Illegitimately Closed Thread?

Levski MD

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

Want to make sure that the proper standard for closings was applied.

My suspicion is that the mod who closed it did so because he disliked the thread. The comment he left was "quit your squabbling", which is really what compelled me to appeal.

I think the first 4 posts on page 2 between me and him sum up our differing perspectives on the thread and are pertinent to a quick review.

Basically the thread is a continually updated compilation of evidence that the developers of a game are incompetent. Probably the majority of users dislike the thread but given how everything said in it is supported I'm not sure it merits being closed.

Asiaprod

The mod(s) in question closed the thread due to the fact in their opinion it had turned into a squabbling match. The better approach to adopt would be to PM the Mod(s) for verification. If you are then unhappy with the results of the exchange and you feel you have a genuine grievance, you are free to post a thread in the helpdesk forum.
Asia

Levski MD

Since when is a "squabbling match" a reason for closing threads? Any heated argument can be characterized as a squabbling match. The difference is the appropriateness of the topic of discussion. In this instance the topic is relevant to the subject of the forum and the mod's view of the topic being petty comes from his own dislike of the topic and not by a verifiable concrete standard.

seamus

"Squabbling" would be defined largely as arguing for the sake of arguing without actually adding any content to the topic being discussed and in fact being counter-productive to the topic and the thread.

When this occurs, there are two methods of dispelling the squabble:
1. Close the thread. Neither party is going to start a new thread for the sake of a petty argument and if they do, they'll be infracted or banned.
2. Infract both parties to warn them to stop.

The former case is largely reserved for quiet threads, where nobody else is contributing. Your thread, 59 posts in 2.5 months (mostly by yourself) qualifies as a "quiet thread".
This is because if option 2 is selected, nobody else will post in that thread and it will die anyway (or someone will start the argument again).

As Asiaprod says, at this point your best bet is to PM the mod in question. We can't give you any more information than we now have, and I am sure as hell not reading that whole thread to decide whether or not it qualifies as a "squabble".

Levski MD

A squabble would be defined by whether the topic of discussion is petty or not. In just one minute you can verify that the topic is both relevant to the thread and has significance (you don't have to read much of anything to reach that conclusion, just look at the juncture where this discussion begins a few posts up, and look at the nature of the content). I pointed you to 4 short posts that indicate the moderator in question is not abiding by an adequate standard. He is motivated by a dislike of the thread.

What use is it for me to contact him? And why can't you determine whether it is a squabble or not considering the needed time is in actuality little?

seamus

Because I have better things to be doing than mind reading. In reality I would need to read the content of 8 enormous posts and probably half of the rest of the thread to decide what's going on.

The moderator knows why he closed it, he can give you the best answer. Any answer I give you would be imprecise.

Levski MD

Let me further try to give you a hand. The thread is in the forum section of an online football management game. Its subject is the incompetence of the developers. No smear, everything said is supported. One of the points raised is that there are a number of users in the game's community who are defined as subjectively interested in defending the developers and hence post unreasonably and unreliably.

On page 4 one of those users, WellyTitans I think is the user name here, starts disputing the point. An argument ensues, one primarily of the constructive substantiation of points. This is what the moderator in question terms squabbling and on account of which closes the thread.

You, him, may not appreciate the argument, he may not like it, but going by standard it is not an argument that qualifies as squabbling and justifies the closing of the thread.

Levski MD

All you have to do to verify what I'm saying is to take a few minutes. You don't need to read the enormous posts or half the thread. You just need to understand what would be sufficient for verification and that it is a matter of brief selective reading. I need to go now, if you still don't understand why you don't have to do much I'll explain later. Hopefully my previous post helped.

Levski MD

And please stop referring me to the moderator who closed the thread. It should be fairly obvious that I'm appealing his decision to supposedly members of this board who have the function of arbitrating exactly such cases (ensuring that all moderators are doing their job) so as to uphold the standards of this board.

seamus wrote:

The moderator knows why he closed it, he can give you the best answer. Any answer I give you would be imprecise.

Basically, I'm arguing the moderator closed it illegitimately as evidenced by the reason he left. I'm not looking for a best answer, I'm looking for the thread to be reopened in accordance to the standards of this board. Hence I'm posting here where at least one of you should know that one of your functions is to make a proper decision on cases like these. I'd be surprised if this board doesn't supervise its moderators.

seamus

Levski MD wrote: »

It should be fairly obvious that I'm appealing his decision to supposedly members of this board who have the function of arbitrating exactly such cases (ensuring that all moderators are doing their job) so as to uphold the standards of this board.

Indeed. But the standad process is to contact the moderator first. This is to allow a civil dialogue between the two people where each can have their point of view seen. Often these are simple cases of misunderstanding, either on the part of the moderator or the poster.

This forum is for dealing with cases where no agreement or understanding can be reached. As such, I won't be dealing with this until you've PMed the moderator to discuss his decision. We arbitrate disagreements, we don't make rulings based on one side of the story.

Levski MD

Alright, I'll go ahead and PM him. My thinking for not doing that was that I knew the standpoint of the guy and I could show you his standpoint and prove that his decision was improper without requiring you to take much time reviewing this case.

Levski MD

<snip>

There is a difference between "bringing it down to the level of a fight in a school yard" and a heated argument of significance. The former generally is viewed as warranting a closing insofar as the participants are bringing nothing of substantive nature to the topic and are merely flinging insults at one another.

The primary feature of the latter is the expounding of points, or highly legitimate posting as pertaining to the substance of the topic. Per se insults are involved but they are usually grounded in the arguments and in context are not superfluous. They are not over-the-top either. Also, they very much are subordinate to the constructive discussion and pale in comparison as a feature in extent of characterizing the posts or the exchange.

Look at the nature of the insults and their ratio to "constructive" content. It's just about 4-5 posts to look over on page 4. Look at my posts in particular. I don't care if the guy focuses on insulting me in greater proportion.

Please review this case and reopen the thread. I really don't like the moderator flouting with my legitimate activity here and something I've put a lot of time in with his decision, which he demonstrably has done.

And just to caution, if you decide to reopen the thread please use common sense. Don't stipulate that insults of any nature are not to be allowed. Evincing something negative about someone is automatically an insult. Calling the developers of the game incompetent is an insult. But if you prove something negative of someone and it is quite relevant to the subject matter of the forum then it is legitimate albeit it doesn't impress everyone pleasantly like flowers and ponies do. Use sense.

seamus

I've removed the private messages from your post. It's considered bad form to post PMs in public because they're just that - private. In future, you do not post PMs without the consent of all parties who contributed to the private discussion.

Here's my view on this - my "judgement" if you will;

This is possibly the most monumentous waste of time and energy I have ever seen. You both went to the trouble of posting what I can only describe as essay-length theorising and postulating on the most insignificant of topics, focussing on but a tiny portion of the overall concept of a computer game.

But that's my opinion on it - you clearly put a lot of stock in this "issue", and that's your perogative.

The actual issue here is whether that topic will benefit the Trophy Manager board if it's reopened and that discussion between you and WellyTitans is allowed to continue. The answer in my view is no. It's nothing more than a back-and-forth niche debate which will do nothing except continue to dominate the front page on the forum despite it being of little or no interest to anyone except two private individuals.

My suggestion is to PM WellyTitans and ask him if he's interested in continuing the debate in private. Because it's a discussion which is not of public interest, as far as I can see. The added bonus is that you can continue to your heart's content, and insult all you want in a private discussion. And if you want to end it, you have the option to not respond and your public reputation remains intact.

I absolutely, 100%, cannot see the benefit or enjoyment that continuing that thread will bring to the regulars of the Trophy Manager forum or the site as a while. I can only see negatives.

If I'm wrong, people are free to PM myself requesting that the thread be reopened because it was an interesting debate.

I went and read those last 8/12 posts in that thread - you may find it fascinating debate, but I don't. No amount of asking me to re-read it will change my mind. Thus it just looks like two people arguing over absolutely nothing, which is why it qualifies as tit-for-tat.
There's no need to debate my post with similarly long posts here. You won't change my mind.

If you have a query or an issue with my suggestion on what to do next, or you feel that I have missed or overlooked something (which is possible because I've never seen, let alone played the game in question), then by all means add another post to this thread. I will read it.

But if your intention is simply to argue with me and try to change my mind, you'll be wasting your time adding another post.

Levski MD

seamus wrote:

I went and read those last 8/12 posts in that thread - you may find it fascinating debate, but I don't. No amount of asking me to re-read it will change my mind. Thus it just looks like two people arguing over absolutely nothing, which is why it qualifies as tit-for-tat.
There's no need to debate my post with similarly long posts here. You won't change my mind.

It's irrelevant how you find the debate or what it looks like to you. What I'm asking for is the application of standard that objectively determines whether it qualifies as "tit-for-tat". You look at relevance to the forum, relevance to the thread. Of course you'll find arguments over sub-points in a forum whose subject you find trivial to be over "absolutely nothing".

That I have to explain this to you at this point of the thread is inexcusable for someone acting in your capacity.

As for interest, let alone enjoyment, on the part of the community being the determinant for closing threads, trumping content relevance and significance, well, if you're so inclined it's tough to argue decisively. I can see the point. I think a different moderator than you who puts more stock on the latter would be inclined the other way.

And in case you aren't catching my drift, this isn't just about the Willy exchange, that would've ultimately passed and probably it was in its final stage, but about the thread in general. Your "squabble" qualification holds no ground and I'd surmise you aren't interested in justifying it past that your word is final, the community point is what I can't decisively argue.

seamus

Levski MD wrote: »

That I have to explain this to you at this point of the thread is inexcusable for someone acting in your capacity.

You don't have to (nor have you) explain anything to me.

You're looking for an objective application of a standard upon something which is inherently subjective and will differ from thread to thread and forum to forum.

You can attempt to apply some form of objectivity based on past experiences on other threads and forums, as I did, and I'm happy that the discussion yielded little or no content beyond, "You're wrong", "No, you're wrong", "No, you're wrong".

I think a different moderator than you who puts more stock on the latter would be inclined the other way.

If one exists, they are free to review this and suggest that the thread be reopened. Content relevance is indeed important. I didn't read the whole thread, but I would suspect (from the few posts I did read) that the content of that argument is of little relevance to the average player of the game. That might be unfair, I could very much be wrong.

There's very little stopping you from creating a new thread, however please make note of any moderator direction which it might yield. Ultimately if a moderator decides that a topic is not suitable for that forum, starting threads on the same topic continually will get you banned. It's very rare that a mod would decide that something is "not suitable" for a forum though without good reason.

Your "squabble" qualification holds no ground and I'd surmise you aren't interested in justifying it past that your word is final

I've justified it in a number of ways already. My word is final because there are no other ways I can say it.

Levski MD

Not only have I had to and have explained how the squabble qualification should be assessed but I have to continue doing so.

There's nothing subjective. Look at the relevance the argument has to the thread. Look at the relevance the thread has to the subject of the forum. If in both instances relevance exists then the argument doesn't qualify as a squabble.

seamus wrote:

I'm happy that the discussion yielded little or no content beyond, "You're wrong", "No, you're wrong", "No, you're wrong".

That's patently false. With each one of my posts I added on to my argument, whether by making additional points or by clarifying points. By adding on to your argument in such manner you move closer to resolution, or in other words, the process is constructive. You just don't know what to look for.

seamus wrote:

Content relevance is indeed important. I didn't read the whole thread, but I would suspect (from the few posts I did read) that the content of that argument is of little relevance to the average player of the game.

Content relevance has nothing to do with the interest the average player has for the content. It has to do with how the content relates to the subject of the forum.

As for there being little stopping me from starting a new thread, you've got to be kidding me. I'm interested in that thread, its subject and the points raised and substantiated in it. That thread was closed, and is hence not to be replicated.

seamus wrote:

It's very rare that a mod would decide that something is "not suitable" for a forum though without good reason.

The thread was left alone despite that the community disliked it, in contradiction to the one relatively legitimate reason you brought up for upholding the closing. It was closed due to "squabbling", which is demonstrably illegitimate, you just have been deficiently trying to evaluate that reason.

Levski MD

I guess this is as far as your reasoning goes. Unfortunate.

Gordon

Levski MD wrote: »

Probably the majority of users dislike the thread

Then there's not much point keeping it open if the users of the forum don't like the thread.

but given how everything said in it is supported I'm not sure it merits being closed.

But you don't care about the majority of the users so you'll post it anyway.

Levski MD

The thread was kept open for three months despite most users not liking it. Tells you something about your standards. Further, it hints to something that should be common sense, threads don't necessarily merit closure on the basis of most users disliking them. It was closed for squabbling, which was illegitimate.

If another moderator will chip in here please make sure you're familiar with the situation. Posts like that one just demonstrate you don't care much for making proper decisions but for upholding already made decisions.

Gordon

Then why did you bring it up?

Levski MD

In the hope that there are people here who perform their functions well.

seamus

Just because you're not getting the output you desire, doesn't mean that something is wrong with the process.

Levski MD

I didn't see you respond to my last post regarding the thread.

seamus

There was nothing further to add. Your post didn't create anything new which wasn't already covered by previous posts.

Levski MD

So you've already explained how my explanation of the standard being objective rather than subjective is invalid? You've also already explained how me adding on to my points and clarifying them qualifies as half the "You're wrong"s in the sequence suggested by you:

seamus wrote:

I'm happy that the discussion yielded little or no content beyond, "You're wrong", "No, you're wrong", "No, you're wrong".

Either go back and get the logical flow of the exchange or drop the pretension that you're properly handling this.

seamus

Your argument vis-a-vis objectivity is gibberish. Relevance has no relevance to the argument. An argument can be both relevant to the thread and the forum and yet still be a squabble. Each one is taken in isolation and judged on its individual merits - that's subjectivity.

As far as I'm concerned I've handled this properly. There's nothing else to add. You're effectively doing the exact same thing here that you did in the other thread - continually posting your point of view without understanding the alternative. I understand your point of view - yes, it's a pain in the ass when a thread that you've contributed to has been closed, but I also see the moderator's point of view and that's the one I agree with.

Unfortunately in this case I can't just say, "let's agree to disagree" because you've asked for a ruling to be made. I've made it. It didn't go in your favour, sorry.

Levski MD

Would you disagree that with the post you just made you selectively chose what to respond to so as to support your position?

Let's assume that you're right. Even if relevance is there an argument can still amount to a squabble. That's your response to my first point. But why did you fall short of responding to my second point that challenges your squabble determination?

Levski MD wrote:

You've also already explained how me adding on to my points and clarifying them qualifies as half the "You're wrong"s in the sequence suggested by you:

seamus wrote:

I'm happy that the discussion yielded little or no content beyond, "You're wrong", "No, you're wrong", "No, you're wrong".

In light of this is it fair to say I'm just posting my view without understanding the alternatives? Or maybe, just maybe, I'm dealing with people who just aren't able to properly conduct a discussion or argument?

seamus

Levski MD wrote: »

Would you disagree that with the post you just made you selectively chose what to respond to so as to support your position?

I selectively chose what to respond to, because you asked me to.
You asked me to respond to a specific point in your post. I did.

Or maybe, just maybe, I'm dealing with people who just aren't able to properly conduct a discussion or argument?

You can believe that if you like. Numerous other fruitful and enjoyable discussions that I've had on this site would seem to prove you wrong.

Levski MD

I asked you to respond to two points:

Levski MD wrote:

So you've already explained how my explanation of the standard being objective rather than subjective is invalid? You've also already explained how me adding on to my points and clarifying them qualifies as half the "You're wrong"s in the sequence suggested by you:

seamus wrote:

I'm happy that the discussion yielded little or no content beyond, "You're wrong", "No, you're wrong", "No, you're wrong".

seamus

You're right, you did. My apologies, I missed that.

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.

Which brings us back to square one here. You're looking for an arbitration in a disagreement between you and the mod. I agree with the mod.

Levski MD

And to not obscure the focus here, let me sum up the central point. The thread is closed because the argument is determined to be a squabble. 1) Is the subject of the argument relevant to the thread which is relevant to the forum? Yes. 2) Has the argument devolved to mutual attacks without further development of the merits of the positions? No, your judgment of it amounting to "You're wrong. No, you're wrong. No, you're wrong." is incorrect as if you look at my posts I develop my position by bringing in additional points or by clarifying my stance.

Hence, demonstrably the argument was not a squabble and the thread can only illegitimately be closed on that basis.

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.