NationStates Jolt Archive

It has come to my attention that certain people are flaming/making fun of me behind my back on an offsite forum due to this thread. I don't feel like naming names unless you mods want 'em (best not to cause forum drama unneccesarily) so I'll just ask for the thread to be locked.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=9792427

Also this thread since it's on the same general subject and some of the same people are posting in it.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=449439

Both locked.

Danke.

On second look, and at the advice of GMC, both threads as OOC discussions are subject to the same rules as the general forum and cannot be locked because the thread owner doesn't like the way the discussion is going. Both threads are re-opened.

On second look, and at the advice of GMC, both threads as OOC discussions are subject to the same rules as the general forum and cannot be locked because the thread owner doesn't like the way the discussion is going. Both threads are re-opened.Does disliking being flamed at an InvisionFree forum for what he said in those threads count as not liking the way the discussion was going?

We don't patrol Invision boards. If he's being flamed, he should take it up with their admins, as I believe flaming violates their Terms of Service.

Does asking for a thread to be locked because of posts about it in an Invision forum count as trying to get a debate shut down, though? <---- Trying to understand

Does asking for a thread to be locked because of posts about it in an Invision forum count as trying to get a debate shut down, though? <---- Trying to understand

Trying to get a thread shut down because of what's being said on another board doesn't count as anything. It's as irrelevant as my saying this thread should be locked because I bumped into you in the street and you said I was ugly.

Does a debate stay open until a moderator decides it needs to be closed, then?

Does a debate stay open until a moderator decides it needs to be closed, then?

Debates stay open until they become so unruly they must be closed. The ruling on OOC discussion threads is as follows:

Noteworthy point here: OOC RP threads not directly connected to a actual RP thread are subject to the same rules as the [i]general forum to avoid people trying to stifle criticism of their ideas using the 'originator controls thread' RP post rule.

The RP 'originator controls thread' concept exists to prevent unwelcome players from disrupting roleplaying and detracting from in-character posting. It is applied to out-of-character posts directly linked to in-character threads because only the posters in the in-character thread have any real need to use the attached discussion thread. It is not a blunt instrument to be used to silence criticism in pure OOC threads discussing general concepts, be it history, nuclear weapons, ship design or anything else.

Okay, thanks. I hadn't realized there was anything about that in the OSRS.

We don't patrol Invision boards. If he's being flamed, he should take it up with their admins, as I believe flaming violates their Terms of Service.

That's not terribly useful advice considering the admin in question is the one who started the flaming.

Still, I can see where you're coming from-- and may I add, I find it rather irritating that I can't have any non-RP thread of mine locked at all. I understood that was the way it was.

That's not terribly useful advice considering the admin in question is the one who started the flaming.Not the board admin, an Invision admin.

Heh, didn't know there were global admins.

OK, if I can't get the threads in question locked, can I post a list of people I don't want to post in those threads in the threads in question? I believe that's legal.

OK, if I can't get the threads in question locked, can I post a list of people I don't want to post in those threads in the threads in question? I believe that's legal.

No. Use the ignore function if you don't want to see their posts. OOC discussion threads are for discussion, and that includes people who don't agree with you.

No. Use the ignore function if you don't want to see their posts. OOC discussion threads are for discussion, and that includes people who don't agree with you.

If certain of the people in question are also mocking me and my opinions in that thread on an offsite forum, I have the concern that any posts of theirs are intended to provoke responses they find amusing and not actual discussion.

If certain of the people in question are also mocking me and my opinions in that thread on an offsite forum, I have the concern that any posts of theirs are intended to provoke responses they find amusing and not actual discussion.Off site forum != NS forum

Off site forum != NS forum

If the purpose behind a post is trolling, it is still trolling.

As clarification (being one of the Admins of the board in question) the flaming in question was two comments (each by seperate members) that are about as inflamatory as 'proves his stupidity' though admitedly not nice were not vulgar or really all that noticable on the board.

Second considering he was not a member of the board at the time he was not being flamed more so that two members were posting their opinions about someone elsewhere in a discussion that they dis-agreed with... Just as its not flaming to state ' I hate george bush!' though not polite it was not an infraction against a member and well really wasnt a 'flame' at all. A burn, impolite, ungentlemanly but really... for a seperate board decidedly and noteably tame.

If certain of the people in question are also mocking me and my opinions in that thread on an offsite forum, I have the concern that any posts of theirs are intended to provoke responses they find amusing and not actual discussion.

Let's get this clear, since I've seen the thread in question: two posters on that forum said you were stupid, using that word. Some posters said your ideas weren't workable / were silly as well. Most of the thread had nothing to do with you and was discussing general silly anti-SD tactics, something you mocked yourself with the jab at Sharina's 'boarding parties' in the first post of one of the threads.

One could equally argue your continued posting of threads about how to destroy SDs are geared up to annoying SD-operating players; if you feel a poster is out to wind you up, there is the ignore feature, or simply not reading their replies. We will not take action because someone used mild playground insults on an offsite forum.

On second look, and at the advice of GMC, both threads as OOC discussions are subject to the same rules as the general forum and cannot be locked because the thread owner doesn't like the way the discussion is going. Both threads are re-opened.:confused: I thought the Thread Owner could ask for their thread to be shut down... it's happened before. Is this a change in the rules?

:confused: I thought the Thread Owner could ask for their thread to be shut down... it's happened before. Is this a change in the rules?

Depends on the circumstances, in a open discussion it's often concidered that it would be unfair to close the thread because one person doesn't like the replies that he's getting. Providing those replies stay without the rules there is no problem allowing such a discussion to continue. Allowances are made for RP threads because they are different and are entirely under the control of the author who doesn't always want his story to be ruined.

Basically, these threads are open discussions and while they are in the RPing forums they follow the same rules as any other open discussions you may find in the General forum.

Thats how I understand it... if it was an RP thread then he would be in his right to close them on his whim, but seeing as it's a OOC discussion where the rules are being followed (despite claims of abuse happening in other forums relating to said thread) this thread doesn't fall under the exceptions made for RPing threads.

Is this a change in the rules?
It is NOT a change in the rules or a change in policy. It's posted in the OSRS just as GMC quoted. We did enhance the ruling with a couple of clarifying paragraphs in July 05, as is noted in the Edit log at the bottom of this post:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8784646&postcount=4