Illegitimately Closed Thread?

Levski MD

seamus wrote:

You assert that with each post in that thread, you were moving closer to a resolution. This is really the entire crux of the matter. The mod actions showed that he disagrees with your assertion. I do too.

Now we're getting somewhere. Give me some time and I'll show you concretely how the argument was moving closer to resolution, and in fact, how it was right on the verge of resolution when the mod closed the thread. I need to go now but will get to it.

Levski MD

The summation is at the conclusion of this post.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055444361&page=4

Post #52 Welly begins the exchange. He makes two counterpoints in response to a criticism by me of one of his posts in the game (that the post shows him trying to defend the developers without due regard for the issues being brought up). The post was his dismissal of a user's complaint against a feature of the game. He explains that 1) he didn't pick an insignificant point of the complaining user's post to refute and 2) that I was misinterpreting his words.

Post #53 I respond. I defend my claim on point 1 that he did in fact pick an insignificant point to attack as the user's other points were known to be significant and I defend my claim on point 2 that I wasn't misinterpreting his words by explaining my interpretation. I also bring up a third point to the discussion, a quote from a developer that the particular feature of the game is indeed broken, which supports the accusation I made about him that he doesn't review issues with due regard but just tries to defend the developers and the game.

Post #54 he responds. He writes 1) he found one of the user's points to be weak from personal experience and posted on it and as the user's points weren't substantiated challenging one point is fair game 2) he juxtaposes two quotes, one mine and one his, to show that I am misinterpreting his words 3) he posts another quote and explains how I'm misinterpreting it 4) he explains how the game feature in question is a complicated subject and so how the attacks on it aren't legitimate.

Post #55 I respond. I 1) bring that developer quote about the feature being broken and ask him to respond to it as he hadn't done so 2) I explain and show by quoting that the complaining user had in fact substantiated some of his points in other threads that furthermore were significant and that Welly was in fact aware of one of the points being substantiated 3) I break down the post excerpt where he's claiming I'm misinterpreting his words and match a description to each part to show why I am not misinterpreting his words.

Post #57 he responds. He writes that I went on a tangent (without explanation). He asserts (without offering any further explanation) that I am misinterpreting his words and that I should apologize. He claims that I am not interested in listening to the opinions of others but only to my own.

Post #58 I respond. I claim that he is being discredited and hence is running away from the argument. I claim that this is the case because my post did not go on a tangent but was pertinent to the argument. The remainder of the post goes to explain and show why. I begin by stating the central point of the argument- he seeks to defend the developers and the game without due regard for the issues in the game. Then I concisely state and explain each supporting point for the claim. He has been denying there is anything wrong with the feature yet a developer has admitted the contrary. He attacked one point from the user's post when he knew of at least one other of the points to have been substantiated and to be significant. And finally, point three, the excerpt from his post the meaning of which we disagree on. I write that if he is to legitimately disagree with my interpretation he has to respond to my argument. He didn't respond to the descriptions I attached to each part of the excerpt. I proceeded to reiterate those descriptions by presenting them in a different format (bold, capital letters, inside the excerpt) and I also did so in an attempt to clarify by altering one of them.

I ended the post by writing that if he chooses to post like his last post, without substantiation for his claims, it is clear that he has been discredited, and that in that case he is done here.

Post #59 he responds. A post of the same nature as his previous one, maybe even less constructive in the lack of support for his claims and the form those claims take (use of "LOL", exclamation marks, bold font). Post #60 the moderator posts "Quit your squabbling" and closes the thread.


It should be apparent that the argument remained legitimate until his second to last post where he ceased adding anything constructive to it (further support or clarification). Each one of my posts remained legitimate throughout however. In response to his first inappropriate post I immediately identified it as so and clearly indicated that the argument will not continue if he proceeds to post in that manner. Post #59 was the post immediately following. I wasn't given the chance to do what I said I would- not reciprocate the level he stooped down to, instead, not engaging him further (I would've posted that I was satisfied with the record of the discussion and that given he hadn't met the condition I set we were done). Hence the moderator demonstrably stepped in prematurely and incorrectly identified the exchange as one that had devolved to a squabble.

Therefore, the thread should be reopened.

Levski MD

Well seamus?

hullaballoo

You have your answer. The thread will remain closed because the Moderator's discretion was properly applied in this case. In his judgement, the thread was a squabble and was not beneficial to the forum. That's the primary issue and it's why Moderator discretion is always reserved.

It's wholly irrelevant that your opinion is that it wasn't just a squabble. You can't please all of the people all of the time.

Levski MD

This is an ongoing discussion between me and seamus. Lastly he identified the crux of the problem and I presented evidence on it. I don't feel like bothering responding to your jumbled reasoning about moderator discretion. Let seamus respond if you don't wish to read posts in this thread.

Beruthiel

No need to be smart, Hulla is an Smod and has every right to comment in this thread.
I concur with his comments.

Levski MD

I'm not trying to be smart. It's just apparent to me that mods here aren't awfully keen on reviewing cases to ensure that the proper decision has been made. Seamus has been participating in this thread with relative integrity so if another moderator has nothing else to say but to reiterate the upholding of the mod decision without bothering to inform himself of the situation that moderator should rather avoid this thread and let seamus respond.

hullaballoo

I find it laughable that on the one hand you can accuse us of not having informed ourselves in relation to your points (we have read this thread and the links provided) and on the other hand, fail to inform yourself as to the integrity and efficacy of the review procedures on the site.

Decisions have, where they were clearly wrong, been overturned. My (quite succinct) point was that Mod discretion must be reserved on the assumption that the Mod in question knows what is best for their charge: that's part of the trust relationship between users of the site. On a number of occasions, SMods or Admins have stepped in. On other occasions, the Mod in question has held his hands up.

What we are saying to you is that we (those SMods who have posted on this thread) agree with the manner in which the Mod here exercised his discretion.

Levski MD

Seamus identified something as the crux of the problem. I proceeded to concretely show how my claim in relation to it is correct.

I don't care that you agree with the moderator because when you are made to justify why you do so you'll realize that you've been wrong. Seamus has been the only one who has cared to have a constructive discussion on the case, one that is centered on demonstrating how a claim is right or wrong and not on inane dwelling on generalities. That's why I'm not interested in dealing with you. Either start posting in terms of the specifics of this case, ie how the decision is justified, or avoid this thread.

hullaballoo

I'm afraid you cannot dictate who of us deals with your complaint. In any event, not one of seamus's posts has been any more lenient to your cause than mine. I'm adding to this thread by way of further explanation to you that Mods have a certain amount of discretion in the exercise of their judgement and we are the arbitors where that discretion is called into question.

It has been here and we have each of us informed you that we are agreed: the Mod's discretion was appropriately applied in this case. This is now a dead donkey.

seamus

Phew.

Well, I commend you for the effort, but I have to admit that was probably one of the more difficult pieces of prose I've ever had the fortune of reading.

Clearly there is an element of misunderstanding here, or more likely it has to do with scale - i.e. what you consider to be important versus what the moderator considers to be important. To me, your "evidence" is the perfect description of a squabble. It's a discussion of very little significance and without any specific direction. When I meant "conclusion", I meant that something would be accomplished, not necessarily that the discussion would end. Apologies if that appears to be shifting the goalposts somewhat, but in reality I think it's all about a difference in interpretation of why we lock threads at all.

I'm still going to agree with the moderator's actions. I see no reason to disagree with them or overturn them. I commend your dedication to this cause, and I'm sorry if you feel you've wasted your time, but I haven't been compelled to change my mind, and I'm more sure now than I was before that I support the mod. This decision is (actually) final.

You can respond if you like, but I won't read it. That's not a brush-off, it's a fact because I just haven't got the time to deal with this (or anything else) for a good long while.

Levski MD

...The discussion's significance is determined by its relevance to the subject of the forum. By your reasoning discussions in the majority of forums should be treated this way as inherently they would be rather insignificant given their subject matter. Of course, that would be ludicrous.

It's clear that the discussion was constructive and didn't break any rules and as moderators it is your job to allow such discussions. Your failure in reasoning is remarkable. As the highest mods here are this poor I guess my hands are tied.

Gordon

Levski MD wrote: »

It's clear that the discussion was constructive

It doesn't look like it to me, you, from the offset it looks like, set out to try and prove that the game sucked and the game designer couldn't code to save his life.

Boil that down and you get a thread that was started with the premise of "this game sucks, here's why". Completely against the spirit of the forum in my opinion. Why was it not closed earlier? Unfortunately I think the moderator gave a little too much leeway in the beginning.

I'd be disheartened if I get a demeaning retort to my reply (as it seems I will judging by the majority of your replies), but I'd love to be proved wrong in thinking that you, Levski MD, will not resort to such a downstep and will actually listen to what someone else is saying.

Levski MD

Typically posts'/threads' appropriateness is judged not on whether they are generally agreeable but on their merit.

And listening has to go both ways. It's interesting how it's presumed that I'm the one ignoring others. If you go back over this thread you'll see that I constantly respond to others' points while mine are overlooked. Seamus, the only mod who has actually bothered to review this case with any sort of integrity, just reverted to an argument from page one that was addressed and with the discussion (with seamus being an integral part of it) having moved away from it.

This is just a botched upholding of a moderator's decision which reveals that moderating quality lacks from top to bottom. Not something infrequent on the internet.

Gordon

Levski MD wrote: »

Typically posts'/threads' appropriateness is judged not on whether they are generally agreeable but on their merit.

So you aren't disagreeing with my first point. Therefore you feel that trying to prove a game sucks from the offset is disagreeable but merited and because it has merit it should be in the forum of the game that sucks.

If a thread is disagreeable to the vast majority of the community of the forum then in all possibility the thread will get shut.

This is just a botched upholding of a moderator's decision which reveals that moderating quality lacks from top to bottom. Not something infrequent on the internet.

Again a demeaning retort.