Moderators

Are you referring to the first or second thread? The first was locked when users started claiming because of the thread that they were going to break the rules, one necropost happened during the thread and most were simply spamming that thread. I warned that I would lock the thread if they didn't stop acting that way and simply provide constructive points for review in the mods forum and they didn't. A thread asking for a rule to be changed should be treated seriously. It was brought up in the mods forum, by me for the rule to be reconsidered because of that thread. The second was a thread to keep that first thread going after it was locked. You should not create another thread to keep a discussion going after a mod has locked the thread except in the case of a necropost or something like that.

I still think necroposting should be allowed in certain cases, such as in games such as the corrupt a wish game, so that it may be continued. Now I'm not accusing Mods of anything, but it does seem convenient for the ruling authority of this forum that threads that dispute the rule of Mods usually end up locked. It's probably just because they contain spam, as I'm sure most of the Mods are kind and just rulers.

Spam, breaking the rules, advocating breaking the rules, creating threads to keep stuff going when mods have seen fit to stop it due to previous reasons. If it is none of those things then talk about rules, talk about the mods, whatever. If I was truly locking because of "threads that dispute the rule of Mods usually end up locked" then this thread would be locked because of this, it is not.

Stalin is the true ruler here, we are simply enforcers of his will. My actions do not go unnoticed or undiscussed and if he has a problem with them all he has to do is say so. He has not said he has a problem with my actions. In fact it is more the opposite.

I don't like the part in bold writing. It's scary. Also, I'd like to see a piece of writing in which Stalin denounces spamming and necroposting, just to be sure.

Seriously? You want to see proof that Stalin doesn't like people spamming his site?

Yes, you said enforcers of his will, and I have yet to see a post in which Stalin disapprove's of spamming or necroposting.

How about Stalin giving his approval to all of the rules?

Now I'm sure that the choices of the Moderators are always for the benefit of the forum as a whole, as our leader has given the rules a seal of approval.

Anyone who becomes mad with power other than Stalin gets removed by Stalin. So no worries there. xD[/quote]
Stalin is already mad with power. Post editing, anyone?

Really? This is an interesting turn of events.

Indeed. I did say that I brought it up and we were discussing it. However I was not going to mention a verdict until we were ready to change the rule.

And I was the one who started the protest against it. This just proves that I have more influence than the mods.

Actually no. "Protests" will be ignored, or locked/moved depending on the content. Constructive points are considered. It was not the necroposting stuff by you that brought up the discussion that changed it either. In the end it is still staffs call. We simply agreed that this rule needed to be changed.

Lets be civil about this, and just admit I won this one.

There was no winning or losing involved on our end. Points were considered by all who made them and a rule was changed. So you didn't win, all of you did. All that were civil and constructive anyways. But again, in the end it was our choice to amend a rule. We did not give in to your demands because you demanded them, we changed it because we agreed that it needed to be changed.

Well at least our archaic system is changing.

Yes, we all won, but it was because of me.

Don't be silly Link, it was all me.