Clarify spam?

Processed complaints will be moved here.

Moderator: Oversight Staff

JackSwift
Treant
Posts: 280
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 8:55 pm

Clarify spam?

Postby JackSwift » Wed Jun 20, 2012 1:59 am

Sorry to call someone out, but this is the second time war has locked a topic because of "spam". It isn't spam, no one is posting over and over again without waiting, no one is making meaningless posts, particularly in the latest closed topic. People are intelligently discussing why they believe a specific member should not be given mod status, (in this example.) I'm sorry but if you're going to close a topic, close it with a reason that makes sense, don't just throw any random reason out there as an excuse to do something. Sorry but it looks foolish. So if someone could maybe clarify what spamming is for the mods that would probably be helpful.

iTz_WaR
Donator
Posts: 386
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2012 11:26 pm

Re: Clarify spam?

Postby iTz_WaR » Wed Jun 20, 2012 2:01 am

The posts were clearly getting off-topic, and were beginning to talk about something else.

JackSwift
Treant
Posts: 280
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 8:55 pm

Re: Clarify spam?

Postby JackSwift » Wed Jun 20, 2012 2:04 am

In both cases that statement is completely false... how is showing someone to be guilty of fraud in his application post "off topic"?? Please explain that to me.

iTz_WaR
Donator
Posts: 386
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2012 11:26 pm

Re: Clarify spam?

Postby iTz_WaR » Wed Jun 20, 2012 2:08 am

The reasons for why he should not get mod status have already been stated, so there is no purpose to continue the discussion.

JackSwift
Treant
Posts: 280
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 8:55 pm

Re: Clarify spam?

Postby JackSwift » Wed Jun 20, 2012 2:12 am

I'm sure there is. Plus that wasn't your reason for closing, you're reason was spam. why not state "until mod or admin is able to post, I will close this topic". That makes sense and doesn't misuse a rule. also how do you know they don't have more evidence to post on da's fabrication?? I doubt those are the last pieces of evidence. -shrugs- I just think misusing a rule allows for people to find loopholes in them and lowers their meaning. that's all.

User avatar
cyberpunk
Protector of Nature
Posts: 4866
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 5:59 am
Location: Em suas asas borboleta amarela.

Re: Clarify spam?

Postby cyberpunk » Wed Jun 20, 2012 3:36 am

I agree with iTz_War locking the topic. I didn't see any evidence from DA-01 to proof he was THR member, so why you want more evidence against him? oO
it seems spam to me.
Image
[spoiler=Links to find ur ban]Link to banlist
Link to ENT Link[/spoiler]
I don't answer private messages that should be public questions. Use the forum

JackSwift
Treant
Posts: 280
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 8:55 pm

Re: Clarify spam?

Postby JackSwift » Wed Jun 20, 2012 3:38 am

Anything that diminishes or promotes someone's capacity to be a moderator in that section of the forums is not spam.

User avatar
Crispz
Treant Protector
Posts: 543
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2012 8:37 am

Re: Clarify spam?

Postby Crispz » Wed Jun 20, 2012 4:31 am

Problem is has already been solved.
I've dealt with it already.
I'm on both sides actually, but I've deleted some that were off-topic in DA's application.
Retired. Co-Admin/Forum Mod/Dota Admin
Tommy | Visuals


Return to “Processed Cases”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests