01 Aug, 2009, Cratylus wrote in the 1st comment:
Votes: 0
I'm confused about this here. Am I to understand that just
talking about talking about dubstack is a threadlocking offense?

What's with the iron fist out of nowhere?

I don't think it's cool to have an admin flip over a completely
innocent passing remark then intentionally escalate until it
hits some kind of personal threshold for locking. It was my
understanding Samson wouldn't be doing forum moderating anyway,
so I'm just not at all grooving with this.

Can we please get some sort of public ruling on this? I don't think
it's appropriate to just sign off on heavy handed grumpy action
like this Just Cuz He's Admin.

-Crat
http://lpmuds.net
01 Aug, 2009, Lyanic wrote in the 2nd comment:
Votes: 0
Cratypus walks a lonely road…..the only one that he has ever known….

(Edit: Yay! I finally read a thread that isn't locked already!)
01 Aug, 2009, Kline wrote in the 3rd comment:
Votes: 0
You must've forgotten that this is a dictatorship, not a democracy. With that said… "Heil, mein Fuhrer!"
01 Aug, 2009, Confuto wrote in the 4th comment:
Votes: 0
As nonsensical as it is, he did give fair warning about mentioning the Dub.

EDIT: Although, on re-reading, the thread seems to have been locked because people were talking about moderation, not about D-stack…
01 Aug, 2009, flumpy wrote in the 5th comment:
Votes: 0
In Before Lock!


:D

srzly, lovin' ur banner Crat lol
01 Aug, 2009, Banner wrote in the 6th comment:
Votes: 0
Cratylus said:
I'm confused about this here. Am I to understand that just
talking about talking about dubstack is a threadlocking offense?

What's with the iron fist out of nowhere?

I don't think it's cool to have an admin flip over a completely
innocent passing remark then intentionally escalate until it
hits some kind of personal threshold for locking. It was my
understanding Samson wouldn't be doing forum moderating anyway,
so I'm just not at all grooving with this.

Can we please get some sort of public ruling on this? I don't think
it's appropriate to just sign off on heavy handed grumpy action
like this Just Cuz He's Admin.

-Crat
http://lpmuds.net

Samson clearly and politely asked for the subject to be dropped and this went on for several more posts until Samson's own judgement came under question before the thread was locked.

I fail to see a problem with it.

Nor do I want to hear about Dubstack in every other thread that I go to, which has happened in at least two other threads I've bothered to read so far.
01 Aug, 2009, flumpy wrote in the 7th comment:
Votes: 0
Banner said:
Cratylus said:
I'm confused about this here. Am I to understand that just
talking about talking about dubstack is a threadlocking offense?

What's with the iron fist out of nowhere?

I don't think it's cool to have an admin flip over a completely
innocent passing remark then intentionally escalate until it
hits some kind of personal threshold for locking. It was my
understanding Samson wouldn't be doing forum moderating anyway,
so I'm just not at all grooving with this.

Can we please get some sort of public ruling on this? I don't think
it's appropriate to just sign off on heavy handed grumpy action
like this Just Cuz He's Admin.

-Crat
http://lpmuds.net

Samson clearly and politely asked for the subject to be dropped and this went on for several more posts until Samson's own judgement came under question before the thread was locked.

I fail to see a problem with it.


We weren't talking about Dub, we were talking about how grumpy Samson got when David mentioned dub before.

There's a difference.

Maybe this thread should be locked, because Crat mentioned Dubstack too?

banner said:
Nor do I want to hear about Dubstack in every other thread that I go to, which has happened in at least two other threads I've bothered to read so far.


hint: try clicking the little x in the top right corner of your browser… you done? ahh isn't that much better?

lovely.
01 Aug, 2009, Koron wrote in the 8th comment:
Votes: 0
I am not cool with the idea of someone throwing about 1337 4dm1n h4x just because he's in a mood. I don't have any problem with people discussing the aforementioned thread and I do not like the suggestion that I should have a problem with it.

Confuto said:
As nonsensical as it is, he did give fair warning about mentioning the Dub.

"Fair warning?" A community does not need self-appointed morality police in order to run smoothly. This interferes with the natural course of things. Actually, locking threads for discussing it is counterproductive and ignorant–it has obviously led only to more such discussions about the thing he doesn't like.

Banner said:
Samson clearly and politely asked for the subject to be dropped and this went on for several more posts until Samson's own judgement came under question before the thread was locked.

I fail to see a problem with it.

I see a problem with your failure. The desire to control everything and everyone is not something I want to see in anyone with any semblance of power, be they administrators of muds or forums. No one is forced to read nor to participate in any discussion they find objectionable.
01 Aug, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 9th comment:
Votes: 0
If it's not fine to discuss Dubstack (and I use the word "discuss" lightly, for I don't think a passing mention constitutes discussion), it should be equally "not fine" to mention any of our famous names or topics that everybody is tired of hearing about, like Locke, Vryce, license (dis)agreements, Fury, blablabla. Those have generated far more verbiage from far more people for far longer. I'm not really sure why some inane, boring or beaten-to-a-pulp topics are verboten but others are kosher.
01 Aug, 2009, Runter wrote in the 10th comment:
Votes: 0
I think the issue at hand isn't Dubstack at all. It's going against the Word of an Admin. It's been written, let it be done.

Also one caveat and corollary: It's never up for debate unless debate is asked for from said Admin.
01 Aug, 2009, Koron wrote in the 11th comment:
Votes: 0
Runter said:
I think the issue at hand isn't Dubstack at all. It's going against the Word of an Admin. It's been written, let it be done.

Also one caveat and corollary: It's never up for debate unless debate is asked for from said Admin.

As a rational human being, I reject the assumption that I am forbidden from questioning authority. I will not support or condone any "because I said so" reason. Perhaps my support isn't desired or required, but I will not budge an inch in this regard.
01 Aug, 2009, Guest wrote in the 12th comment:
Votes: 0
Whatever you all think the issue is, it was already stated several times it's not up for debate. It's not up for debate. Let it go.
0.0/12