Would you mods please start at least explainifying when you close a thread? A few have gone down recently that have no obvious TOS violations. It's frustrating -- to me at least -- when I don't know what's causing this. Just a note every now and then would be nice.

PLEASE.

Well, i'd say the only closed topic on this page got shut because someone got fed up with the overobvious anti Bush sentiments in it, which is, from an American point of view, quite understandable. [img]graemlins/hehe.gif[/img]

But surely not a reason to close a thread. Surely that can't be.

Timber, I haven't closed any threads recently, and my own policy on closing threads hasn't changed from when I started - I usually ask people to stop posting on a thread and let it die of its own accord before closing it off (proactivity and all that). And when I do close a thread I always leave a reason why, to avoid confusion (and avoid getting hassled [img]graemlins/hehe.gif[/img] ) of the sort you're expressing now.

That said, that's only my style, not trying to say it's better or worse than others. Everyone has their own style. [img]smile.gif[/img]

I'm with you TL, it seemed overly harsh. Oh well - thems the breaks.

Edited, I'm sorry for what I wrote before, even if it irritates me that threads are being locked just because the "host" here doesn't agree with them.

I mean yes we are Z's guests, but what kind of host tells his guests to shut up when he doesn't agree with their discussion?

[ 09-23-2004, 11:48 AM: Message edited by: Jorath Calar ]

Well, if you support Bush, and you happen to have a magic wand that can make the bashing stop, it's possible that that's exactly the reason why it got locked.

Right Z ? :D

T.L. I can see your point, Mem address it :D

Jorath, remember we are guests in Z man's house, and he's set up the mods to help him keep the house clean. Be careful about piss'n in the kitchen, we are all here at Z man and the mod's desgression(sp?).

Ditto of Mems' post, I usually pop on and post before closing anything. But a word to the wise, TL, PM or email this kind of question- it's ToS, dude. [img]smile.gif[/img]

<font color=lime>Ya, someone moved one of my topics a couple weeks ago to another forum, which was ligit, but I thought they deleted it, untill I found it in the other thread. I did get an Email, but I dont check my email but about once every 3 or 4 days.
A PM would have been nice to inform me of the move. ;)
Good topic Timber! </font>

<font color=skyblue>Ziroc has been thinking about banning all political images, but has made no official decision on the case.

However, Timber Lofits, you know why he is considering this.

It was you, TL that actually gave birth to this rule that might soon go into place because so many people made complaints about your signature a few weeks back. I am told that you received an e-mail about it.

Ziroc first told us (the moderators) about his plans on the second day of September. I have not seen any official declaration as of yet, but I have noticed some threads locked afterward that I took to mean that I should also be doing the same.

As to the reason why Ziroc or I sometimes lock a thread with no explanation...I cannot speak for him, but I usually do tell why, unless the reason is clear to the people involved, and I am in no mood to make explanations.

FYI>>>I have only closed two threads in all my years as a mod with no reason given, and the "chimps" thread was the first one concerning political images I have done to date. Somebody else (Probably the webmaster) has done the others.
</font>

[ 09-23-2004, 02:16 PM: Message edited by: Larry_OHF ]

Well, I didn't know how general the policy was. I knew there was objection to my "Vote Kerry" sig smiley, and I was told about that -- but that was something I could understand a BIT more, since it would appear in all my posts.

I think a general ban on a political image is a bad idea. I think it's something that should be discussed between all the members. Ban religion, then political pictures, then candidate advocacy. What's left? News articles?

I know at least one member complained directly to me about the "Vote KErry" sig smiley, but I don't know how many in total did it. While we're on it, though, I think they were all being wussy crybabies. There's nothing wrong, IMO, for wearing a political pin on your collar at IWF.

I mean, if all we have to discuss here is whether we prefer Aerie of Viconia, is there really a need for the CE forum.

Is there a more Current Event than the election?

That chimps thread was a damn fine thread, and could have included cartoons lampooning both sides. This is not an apolitical forum, y'know.

Fair enough. I should have done that. I guess I didn't because I didn't know who it was.

However, it is okay to discuss a proposed new rule on the forum, isn't it?

Agreed with Timber, banning religeous topics is one thing, but should political discussions also be outlawed, the CE forum has lost it's purpose and might just as well dissapear all together.

I'm in complete agreement with Timber as well. What's wrong with a little light-hearted political fun poking? And I for one certainly wouldn't care if someone decided to post a number of anti-Kerry/Nader/Blair/whatever pictures - as long as political jokes aren't of a malicious and deeply insulting nature (say, for example, tasteless comparisons of a candidate to a mass murderer), I'm cool with it. Heck, political humour - that we can see *every* evening nowadays anyway, ranging from Letterman to Leno to SNL and TDS - is the only thing that make the bore that is the world of politics even remotely bearable.

Of course, while I may disagree with a possible ban of political images, it's not my forum; and I will respect whatever decision Ziroc takes. It's just a bit of a disappointment that the ones closing the topics don't even give an explanation for the closure - if you've decided to ban these images, why not simply tell us? That way we can at least avoid similar problems in the future.

[ 09-23-2004, 04:23 PM: Message edited by: Grojlach ]

Well, since Ziroc is in the US instead of the EU, he would Make a decision, not Take one. I always loved that little cultural distinction. :D

And, while I agree that we will all follow whatever rule is decided upon (of course), I think the mods and Z should at least hear us out on this issue before deciding.

Funny, I wasn't even aware of the make vs take distinction until you mentioned it... The main reason why I instinctively decided to use "take a decision" is because it's a direct translation of the Dutch "een beslissing nemen"; however, it seems it's also in use in Britain (Interesting read regarding this distinction). [img]smile.gif[/img]

Oh, and whenever you notice similarly strange phrases (especially when they're ungrammatical in both British and American English), feel free to point them out to me; I could always use advice to improve my grammar and spelling. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 09-23-2004, 05:18 PM: Message edited by: Grojlach ]

"Take" a decision arguably makes more sense, because the options were there to begin with, and you just chose one of them.

Banning EITHER religious topics or politcal discussions is censorship. I don't dispute Z's right to lock threads when he sees fit, but if open exchange of dissenting ideas is going to be restricted the CE forum serves no purpose in my view.

It's a sad world where we can't laugh at politicians.

:(

All very good reasons not to ban overtly political candidate advocacy threads, I agree; it goes to the foundations of free speech. But, just as it is in the religious issue, it's possible that Z has been thinking that the discussions have been getting too heated and/or uninformative.

I haven't personally noticed much (if any) of that, but maybe that's because I sometimes skip those threads. I certainly wouldn't support a blanket ban on threads/posts re: the American election, as it is a current political event with potentially large worldwide implications.

Off the top of my head, I can't think of any threads that have been closed without warnings or explanation. I have a vague remembrance of seeing some discussion of a couple, but I never tried to post in them myself.

Heh. What this post adds to the thread, I don't know. :D

Try these two for starters:

http://www.ironworksforum.com/ubb/no...;f=27;t=001416
http://www.ironworksforum.com/ubb/no...;f=27;t=001428

Ok, thanks Groj. A definite point there. No real reason to close those, IMO.

*
*
*

Hah! How on earth did I miss the chimps thread?! :D [img]graemlins/laugh3.gif[/img]

We don't have to give a reason punk! (hehe), serious though, we usually DO give one, but you all know the rules, and when a thread is breaking the rules, I am quite SURE you all know it. (IE: Bashing any president or Country) Which is what I expect this post is about.

... Closing. [img]graemlins/hehe.gif[/img] As you broke the rules HERE too. PM next time, Timber.

Well, if you support Bush, and you happen to have a magic wand that can make the bashing stop, it's possible that that's exactly the reason why it got locked.

Right Z ? :D </font>[/QUOTE]No Johnny, I don't care if you like Bush or not. I personally don't care for him, but BASHING our president--ANY damn president of ANY damn nation will not be allowed. It makes the poster look bad anyway.

So let me remind ya ;) You can discuss how bad you think bush is, but do it in a constructive manner please. Same goes for John Kerry.

Thanks!

http://www.ironworksforum.com/ubb/noncgi/rules.html

=======
Be Responsible: Do not post slanderous, libelous or any defamatory statements on the Ironworks Gaming Forum, we will not be held responsible for your posts, but just the same, we'd rather not go there! Posts that appear to be defamatory should have supporting references included.
=======