion and bring up their own points about how they would like to see things move forward.
That post in question was clearly saying 'this is how i have been feeling, this is what i was hoping to do today, this is what actually happened, and this is how im feeling now' that really wasnt adding to the thread in terms of on-topic progression, it was a simple statement, and i'm guessing part of the reason it received no real response. That post was really out of place.
If I started discussing a post from a thread that's (for example) 2 years old, there is little difference between starting a new thread or posting in the same thread, except that the former would be an active attempt on my part to not necro. (Which is actually completely permissible.)
This is where i think the OP has his/her teeth. It isnt just about the single post/thread/closure mentioned here, or time frames or trying not too A and avoiding B, its the principle and reasoning behind what constitutes usable information or reference. The OP is asking some very valid questions. If it all really comes down to an opinion, a personal perspective or a gut feeling as to what way the hammer swings, then it is a very hard road for some people to follow. The rules are only literal in the sense that they are written, the use of those rules however are not.
If it was the OP's intent to start a new thread, looking deeper into a single point or process raised within a larger thread, then i dont see the issue. Auto-closing it due to origin or because it may become something 'hammerworthy' down the road is icky.
Maybe that thread could have progressed into simple calm discussion, a dialogue that could have encouraged posts from some of the gentler forum members. The thread seemed to be more focused on an emotional dialogue, rather than as a means to uspet or provoke.
If it was moderated with the same attitude used towards aggressive or inflamitory threads, then that is wrong, on many levels, and also begs the question about whether other similar attempts to open dialogue within a sub group have been met in a similar manner.
something to think about...
sorry i keep using hammer-esque words, they just seem to fit.
good point, but are you suggesting that, regardless of the direction a thread goes, all information or ideas within it should be off limits? If the thread was labelled 'how do i paint my shed green?' and a single post said, 'i used to have a red shed!' would that then exclude any new thread about red sheds?
I shouldn't think so, but that's not what happened.
There is a difference between starting a new thread discussing red sheds, and quoting the post about red sheds in a closed thread and continuing the discussion on it. The latter is technically against the rules.
Frankly, this entire thing could have been avoided if OP posted his own thoughts instead of borrowing someone else's.
Frankly, this entire thing could have been avoided if OP posted his own thoughts instead of borrowing someone else's.
Hmm, I feel that may be missing the point a little. If it was a contemplative post, invoking an emotional reaction or a specific chain of thought, then personally, I think failing to reference the original text would have been wrong, or at the very least rude. Maybe thats just the engineer in me, im big on origin of concept and referance to others work, ideas or thoughts.
I do agree however, that had that post not been used, you may well be correct that this would likely have been a 'non issue', and that is maybe the OP's position -
Why would it have been deemed OK and regarded as a non continuation of a closed thread without inclusion of that post, yet deemed a continuation and wrong with that post. With or without, the same points would have been made and the same conclusions drawn. The only difference was deffering to the original post that provoked the OP into writing the thread in the 1st place.
Recently my post was deleted because I was just telling the truth. Last stream is 2h talk about food and pizza and for this game it is shamefull. Streams should be fun talking about future development and maybe some rewards for players and not talking 2h bout rubbish. Truth hurts I guess.
I know that discussion moderation is against the forum rules, and is on most forums I ever visited. If you have a moderation question, there is a support ticket system for that.
yay for forum police.. how about you let the people who actually moderate the forum moderate the forums.. thank you..
Recently my post was deleted because I was just telling the truth. Last stream is 2h talk about food and pizza and for this game it is shamefull. Streams should be fun talking about future development and maybe some rewards for players and not talking 2h bout rubbish. Truth hurts I guess.
Someone mentioned a really good point earlier, or maybe it was in another post i was reading, but it may not have been the topic of your post, or anything you actually wrote that resulted in the closure. Of course it may have been the way the truth was written that resulted in the closure. I have on occasion portrayed the truth in a, varied, multicolour spectrum It is definately worth reading Iconians post at the start of this thread, its a nice reference peice, with some really good insight.
Comments
thats cool, my daughter is elbowing me away from the computer again anyways lol
If we look at a 14 page thread, the vast majority of the time the discussion on page 14 is not going to be the discussion on page 1. His thread started by quoting the old post (roughly 8 paragraphs), followed by one paragraph supporting the ideas in the old post, one paragraph praising the old post, and then one paragraph about how it applies to himself. That post would have fit perfectly in the old thread.
If I started discussing a post from a thread that's (for example) 2 years old, there is little difference between starting a new thread or posting in the same thread, except that the former would be an active attempt on my part to not necro. (Which is actually completely permissible.)
False. You are incorrect on all counts.
The post he quoted was only a day old, but the thread was shut down:
good point, but are you suggesting that, regardless of the direction a thread goes, all information or ideas within it should be off limits? If the thread was labelled 'how do i paint my shed green?' and a single post said, 'i used to have a red shed!' would that then exclude any new thread about red sheds?
The old thread was titled 'how do you want it', the topic was asking how do we pass on information, in what manner is it acceptable, what is unnaceptable and, according to the closing dialogue by the Smirk that you qouted from..
That post in question was clearly saying 'this is how i have been feeling, this is what i was hoping to do today, this is what actually happened, and this is how im feeling now' that really wasnt adding to the thread in terms of on-topic progression, it was a simple statement, and i'm guessing part of the reason it received no real response. That post was really out of place.
This is where i think the OP has his/her teeth. It isnt just about the single post/thread/closure mentioned here, or time frames or trying not too A and avoiding B, its the principle and reasoning behind what constitutes usable information or reference. The OP is asking some very valid questions. If it all really comes down to an opinion, a personal perspective or a gut feeling as to what way the hammer swings, then it is a very hard road for some people to follow. The rules are only literal in the sense that they are written, the use of those rules however are not.
If it was the OP's intent to start a new thread, looking deeper into a single point or process raised within a larger thread, then i dont see the issue. Auto-closing it due to origin or because it may become something 'hammerworthy' down the road is icky.
Maybe that thread could have progressed into simple calm discussion, a dialogue that could have encouraged posts from some of the gentler forum members. The thread seemed to be more focused on an emotional dialogue, rather than as a means to uspet or provoke.
If it was moderated with the same attitude used towards aggressive or inflamitory threads, then that is wrong, on many levels, and also begs the question about whether other similar attempts to open dialogue within a sub group have been met in a similar manner.
something to think about...
sorry i keep using hammer-esque words, they just seem to fit.
I shouldn't think so, but that's not what happened.
There is a difference between starting a new thread discussing red sheds, and quoting the post about red sheds in a closed thread and continuing the discussion on it. The latter is technically against the rules.
Frankly, this entire thing could have been avoided if OP posted his own thoughts instead of borrowing someone else's.
Hmm, I feel that may be missing the point a little. If it was a contemplative post, invoking an emotional reaction or a specific chain of thought, then personally, I think failing to reference the original text would have been wrong, or at the very least rude. Maybe thats just the engineer in me, im big on origin of concept and referance to others work, ideas or thoughts.
I do agree however, that had that post not been used, you may well be correct that this would likely have been a 'non issue', and that is maybe the OP's position -
Why would it have been deemed OK and regarded as a non continuation of a closed thread without inclusion of that post, yet deemed a continuation and wrong with that post. With or without, the same points would have been made and the same conclusions drawn. The only difference was deffering to the original post that provoked the OP into writing the thread in the 1st place.
yay for forum police.. how about you let the people who actually moderate the forum moderate the forums.. thank you..
Someone mentioned a really good point earlier, or maybe it was in another post i was reading, but it may not have been the topic of your post, or anything you actually wrote that resulted in the closure. Of course it may have been the way the truth was written that resulted in the closure. I have on occasion portrayed the truth in a, varied, multicolour spectrum