Sorry, I am not seeing that as the moral here. Since it doesnt seem the OP’s thread would have been closed if he didnt ask, since asking seems to take a long time to get a response- (if any or ever). And since “no response means no”, that would clearly mean- “Don’t ask”.
I notice you’re dodging simster’s question: What rule did he break in the posting of the thread? (other than the ‘he asked permission and had yet to recieve it’ bs.)
.
Incorrect. Most replies are gotten back to the same day or next day, but sometimes mods get busy or forget. He should have messaged someone asking about it again.
Incorrect. No answer was given, he made the topic before a mod could get back to him.
Exactly. It’s been made clear that the mod conversation about the thread actually happened, and that a decision was reached. I’m at an absolute loss to understand how this could have happened without someone then taking the 30 seconds required to send a PM with the decision. There is apparently enough time to spend multiple posts in this thread offering bad rationalizations for the decision; why was the decision itself never conveyed?
Apart from the issue of mod responsiveness and the lack of a reply to the OP over the course of six days, these are the key questions here.
Unfortunately, too much of the mod rationalization in this thread has focused on the fact that Charlie Wayne went ahead and created the thread without waiting for approval. Idle Thoughts keeps focusing on this, as if it’s the only thing that matters, ignoring the most salient fact, which is that the topic itself did not violate any rules, and shouldn’t have needed permission in the first place.
I want to start a thread in Cafe Society titled “Which is your favorite Star Trek series?” For some (hypothetical and unknown) reason, i PM the mods asking for permission to start such a thread. I get no response, and decide to post it anyway. By the logic argued in this discussion, my thread should be shut down. Genius!
It did take a long time, in this case, no?
Incorrect? :dubious: You guys made it clear that *no response means no. * Does no response mean yes? 
:dubious:
Yes, the mods were busy. I said this back in my first post in here.
Charlie Wayne was going to get a response…the only reason he didn’t was because the mod he PMed was away for the last five days. I’ve said this in this thread before too.
To be fair, I only received one PM and it was from Loach who asked me to send him a copy of the post I planned to make so he could see exactly how I was going to word it.
Therefore I had to make the post first - before I got any further reply.
If I didn’t make the post, I’m certain that would be the end of things.
If Loach was on a vacation, I sure didn’t know it. I sent the intial PM to two mods for reasons I explained. But it was Loach who returned me PM. So from then on, I sent my PMs to Loach.
If Idle Thoughts never saw any of my other PMs, I would understand why he may have thought something else was going on.
This is non-responsive.
You said that the PM he sent to the absent mod was the last one, which he sent days after the original one.
You have already told us that the mods discussed the issue and reached a decision. What relevance is it who he sent that last PM to? Why didn’t anyone give him a response immediately after you all came to a decision?
Also, it was perfectly reasonable for the OP to send his PM to the specific mod who asked him to send it. He had no way of knowing that the very mod who was PMing him asking for information would not be around to actually deal with the information or be involved in the decision. And it was reasonable for him to continue corresponding with that mod.
This is my last post in this topic…because at this point, I’m just repeating myself.
Here is the timeline of events:
About six days ago: Charlie Wayne PMs two mods (mod A and mod B) asking for permission.
About six days ago: One of those mods (mod B) brings the topic into mod discussion.
About six days ago: The mods decide more clarification is needed
About six days ago: Charlie is asked for more clarification from a mod (mod B)
About five days ago: Mod B goes on vacation
About five days ago: The other mods decide to deny Charlie permission in making the topic
Five days to one day ago: Charlie sends many PMs to just mod B. Among them is “If you don’t answer, I will assume it’s a yes”
One day ago: Charlie makes his topic
One day ago: Mod B returns from vacation
One Day ago: Mod A closes the topic because Charlie never got permission or waited for a reply
Now…there are multiple mess ups here, on both parts. First and foremost…yes, Charlie should have been told much sooner (nay, even the day the decision was made) that he couldn’t start the topic. Yes, that was bad of the mods. That part is totally on us and we apologize.
On Charlie’s part, however, there are mistakes as well, the first being: The way he put it (to us) in the PM was VASTLY different than the way he presented it here. In the PM he made it sound like it was using VPNs to be used much more nefariously and illegally, not the “just getting passed a simple restriction”. It made us question if the way he wanted to talk about it was against the “No discussing illegal activity rule” and we finally decided that YES, the way he put it to us, in the PM, it sounded like it did violate that rule, so he was going to be told “No, sorry, permission not given”.
Secondly, he should have been patient and possibly even PMed another mod than just the one he PMed. He had communication with only one mod all that time and that mod just happened to be away now.
Say what you will or what you want…but the sensible thing to do in that case would be to PM another mod if your PMs to one are going unanswered. A moderator will NOT just ignore your PMs and stay silent and, I’m sorry, but to think/assume that one will is foolish. Moderators will never ignore or not reply to PMs. If a mod is not replying to your PM for five days, you either wait or keep PMing or try another mod. That is what should have been done in this case no matter if you agree with the mod choice or disagree.
Again, we were at fault too and Charlie DID keep saying “hey…what about me? Hello…you there?”…but it was to one mod and it was the one mod who was currently away during that time. So all roads lead back to: PM another mod then.
We made a mistake by not getting back to Charlie. With that part, we messed up, yes…so where does that leave us? Well, it leaves us with: Charlie’s topic is still being and staying closed because he was going to be told “no”.
That’s the answer and explanation and reasoning, take it or leave it. You don’t have to like the way it is, but that’s the way it is.
This is my last post in this topic…because at this point, I’m just repeating myself.
Here is the timeline of events:
About six days ago: Charlie Wayne PMs two mods (mod A and mod B) asking for permission.
About six days ago: One of those mods (mod B) brings the topic into mod discussion.
About six days ago: The mods decide more clarification is needed
About six days ago: Charlie is asked for more clarification from a mod (mod B)
About five days ago: Mod B goes on vacation
About five days ago: The other mods decide to deny Charlie permission in making the topic
Five days to one day ago: Charlie sends many PMs to just mod B. Among them is “If you don’t answer, I will assume it’s a yes”
One day ago: Charlie makes his topic
One day ago: Mod B returns from vacation
One Day ago: Mod A closes the topic because Charlie never got permission or waited for a reply
Now…there are multiple mess ups here, on both parts. First and foremost…yes, Charlie should have been told much sooner (nay, even the day the decision was made) that he couldn’t start the topic. Yes, that was bad of the mods. That part is totally on us and we apologize.
On Charlie’s part, however, there are mistakes as well, the first being: The way he put it (to us) in the PM was VASTLY different than the way he presented it here. In the PM he made it sound like it was using VPNs to be used much more nefariously and illegally, not the “just getting passed a simple restriction”. It made us question if the way he wanted to talk about it was against the “No discussing illegal activity rule” and we finally decided that YES, the way he put it to us, in the PM, it sounded like it did violate that rule, so he was going to be told “No, sorry, permission not given”.
Secondly, he should have been patient and possibly even PMed another mod than just the one he PMed. He had communication with only one mod all that time and that mod just happened to be away now.
Say what you will or what you want…but the sensible thing to do in that case would be to PM another mod if your PMs to one are going unanswered. A moderator will NOT just ignore your PMs and stay silent and, I’m sorry, but to think/assume that one will is foolish. Moderators will never ignore or not reply to PMs. If a mod is not replying to your PM for five days, you either wait or keep PMing or try another mod. That is what should have been done in this case no matter if you agree with the mod choice or disagree.
Again, we were at fault too and Charlie DID keep saying “hey…what about me? Hello…you there?”…but it was to one mod and it was the one mod who was currently away during that time. So all roads lead back to: PM another mod then.
That’s the answer and explanation and reasoning, take it or leave it. You don’t have to like the way it is, but that’s the way it is.
Well, that’s not entirely accurate. There is no requirement to ask for permission to post any other type of thread, other than the two you indicated. However, there’s a fairly common reason to ask permission, which is when someone’s not sure if what they’re about to post is within the rules or not. At no point was Charlie Wayne at all obligated to ask us first before he started his thread. However, he did ask, and however tardy we were in returning the answer, the answer was still, “No.” That doesn’t change because he got (justifiably) impatient in waiting for an answer, and went ahead and started the thread anyway.
As for why the thread was disallowed, I think ecg covered it in post #11. I’m afraid I’m not personally tech savvy enough to argue the ruling, though.
Quite literally.
Tech savy or not - no where in the closed thread does the OP (or the posters afterwards) start talking about how to use the technology for nefarious reasons - or how they were using it for such.
The answer of “no” was based on the PM comments - NOT on the content of the thread itself -
(bolding mine)
So - the “no” based on the PM itself makes perfect sense - and that is the first time we’ve been given that detail.
the closing of the thread - which was VASTLY different - does not.
While I perfectly understand the mods need to say “you should have waited” - that should not be the reason for closing a perfectly legit thread.
If you don’t need permission - don’t ask it - signing up to the board gives you permission to post on topics that you want to - and then moderation comes to play if you start going over the rules.
Since no permission was required - the whole “you should have waitied” thing is bullshit covering of tracks - ESPECIALLY given the admission by Idle Thoughts that the PM was VASTLY different than the actual thread.
Have a pleasant day.
How should he (or anyone, in general) have known which mod to send a PM to? How would any of us know when a mod is going to be out of town for 5 days, that we should know to send our PMs to someone else? If I send a controversial request to a mod who (unknown to me) is on vacation, does that mean it doesn’t even get into the mod loop to begin with until that mod comes back? When a mod is gone for some length of time, to other mods keep an eye on that mod’s incoming PM’s?
Which he did and unilaterally set a 24 hour deadline. How long should he have waited the second time?
emphasis added.
He did wait. The question is how long to wait and then how long to wait the second time you PM a mod.
No, we can’t see each other’s personal messages. All the mods for a particular forum are listed at the bottom of each forum, so it’s beneficial to PM multiple mods in a forum if you’re trying to get some info or a question answered. That way we can cover each other. If you choose to PM just one mod and don’t get a reply it is reasonable to either wait or PM another mod in that forum or one you’re comfortable reaching out too.
As been said multiple times now, the delay in response was our error. We knew Loach was away and someone else should have reached out to Charlie. That was said from the first mod post in this thread.
Not quite sure there’s more to say than everyone is in agreement with that. Given the sheer volume of reports, emails, and PMs, most get handled well and that’s something that’s important to us. This time the delay was an error.
So, it must have been another person so told me this: “I didn’t even read any of this PM and won’t so you wasted your time in sending it.”:dubious:
But in any case, despite all your explanation, you still have not explained:
Other that the fact that CW did not wait for permission (which he didnt need in the first place), what is/was wrong with his thread? I dont see anything there which is even close to being against the rules.
We got it, your lengthy explanation as to why you didnt get back to CW is as clear as it is going to be.
But that still doesnt answer simster’s question: What rule did he break in the posting of the thread? (other than the ‘he asked permission and had yet to recieve it’ bs.)
That basic question has gone unanswered for fifty posts now. Please stop dodging the question.
.
A mobile? I’m not familiar with that term, but I assume from context it’s some sort of iPhone? Those are certainly very useful devices! However I wonder if you’re aware that they have been linked to a higher incidence of cancer? Oh my! I surely wouldn’t dangle one above an infant’s crib, but perhaps you’ve read some research that I haven’t?
Let me help you a little here.
Quoting from post 11.
So basically, the problem wasn’t that Charlie wanted to discuss network security and VPNs. The problem was that Charlie wanted to discuss “hide my IP” type services that you connect to via VPN and nothing else. <snip> He made it very clear from the start though that he was well aware of the illegal uses for these (music and video downloading, etc). He seemed to be trying to skirt the line between what can and can’t be discussed here, and to us he mostly seemed to be on the wrong side of the line.
This is like farting peas at the moon. We’re talking about a closed fucking thread, not mass genocide. No one died, no one was banned, no one was suspended, no one was warned, no one was noted, no one was even goosed with an erect thumb. A fucking albatross of a thread was closed.
He said no mod would ignore your PM and stay silent. In response, you mention a time he ignored your PM, and informed you about it promptly. I don’t see the problem, here.
But in all seriousness - and in all candor - when he sent you that PM: Was that the first PM you’d exchanged with him on that particular subject? Or was it more like the sixth?
Can you guys explain what exactly is off-limits about the thread? I use VPNs for a variety of reasons for my work and find the topic interesting and useful. If I were the one to have started the thread, there is no way in hell I’d have thought to ask permission. Would it have been shut down?