"Sour Grapes" Thread Closed.

[Toasty]

Why?

It was not spam, nor did it have any subversive meaning as Napoleon suggested. Why was it closed?

 

[cgannon64]

I'd comment, but, under the CFC Patriot Act, I'm not allowed to comment poster-moderator issues if I am not the poster in question...

 

[Dell19]

And to quote AoA incase you haven't read it already "If you wish to hold such a conversation, please use IM"

Btw It seems that Mods lock threads and then post their reasons

 

[Toasty]

Yes, well, despite that post, I still don't think it would warrant a closing.

 

[Lefty Scaevola]

'You say you want a revolution...."

Well, I hope Thuderfall is amused, as that would be your only salvation here. I must remember to apply my wargamming maxim #5* to more situations.

*Moursund rule #5 of Wargamming: No mercy or delay in the coupe de grace, once you have an opponent down, kick him untill he stops squirmmming.

 

[Toasty]

Lefty, if that was meant to say you regret shortening my sentence, I have no desire to touch on that subject. However, I honestly don't understand how it was decided the thread should have been closed.

 

[Duke of Marlbrough]

It might have been because people could have interpreted it with a way to complain about your ban. The title 'Sour Grapes' alluded to it, the 'cooling off' alluded to it, and the time frame of '3 days' alluded to it.

Whether it was intended to or not, I think since it could be interpreted as an inside, personal snipe, it was closed.

 

[Ohwell]

Why was he banned anyway? Didn't see anything...

 

[Toasty]

Yes, I'm aware it alluded to it, as Napoleon pointed out, however I maintain that it had nothing whatsoever to do with my ban (I'd just as soon forget about it), and I don't see how it could be remotely interpreted as a "personal snipe"...

 

[Duke of Marlbrough]

Generally, complaints or attempts to mock a ban are considered a personal snipe at the moderator who did the ban. In essence trying to tell them that they did something wrong, or you didn't care, or you won't change what may have caused the ban in the first place. Basically warning or flaunting the idea that it may happen again.

Again, it may not have been intended, but maybe a more carefully worded thread on the same subject would be acceptable. I'm not if you want to check with one of the Mods for the forum first though just to make sure they understand your intentions.

 

[ainwood]

I actually thought that the rules here were quite clear.....Shouldn't this be handled by PM?

And as for CGs attempt to comment-without-commenting, I hope he can help sween from 'the inside'

 

[cgannon64]

Originally posted by ainwood
I actually thought that the rules here were quite clear.....Shouldn't this be handled by PM?

And as for CGs attempt to comment-without-commenting, I hope he can help sween from 'the inside'

Well, I think its just a matter of time. Might as well enjoy my last breath of fresh air...

Anyway, I really didn't mean that as a comment-without-commenting. I meant it as a I-really-feel-like-ranting-but-I-don't-want-to-be-banned-that much!

 

[WillJ]

Originally posted by cgannon64
I'd comment, but, under the CFC Patriot Act, I'm not allowed to comment poster-moderator issues if I am not the poster in question...

Uh oh, that rolleyes smilie might get you a ban. If I were you, I wouldn't post in this thread at all.

Oops, I posted. Crap!

 

[cgannon64]

Originally posted by WillJ
Uh oh, that rolleyes smilie might get you a ban. If I were you, I wouldn't post in this thread at all.

Oops, I posted. Crap!

Well, if that gets me a ban, then it only furthers my point.

 

[Thunderfall]

Originally posted by Lefty Scaevola
I must remember to apply my wargamming maxim #5* to more situations.
*Moursund rule #5 of Wargamming: No mercy or delay in the coupe de grace, once you have an opponent down, kick him untill he stops squirmmming.

Sounds good to me. We learn from mistakes.