blah_b_lablah

Lord Alderaan, You keep putting words in my mouth and then debating them as though I've said them (I'd quote the bits of your post I'm replying to for clarification but apparently that's just silly around here). I never used the reasoning of being an 'experienced forum goer' for arguing that the rules should go where the rules go. I stated my opinion there without any qualification. It was you who brought my 'experience' into it, and I simply pointed out that if as a result of experience I should expect to find rules in 'stickies', then it would be a contradiction not to also expect I should base my posting methods here on my previous experience. Yes different forums have different rules, but under the rules link is the logical place to look for them, which is what I did. And I'll be honest and admit that in hind site I probably over-reacted. But my general 'experience' when joining a forum, is to have someone (usually a moderator) welcome me to the forum when I first post, and if I've broken any rules (which happens rarely anyway) have them nicely pointed out to me. So yes, when after my second post I was threatened with being banned for something as silly as trying to make my posts clear, I was rather annoyed. I guess because some people seem to be emotionally attached to a corner of the internet, they forget that it means nothing to anyone else, and as a result also assume their site has some divine right to 'respect', when in reality they need to earn it like the rest of us. The rules here (at least the ones in question) are stupid. And the one regarding double posting (which apparently has a different definition here than it does anywhere else) is without a doubt the most ludicrous rule I've ever come across in any forum, and probably the most idiotic one I ever will. If there's some harm in making a second post, especially when that second post is making a completely different point to the first, or having a blue line in between points (due to the second post) somehow messes up a thread, then I'd love to have the logic behind that explained to me, if there is any logic other than moderator boredom. And as I said earlier, I would have happily 'gone away' had I simply been banned without any immature taunting in the process. Once again I thanked the people who contributed to the thread because it was the right thing to do. However I can't be worried if they wish to twist that into some sort of insult, although I guess if that's a possible outcome it might explain why less and less people seem to bother with manners these days. I'm happy I know I tried to do the right thing, if not for any other reason than because I felt it was the right thing for me to do, and in the end, that's what I worry about the most. I don't consider myself or my opinions to be the center of the universe. I've already stated that had I been treated differently I would have simply followed the rules, and I admitted I over-reacted a bit. Experience has taught me that when someone says something like "you think your opinions are the center of the universe" it's usually due to frustration because that's where they're coming from themselves. Switeck, while I agree that it's frustrating when a thread goes off topic as this one has, it seems to me to be some sort of indication as to the way this forum is run. In any other forum I've posted in, had this sort of thing happened, the thread would simply have been removed, or at least all the off topic posts would have been removed leaving the thread cleaned up. Yet in this case it's so wrong to quote a post that it results in an immediate threat of banning, has a moderator arguing off topic wasting more space than the breaking of the rule in question ever would have (not to mention also messing up the thread more than quoting ever could have) and while posts 'breaking the rules' get edited, the rest is allowed to remain. And while on one hand I applaud the lack of censorship, it leaves a lot of questions regarding the motivations behind the moderating here. I agree, this thread should be cleaned up, and I'm sure with all the arguments gone neither myself or anyone else would be bothered enough to try and drag them up again.

Lord Alderaan, Well I must say I disagree with most of what you said. You argue that as "a seasoned internet forum goer" I should know to look in stickies for extra rules. Even assuming I had the interest in wading through posts looking for obscure and unnecessary rules rather than risk upsetting the moderator of a forum which in the overall scheme of things isn't important to me, your argument contradicts itself. If I should assume I have to look through stickies for extra forum rules because that's the way it happens in most forums, I guess using the same logic I can also assume I can post here in the same manner in which I post in other forums without objection. Why can't the rules go where the rules go? Your politeness argument is rather odd. Why should I respect someone who's not polite to me? And why should I worry if my reply is in the form of an escalated level of impoliteness if I don't respect them? I'm glad I gave the impression that the rules here are stupid. They are. And if I implied an opinion of mismanagement, I'm sorry. I should have tried harder to state it I guess. I'm not sure which word I argued about when it comes to it's definition. I don't recall that. I never said the forums are ineffective, just that they have low traffic compared with others. Annoying? I don't recall that either, although I guess it's obvious that this isn't a very welcoming place, and maybe most other people leave without bothering to express their opinion like I have. But please don't put words into my mouth. You apparently assumed that I gave thought as to whether you would appreciate my thank you. This is incorrect. I said thank you because it was something I considered the right thing to do. If you wish to turn that into an insult then I'll leave you to deal with something you've created in your own mind as it's of no interest to me. I guess if nothing else, silverfire's post #25 has simply proved that most of my earlier assumptions regarding the moderation of this forum is correct. Double posting is negligent? What, is the extra blue line in the middle something I should take out public liability insurance for in case it upsets someone? Now I've heard everything. "we identified excessive quoting... and double posting... as the two most prevalent issues for us to tackle"? I guess that puts world hunger in perspective. "I fit under the definition of a 'social parasite.' My main enjoyment in moderating these forums comes from stepping and subsequently stomping on others' toes; their grief is my happiness. However your definition of maturity labels my actions, I can guarantee you that I'm enjoying this far more than you ever will." What can I say? The forum is moderated by someone with the maturity of a 5 year old. "You decided that your way was the only correct way and went against policy to continue pursuing what we as moderators judged to be inappropriate actions, including but not limited to: repeated violation of rules and personal attacks on staff, resulting in your ban." Exactly. Seeing as we're equating this forum to hypothetical laws, here's some reading. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_disobedience When taking such a path I'm prepared to accept the 'consequences' (in this case being banned). Although given the insignificance of the consequences in this case, it'd be wiser to enforce them without any childish blah, blah, blah's if you want the 'consequences' to be accepted, rather than to be taken as a challenge to come back for more 'consequences'. Unless of course the interests of the forum come second to the moderators having fun.

@silverfire (re: assuming post subjects): Once again, that assumes that the forum traffic is so slow that there won't be three other posts in between your reply and the post you're replying to, by the time you post it. Including the quote just helps the thread continuity, and stops the need for having to go back and add or remove quotes after posting. This part of the reply is in response to your edit, not the previous post. But see how clear it makes it as to what I'm talking about? Did the extra space really cause any harm? @silverfire (re: quoting as clarification): Now see how clear it is which comment I'm replying to here? Doesn't that make it so much easier for the reader? Until you remove it of course then the post will make much less sense but that's okay because it's your policy I guess. And no, it mightn't matter what my opinion is, at least not to the end result if you want to remove the quotes, but it's not an argument that the policy is sensible by any means. @silverfire (re: quoting policies): Well once again, if quoting was the biggest issue here, and it's something that happens in every other forum I've ever posted in without anyone complaining, then I guess I can understand why you have to go looking for problems to moderate. You have to justify being here to yourself I guess, even though you've wasted more space in this thread arguing about quoting than I even would have taken up quoting in the first place. But at least you have your policy intact. Merged double post(s): Well I think I'm bored of this topic now, and not really too interested in whether or not I post here not, so I'll just leave with a final few thoughts..... Had the quoting rule been in the rules section where I could see it I would have followed it. Had I not received a threat of being banned for simply replying to a post asking why I quote the post I'm replying to, and had instead simply been shown the rule and asked (anyone seen the word 'please' in this thread?) not to quote the way I was doing it, I would have done so. Had I been given a logical reason as to why quoting wasn't looked upon favorably instead of some confused cause and effect logic I wouldn't have argued (I'm still at a loss as to understand why the removal of the easy quoting link wasn't enough to stop quoting pyramids, and how quoting manually could cause them to be a regular occurrence). Had I known that there was such little traffic in this forum there was no need to quote, because there was no chance of a reply being miles below the original post, or even on another page, I wouldn't have bothered quoting to save the idiotic situation that occurs in other forums where you're forced to scroll up and down and bounce between pages in order to follow the different individual conversations going on. Had I been simply banned I would have had a chuckle at it and gone my merry way. But when being banned I receive a childish message such as "blah, blah, blah" from someone who's supposed to have enough maturity to moderate a forum, well then I'm happy to keep playing till it bores me. And had I, as a new member, been guided with some respect, and without the use of threats or childish tongue poking smilies, I would have treated the forum and the moderator with the some respect in return. Bye. EDIT by silverfire: The edit function exists for a reason. Double posting instead of editing is negligent and unnecessary.