| |
Martin Piper
Registered: Nov 2007
Posts: 634 |
Proposed rule change
I would like to propose a rule change. If an admin is involved in posting in a thread they are not allowed to use their admin powers to delete posts, issue warnings or lock threads. This would help stop the situations where an admin who loses an argument can abuse their powers to remove the posts they personally disagree with.
|
|
... 138 posts hidden. Click here to view all posts....
|
| |
Martin Piper
Registered: Nov 2007
Posts: 634 |
Quoting Groepazwether sometime some thread started a fire doesnt mean anything, even if a moderator was involved. it is *by far* not the rule. it happens very rarely. ie, no problem. nothing to see. move on.
Looking back of the threads in this forum it isn't so rare to have related problems.
Quote:to have good moderation, everyone must be able to act quickly.
Incorrect because as shown it was your actions that caused the problem.
Quote:and in that time a thread would be completely destroyed.
You destroyed the thread by first posting off topic comments, then locking and then removing on topic relevant posts useful to others.
That little fact alone is enough to refute your claims.
Quote:and we are also yet again back to the point where only matters what those who run the site think.
Not only because...
Quote:wether YOU think it is practical to work like this however is irrelevant.
... what I think is relevant since I have produced strong arguments. The opposing arguments have been tackled and refuted. Everyone can see that because this is a public forum.
Quote:and no, perff doesnt need help to implement this nonsense. =P another very useful (and up to now, missing here) moderation feature might surface though. =P
It isn't nonsense. As others have pointed out what I've proposed looks sensible.
The offer of coding help still stands and I don't think you have the authority to refuse it on Perff's behalf.
|
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11108 |
Quote:Looking back of the threads in this forum it isn't so rare to have related problems.
it happens a few times a year. compared with other forums this is nothing.
Quote:Incorrect because as shown it was your actions that caused the problem.
as said countless times before, mistakes happen.
Quote:... what I think is relevant since I have produced strong arguments.
what you think is irrelevant because you are not going to do the work. those who run the site decide how they want to work.
Quote:It isn't nonsense. As others have pointed out what I've proposed looks sensible.
i can find someone pointing out whatever i'd like to look sensible on the internet.
Quote:The offer of coding help still stands and I don't think you have the authority to refuse it on Perff's behalf.
i dont need to. if he wanted to implement it, he'd just do it. no help needed, really. |
| |
The Communist
Registered: Nov 2002
Posts: 485 |
Martin, if you would have the stronger arguemnts and we wouldn't react. What would happen ? Do you wanne get us into court ?
Who decides btw. who the stronger arguments has ? You think this about your own. Is this objective ?
Furthermore in your last message you break everything down onto this single thread. Gpz talked about it in general.
And to bring it back whether this site is private or not. There are two big branches in the law, public law and common law. And as "Public law is a theory of law governing the relationship between individuals (citizens, companies) and the state." doesn't match on csdb everything is regulated under the common law* branch, which means that this site is private and the maintainer can do whatever he wants to.
* there are still differences in common law between the french and the Anglo-Saxon rooted one.
|
| |
Martin Piper
Registered: Nov 2007
Posts: 634 |
As shown this site is not private, so you cannot keep on claiming that.
Going off topic with sarcasm instead of tackling the actual arguments presented is not helpful.
Do you have any substantive argument against the proposal?
Can you, for example, definitively point to any single "user ban" that would not have happened if you had been subject to the restrictions of this proposal?
|
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11108 |
Quote:As shown this site is not private, so you cannot keep on claiming that.
LOL. did you read the last post even?
time to close the thread, it isnt going anywhere.
|
| |
Martin Piper
Registered: Nov 2007
Posts: 634 |
Quoting GroepazLOL. did you read the last post even?
I did read the post. It repeated the same or similar already weak and refuted points as before. Just repeating old refuted arguments does not suddenly make them valid again. I refer the poster to the earlier responses I made the first time around which the poster did not then refute.
It is also off topic.
Now back on topic:
Can you, for example, definitively point to any single "user ban" that would not have happened if you had been subject to the restrictions of this proposal?
|
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11108 |
Quote:I did read the post. It repeated the same or similar already weak and refuted points as before. Just repeating old refuted arguments does not suddenly make them valid again. I refer the poster to the earlier responses I made the first time around which the poster did not then refute.
besides the fact that communist actually mentioned a valid reference to how something beeing public or not is defined - unlike you.
and it still boils down to that very fact, which makes most of this thread pretty pointless. going in circles, back to post #2 |
| |
Martin Piper
Registered: Nov 2007
Posts: 634 |
Quoting GroepazQuote:I did read the post. It repeated the same or similar already weak and refuted points as before. Just repeating old refuted arguments does not suddenly make them valid again. I refer the poster to the earlier responses I made the first time around which the poster did not then refute.
besides the fact that communist actually mentioned a valid reference to how something beeing public or not is defined - unlike you.
and it still boils down to that very fact, which makes most of this thread pretty pointless. going in circles, back to post #2
The reference was not valid because a similar point was already refuted earlier in the thread. It is also off topic. Your reply is also off topic. According to your own criteria you should remove your posts.
I also note you are dodging the on topic question.
|
| |
CreaMD
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 3034 |
Closing the thread. The system proposed by Martin is well explained.
I will start a thread about in mod forum.
Roman
|
| Previous - 1 | ... | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 - Next |
