I thought the point of the Flameboard...

...Was to create a place of minimal moderator interaction, in which nothing short of a literal threat on someone's person, or shameless spamming/thread-crapping, could result in censorship. A place where, above all, someone in power doesn't really have the right to make a judgement call about the "worth" of a legitimately presented topic.

Yes, I'm about to do the molehill thing again. I just can't help myself. :/




This thread was not "crapping." It was a flame, and whether or not you felt it was executed well, it belonged where it was. To have Eleibfrid use the words:

Eleibfrid said:

This thread has no meaning. bai

Click to expand...

...as justification for locking the thing gives one the impression that there's an invisible rule in place. #4) o ya dun meyk fleymz i dun fink servez a purpose l0lz!

I was very much under the impression that the days of forced niceness, particularly in this forum, were well behind us.

Point out the rule that this thread broke, and I'll happily retreat into my usual, smug, mostly-quietness. Otherwise, admit that the only reason it was locked is because another moderator got involved with it, took personal offense (for some reason), and much like one cop will watch another's back, with the technical letter of the law being damned, the thread was yanked by Eleibfrid because Zerayla didn't approve of it.


My previous bitching (no better word, I readily admit) at Flymop is particularly relevant, here: http://www.qcdn.org/showthread.php?t=34077


It was generally agreed upon then, even by moderators, that you can't lock crap that you just don't like. It's got to break a rule, first. This woefully unskilled Windaria flame broke none. I'll be the first to admit that it wasn't very funny. I'll also give in on the fact that as Windaria has been absent for quite a while, there was nothing particularly recent for this to have been spawned from ... it was just kind of out of left field, and mean-spirited to boot.

All of that is irrelevant. I don't care how lame you thought it was -- it didn't break any rule, so there was no legitimate position from which one can justify destroying it by force.

Either this is a Flameboard, and Sculli's horrible social experiment has been tossed to the wind, or it isn't, and we're still trying to jam it up everyone's collective arses. Personally, I agreed with a lot of what Zerayla said ... but I also realize it's not for me to cram that sort of philosophy down everyone's throats. There was a lot to not like about the thread, but that doesn't translate into "LOCK!" The great thing about a Flameboard is that if a flame is weakly executed, and is overall lame/cruel, it will generally backfire on the poster. In fact, I take that very risk in posting this right now. If I wasn't so soured on the whole thing, I wouldn't have the nerve.

The point is, as far as lame topics go, at least ... it's a self-correcting system.

If we instead start laying it upon the moderators' shoulders to pass judgement on the "worth" of everything posted, however, it becomes a flameboard in name only.



Which is it?

Not too long ago, QCDN went through a phase (mid to late QCDN Carebear phase) where almost every thread everywhere was being locked - sometimes more than half the threads on a forum's front page were locked. It's gotta be a hard habit to break. The staff traded in their old single shooter thread locking guns for thread locking gatling guns and it must've been fun. I think we should still expect a few unnecessary locks now and then as the staff winds down from the height of power. Anyway, there's never been much concensus on what warrants a lock. There's certainly never been rules *against* locking threads. At least it wasn't a good thread that got locked, though, I do agree with the OP in principle anyway. Can't go locking threads on a whim - not without some backing.

"I know what you're thinking. Did he lock six threads or only five? Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement, I've kinda lost track myself. But being as this is a .44 Thread-locker, the most powerful Thread-locker in the world, and would lock your thread clean up, you've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya thread?"

Winklewil said:

Point out the rule that this thread broke, and I'll happily retreat into my usual, smug, mostly-quietness.

Click to expand...

I'd be guessing:

Eleibfrid said:

Also, use this board for game-related occurances only.

Click to expand...

tl;dr. Lock this shit.

Courtney said:

I'd be guessing ...

Click to expand...

Unless you choose to interpret that to literally mean that every thread posted here has to directly reference a specific in-game event that recently took place, that's not it. If that's the case, I (and many others) could easily point out 1001 violations of this rule that not only are curiously overlooked on a daily basis, but the moderators take gleeful participation in as well.

No, everything we know about Windaria has come from interacting with her either here, at QCDN, or in-game. The flame was a DIRECT reference to her very public, very notorious actions on the forums, and in-game.

If Rufus had somehow obtained some private information about something nobody would have known otherwise, such as a person she was dating in real life at the moment, something COMPLETELY irrelevant to her involvement with the Quetzalcoatl community, THEN it would have violated this rule. Instead, he made a pretty damn lame joke about how much of a troll she used to be. Stupid, unfunny, yes. Breaking the vague "game/board-related onry" rule? No.

Legomyegoo said:

tl;dr. Lock this shit

Click to expand...

You're joking, right?

Winklewil said:

You're joking, right?

Click to expand...

I dont think he can do anything else.

Courtney said:

I'd be guessing:

Click to expand...

In the past, there had been several posts which were not game related. Also, who is to say a post about people posting about the game, is not game related? Did you noticed Peregrine's post was not locked? Falls under same category if I am not mistaken.

Just another, "I don't agree with this poorly thought flame and it bores me so it's locked" admin move. There was a reason this place was unmodded for so long and it should stay that way. The only reason it changed was because of the thread spammers, trolls and sock puppets. Mods should have realized this a long time ago and based their modding on that, but instead base it on any passing whim. People didn't want mods for a reason, something a great majority of the mods fail to realize.

Go to qcnn with this drivel, they eat it up there.

If a thread gets locked, just accept it and go on. It's not the end of the world, and democracy will not crumble to the foundation because a thread was locked where people call each other poopy heads back and forth.

Lavi said:

In the past, there had been several posts which were not game related. Also, who is to say a post about people posting about the game, is not game related? Did you noticed Peregrine's post was not locked? Falls under same category if I am not mistaken.

Click to expand...

I don't particularly care one way or the other. The question was what rule did the other thread break to be locked, not whether other posts were also breaking the same rules...

Trippyhippy said:

Go to qcnn with this drivel, they eat it up there.

If a thread gets locked, just accept it and go on. It's not the end of the world, and democracy will not crumble to the foundation because a thread was locked where people call each other poopy heads back and forth.

Click to expand...

Well, I do apologize for the failing of my thread. I really wasn't expecting it to, I have to admit. o_o

I do commend your cleverness at constructing that nice little strawman of what I was saying, though. In which I trumpeted the downfall of democracy? I enjoyed it.



My only concern was the downfall of the spirit of this particular section of QCDN. That's all. Asking for an explanation, rather than just quietly accepting the horrible inconsistency in what constitutes "moddable" content (what you suggest), is all I was after.

Courtney said:

I don't particularly care one way or the other. The question was what rule did the other thread break to be locked, not whether other posts were also breaking the same rules...

Click to expand...

The rule you pointed out wasn't broken, though, which is the core of what Lavi was saying, and reply to you from me that you completely ignored. Nobody interprets that line to mean "a specific occurence that happened in-game," least of all the moderators.

Rather, it's meant more as a prevention from people digging into truly irrelevant material: personal lives. As Eleibfrid himself put it:

Eleibfrid said:

Also, use this board for game-related occurances only. This board is NOT to be used to flame peoples real lives in any way, shape or form.

Click to expand...

Lol. Peregrine seems to eat that rule for breakfast, lunch, and dinner.

Winklewil said:

Well, I do apologize for the failing of my thread. I really wasn't expecting it to, I have to admit. o_o

Click to expand...

No one expects to make a thread full o' fail, it just happens sometimes.

I do commend your cleverness at constructing that nice little strawman of what I was saying, though. In which I trumpeted the downfall of democracy? I enjoyed it.

Click to expand...

I don't know where you got the strawman thing though. You imply the mods overstep there bounds and also make it sound like it makes a difference one way or another. They don't, and it doesn't.

My only concern was the downfall of the spirit of this particular section of QCDN. That's all. Asking for an explanation, rather than just quietly accepting the horrible inconsistency in what constitutes "moddable" content (what you suggest), is all I was after.

Click to expand...

The flameboard died a long time ago. The explanation you are after is this: They are mods and can lock it for whatever reason they see fit. Accept it or not, that is how it is. No amount of bellyaching is going to change that.

You all hate her, I get that. But she was banned 3 times, and everyone's wish of her being gone was made.

What was the point of that thread if it Windaria could not reply to it? Doesn't matter how she *would* reply, but the fact that she couldn't reply, also the fact that the OP was bringing up shit that was already buried a while ago, it just doesn't make sense. You don't like her. Okay, stop making threads about her and how she sucks or whatever. I thought it was at least common courtesy that someone would stop attacking someone when they'd have no way to defend themselves.

This isn't an attack at you Winkle, I'm just saying the thread literally had no point in being there. If someone wants to make a thread like that, call someone out who hasn't been banned, like Miros said.

Trippyhippy said:

Go to qcnn with this drivel, they eat it up there.

If a thread gets locked, just accept it and go on. It's not the end of the world, and democracy will not crumble to the foundation because a thread was locked where people call each other poopy heads back and forth.

Click to expand...

A little too trite to even bother with over there. I'd say QCDN can keep it's own shit neatly coiled on it's own rug, you got your litter box back. We get enough of your rejects bothering us for attention as it is after being b&.

Eleibfrid said:

You all hate her, I get that. But she was banned 3 times, and everyone's wish of her being gone was made.

What was the point of that thread if it Windaria could not reply to it? Doesn't matter how she *would* reply, but the fact that she couldn't reply, also the fact that the OP was bringing up shit that was already buried a while ago, it just doesn't make sense. You don't like her. Okay, stop making threads about her and how she sucks or whatever. I thought it was at least common courtesy that someone would stop attacking someone when they'd have no way to defend themselves.

This isn't an attack at you Winkle, I'm just saying the thread literally had no point in being there. If someone wants to make a thread like that, call someone out who hasn't been banned, like Miros said.

Click to expand...

I agree with eleibfrid. 1) it was derailed from the beginning 2) it had no purpose the mark can't reply to it.

Eleibfrid said:

You all hate her, I get that. But she was banned 3 times, and everyone's wish of her being gone was made.

What was the point of that thread if it Windaria could not reply to it? Doesn't matter how she *would* reply, but the fact that she couldn't reply, also the fact that the OP was bringing up shit that was already buried a while ago, it just doesn't make sense. You don't like her. Okay, stop making threads about her and how she sucks or whatever. I thought it was at least common courtesy that someone would stop attacking someone when they'd have no way to defend themselves.

This isn't an attack at you Winkle, I'm just saying the thread literally had no point in being there. If someone wants to make a thread like that, call someone out who hasn't been banned, like Miros said.

Click to expand...

I see this argument as ludacris. She became the joke of the board, and she'll be used as suck. Do clinton sex jokes stop being good simply because he's no longer president?
The joke was funny, altho he poorly executed it. While the thread might not have been that great, why not just let it fall into obscurety like the rest of them, or just get horribly derailed into somthing meaningfull.

You lock threads for breaking the rules, and you lock all threads that break the rules.

Eleibfrid said:

This isn't an attack at you Winkle...

Click to expand...

Oh, no, I don't interpret it that way ... nor did I mean my original post as an attack on either you or Zerayla. For the most part, I think you "do good work" (to be cliche about it). I'm glad you approached this topic in such a civil manner.

Eleibfrid said:

You all hate her, I get that.

Click to expand...

I, actually, don't hate Windaria. I don't even dislike her. One of the few, perhaps, but aside from her strange lesbian/ultra-conservative contrast, not much she said genuinely bothered me. I'd challenge anyone to find a single post of mine attacking her, or (indeed) even mentioning her in anything but defense.

Eleibfrid said:

But she was banned 3 times, and everyone's wish of her being gone was made.

What was the point of that thread if it Windaria could not reply to it? Doesn't matter how she *would* reply, but the fact that she couldn't reply, also the fact that the OP was bringing up shit that was already buried a while ago, it just doesn't make sense. You don't like her. Okay, stop making threads about her and how she sucks or whatever. I thought it was at least common courtesy that someone would stop attacking someone when they'd have no way to defend themselves ... I'm just saying the thread literally had no point in being there. If someone wants to make a thread like that, call someone out who hasn't been banned, like Miros said.

Click to expand...

I agree with everything said there, 100%. You're absolutely right. I agree with it all, up to the point where it actually comes to removing the thread by force. It (the thread) was absolutely done in bad taste, but unless we want to here and now proclaim that as a punishable offense, there was no grounds on which to lock it.

Rather, I think (my personal opinion) that the appropriate way to handle the situation was exactly what Zerayla was doing ... posting, arguing, shifting the direction of the flame, and overall ... making Rufus look bad. The way that thread was going, he was on the road to drowning in it on his own. Rufus isn't the type to crouch down, get ultra-defensive, and turn permanent forum troll ... once he suffered a bit at the hands of some more-deserving, better-constructed flames, he would have learned the consequences of flaming for the Hell of it.

Instead, the thread was locked, and in a way ... you kind of martyred him in the eyes of a few people, the anti-Windaria crowd ... and he was, essentially, "saved" from that fate of losing public face. The weight of the better arguments didn't have the chance to finish revealing the weakness of the flame.

You may disagree that leaving it be would have been a wiser way to go, but you must at least concede that beyond your personal distaste for the thread, there wasn't much in there in terms of broken rules to justify the locking. Right?

Trippyhippy said:

The flameboard died a long time ago. The explanation you are after is this: They are mods and can lock it for whatever reason they see fit. Accept it or not, that is how it is. No amount of bellyaching is going to change that.

Click to expand...

That is, actually, exactly the sort of answer I was looking for ... one way or the other ... but from someone with authority.

Correct me if I'm wrong...but I thought the purpose of Rufus's post was targeted towards people posting irrelevant things on the flameboard? He just added Windaria to add humour to things, but that wasn't the point. People only looked at the fact that Windy was being made fun of and they only paid attention to that instead of the whole post. So it technically was a flame, but maybe he should have emphasized it more.