http://i.imgur.com/DaSPSJD.png

Seriously, SYnapse?

Well I'm glad there's another thread open about this, because I wanted to say that I've rarely seen anybody rock a thread as hard as Jamie did the previous one.

What's with the thread locking lately?

Pretty obvious. They silenced a guy for spamming and they don't want his silence to result in more spamming.

It did seem kind of unnecessary, honestly.

SYnapse, draft up a complaint, would you?

bo, I agree with the original silencing, but if SYnapse's thread is considered spamming, then we really do have a problem.

Blankflag's silence seemed to be without merit to me, but it's not my job to judge what is merited and what's not. I'd do a lot differently here if it was. But it's not, so it doesn't matter.

This thread, on the other hand, is a direct duplicate of one that was already locked; whether that lock was called for really doesn't matter. This one is most certainly spam since he posted it knowing full well what's going to end up happening.

If we're going to discuss blankflag's original silence or the first thread, fine, but this one is certainly spam even if none of the aforementioned is.

That's irrelevant, though, bo_sox. Your initial post, which I questioned, was in response to why the *last* thread was sileneced.

As for Blankflag's silencing -- I might have spoken too quickly; it's true that I probably wouldn't have silenced him the first time, and thus, also not the second time. But the time to fight that was at the first time (and I did fight it then). His second one was totally obvious given the first one.

But that's why I'm agreeing now with the opponents of thread locking.

But the other thread which was locked was only people debating the merits of the silencing. There was some good, entertaining pseudo legal arguments being made. Whether you agree with blank flags silencing or not, the thread discussing it shouldn't be locked.

And the other thread about the mod conference to Tahiti. Obviously everyone but lando got the joke, but it's funny seeing lando get bent out of shape, and Mapu can certainly handle himself against his insults. So why lock that thread?

In a place like this one with admittedly inconsistent bouts of libertarianism and authoritarianism, in my opinion based on who deals with your case, the silencing is no surprise and the thread lock is a great way to keep the silencing justified.

@semck ... my point is that they silenced blankflag because he, in their mind, was spamming. The new threads questioning his silence result in spam as well so they silence those threads too. It's consistency. Like I believe I said, I don't agree with it, but it's consistent.

"The new threads questioning his silence result in spam as well so they silence those threads too."

And I was disagreeing with your assertion that to accept blankflag's posts as spam implies that SYnapse's was. It doesn't.

Frankly I'm not here to debate what's spam and what isn't. I don't consider that my role here.

Well, you made a post implying that this thread was spam, or should be considered so by the moderators given their view on blankflag. Given these new revelations about your self-perceived "role," I wonder why you made such a post.

Taking their previous action against the other thread into account, that's not my interpretation, that's just me operating under the pretense that they'll operate the same way here as they did there.

Ok, what about Tahiti?

Sounds nice.

SYnapse, (userID=49621), you've been silenced for 24 hours for making a thread to get around a thread already silenced. You are welcome to appeal this silence through the mod email.

-WebDip Admin

Man, and I'd gone so long without profoundly disagreeing with one of your decisions, jmo.

@semck, technically I didn't follow the rules on that decision, the rules say that going around a thread silence to continue a conversation is grounds for a ban. I found that extreme. The reason I silenced him is in the hope he will actually email the mod email or kestas with a problem. Kestas really does review cases like these, but rarely has time to check the forum, which is why he wants opposition to a moderator decision emailed, not posted.

"Don't create new accounts to work around user silences, or post threads to continue on from ones which have been silenced! This may result in bans etc, which would be worse than simply keeping off the forum for a few days. "

That phrase includes "etc" - that's a pretty critical piece here. Surely you, jmo, realize that a ban is a last resort, right?

(Yes, I picked those words carefully.)

Though, to your credit, yes, a ban is quite extreme.

Agreed with bo.

Also, I would respectfully suggest you're hiding behind the rules. We all know you have wide discretion in their application. Nothing wrong with that (you should), but here, you happened to lock a thread that shouldn't have been locked. Reopening it *was* technically a violation of the rules (and no, they don't require a ban, so you're following them just fine), but the right decision was to recognize that locking it in the first place was a mistake, and do nothing.

Anyway, as you say, SYnapse can appeal. Also as you say, hopefully he will. Thanks for taking the time to respond.

So I get the silencing due to making another thread to get around a locked one, but I still don't understand the original locking of either thread.

@semck, I misunderstood, I thought you meant you agreed with the earlier silence, but not this one.

@bo, which is why etc was the shortest silence we can give.

Yes, and you get props for that. Still, I really hope a ban never went through your head, whether it's written down or not.

I feel like a kid whose parents are talking around him, ignoring his questions about their conversation :-(

@jmo, that's a reasonable reading of my words, I now see. Perhaps even more reasonable than what I actually meant, in fact. : )

@ philcore: It is my understanding that the original thread was locked because SYnapse was advocating on blankflag's behalf where in fact blankflag had the ability to appeal himself, and had not done so. In terms of blankflag's silencing, the judgement was clear and therefore the Admin team considered the matter closed unless an appeal was made to Kestas. On this basis jmo locked the thread.

Synapse, I want this to be said (no irony!): Your strong and talented engagement and especially *compassion* for Blanky is beautiful and worthy of respect.

You have probably accomplished something by it - you have given an example of *virtue*, at the same time as given opportunity to other (like Jamie) to display their virtue and sense of right.

But pushing this any further now, I think you're just creating a mess (and there is no virtue in a mess).

blankflag might have good reasons, both objective reasons valid for all human beings and such as have their origin in his own more limited personal psychological history, to willfully protest against authority, 'elites'.
He has deliberately violated the rules of this site and disobeyed the 'elites', incarnated here as the mods.
So, he got SYlenced... as he was evidently seeking... and now he is a martyr...

SYnapsie... We have to choose our battles... Why did blankflag specifically choose to come into webdiplomacy to seek to break rules to fight the elite? It is a peculiarly "unelitist" elite we have on this site.
I disagree with some elites, some not. If I'd disagree with the elite of this site (that provide it for free!) I would not be visiting it. I *love* the elite of this site: Kestas is a hero. I accept his authority over *his* site (I hope it will forever stay his site in the spirit it currently has) and I fully appreciate the mods work (and am glad I need not be one myself)
(The fact that I have not even found how to make a donation, makes me - for the first time in my life(?) - willing to make one! Yes, it should happen... If I shall keep on playing diplomacy.)

blankflag has his own homepage, no? Synapse, You can find him and befriend him and develop the philosophy on the elites together.

I cannot wait for SYnapse's silence to end. I anticipate he will have many interesting things to tell us.

So blankflag is banned for circumventing a silence... how can one circumvent a silence? Isn't a silence, you know, a silence?

Presumably now he is banned the silence will be effective, because he'll no longer even be able to log in.

Lol... based on last time I wouldn't trust that.