Query: Is it permissible for dead(closed) threads to be re-opened and the original meaning changed?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Inkandtatts

Inkandtatts

Gay Chat Admin/UM
Staff member
Chat Room Administrator
H.R. PufnStuf said:
Hello Inks, If you look at the OP, it's been revised, and reiterated here: https://forum.chat-avenue.com/threads/homophobia.951936/page-5#post-1403566
Click to expand...
Thanks. I’d still rather it go in general forums given the OP’s agenda pushing and bias shown when it was opened before.

I didn’t think it was good practice to suddenly re-open a thread either, particularly when it’s to twist its meaning?

As I said, feel free to split this off into the kick/ban forum.
 
My issue with that particular thread is that it was opened asking what homophobia is, on 23rd September.

It started off in General Forums. It disappeared for a while. It then appeared in GLB forums.


The OP of the thread then deleted various posts. He then closed it on 23rd September.

It is now 5th October.

The OP has re-opened the thread, and edited post #1 to give it an entirely different meaning

Imo, that’s not the way things run. If an OP wants to make a new thread and change the meaning two weeks after the original thread was closed, surely the proper course of action is to make a new thread?

I’d ask for the views of @Apollo @Ness_eb and @TheLeigh on this since HR has a conflict of interest.

I’ve made a thread in GLB forums along the lines of what HR says his intent is, as it’s unfair (I believe) for the responses that weren’t deleted to be viewed in the context of the edited post #1 as those replies were to an entirely different question

This is the thread I’ve made: https://forum.chat-avenue.com/threa...you-what-does-transphobia-mean-to-you.952102/

I believe it would be a good way of moving this forward for the discussion that HR wants to have to now continue in my thread, given the points listed above.
 
OK.

Im going to respond here, even though I dont think this is the proper place for this thread. An original thread was created, by me, in General Forum. It was moved to the Gay Forum, by me, with the approval of the site admin.

The admin told me, to make sure it was clear, that it was for people to say how they feel about homophobia, and to take care it was understood it was for general discussion only. That was done here also, with the OP noted it had been revised (to follow the administrators directions). https://forum.chat-avenue.com/threads/homophobia.951936/

and here: https://forum.chat-avenue.com/threads/homophobia.951936/page-5#post-1403566

Having my thread was discussed, approved, Im ok with a second one with the same topic being created, and I dont think mine should be interfered with because it was made first, and made to conform with the directions I was given by the administrator.

This thread should have been in staff sections of forums, not here, imo.


edited to correct error
 
H.R. PufnStuf said:
OK.

Im going to respond here, even though I dont think this is the proper place for this thread. An original thread was created, by me, in General Forum. It was moved to the Gay Forum, with the approval of the site admin.

The admin told me, to make sure it was clear, that it was for people to say how they feel about homophobia, and to take care it was understood it was for general discussion only. That was done here also, with the OP noted it had been revised to follow the administrators directions. https://forum.chat-avenue.com/threads/homophobia.951936/

and here: https://forum.chat-avenue.com/threads/homophobia.951936/page-5#post-1403566

Having my thread continue was discussed, approved, Im ok with a second one with the same topic being created, and I dont think mine should be interfered with because it was made first, and made to conform with the directions I was given by the administrator.

This thread should have been in staff sections of forums, not here, imo.
Click to expand...

Perhaps if you’d clarified that almost two weeks ago instead of waiting almost two weeks and then editing the thread to change the meaning which in turn is a form of gaslighting, that reply may have seemed genuine.


This isn’t a staffing issue. You specifically said you created that thread as a forums user.

If you’re now saying that the thread as it was originally created was to seek views for Chat Avenue, or that this site now holds the view that closed discussions can be re-opened nearly two weeks after they were closed, edited to change the meaning, and then proceed on that basis then by all means move this thread to staff forums and this thread can continue there.
 
I think that anyone with a problem with that thread, should take it up with CM> I don't have any problem with any previously deleted messaged restored, as long as they conform to a general discussion as I understand it should be.
 
H.R. PufnStuf said:
I think that anyone with a problem with that thread, should take it up with CM> I don't have any problem with any previously deleted messaged restored, as long as they conform to a general discussion as I understand it should be.
Click to expand...
You’re missing the point. Now you’ve changed the entire meaning of the thread (using your powers you have as a forums mod while claiming you posted it as a forums user) any replies that were there before the edits look ridiculous because they were replies to the original question.

Perhaps as a conciliatory solution you could restore the thread to the way it was before you edited the meaning, close it again, and let the dicussion continue in the thread I made earlier?

There’s then no muddying of the waters, nobody looks stupid because they’ve replied to a question that no longer exists.

All you had to do was make another thread rather than this crazy approach
 
The meaning is the same, its just greatly simplified . Ill leave it to CM to do whatever he wants with any thread as this isnt a priority for me.
 
It wouldn’t be a priority for you, considering the blatant way in which that thread was created and in which the site admin appears to have had to educate you

EDIT: HR has edited his post several times. If I look crazy in this reply, it’s because of the edits

H.R. PufnStuf said:
The admin told me, to make sure it was clear, that it was for people to say how they feel about homophobia, and to take care it was understood it was for general discussion only.
Click to expand...

This issue is more about the way the thread has been handled rather than the thread itself, as this sets a precedent

I’m partly asking for clarification whether a forums user (the capacity in which you claim you made that thread) can say days/weeks after it was made and closed

“I’ve changed my mind about what I meant. Can the thread now be re-opened and can a UM please edit post #1 for me?”

At this point your conflict is clear which is understandable - forums user/forums staff.

I think one of the other UMs are best placed to answer this issues I’ve raised, as by acting in the way HR has his views are already known, bizarre as they are.
 
generally speaking, it does sure look like your lying and trying to cover any tracks or discourse youve caused.

your original thread with the original post was created after reports from various users came through about hannahs profile post. it seems you tried to remediate it by posting on her profile. instead of conveying to the reporting users " keep in mind users can post things not everyone agrees with on their profile as their profile may contain their opinions" you posted publicly on hannahs profile to now include "in my opinion" on her posts. it not only didnt come across well, it made it look as if you were condoning it. leading her ( and everyone) to believe that shes allowed to be as nasty as can be as long as she includes the 3 words " in my opinion". you then make a thread. where you demand others not to discuss the profile posts. if you wanted a general discussion you shouldnt have made it directly after not taking action on a homophobic rant profile posts. if it needed done right then. you should have let a different moderator take the helm and start it/discuss it. kim then questioned you on it ( the post is now missing) if you werent seeing red then, you certainly were seeing red after that post. your lock down, editing/deleting moving and continued actions made the 2nd thread ( tatts) a necessity in order to have a proper discussion.

if your going to make the thread reappear again, undelete all the posts, leave your original post and stop moderating it as it is too close to you now. leave it to another moderator to watch over. if you cant stop reading it, log out so you cant post or moderate while your feelings are intensified.

you now have/had 4 threads on the same topic about the same topic or comments on thread posts in the topic that could have been avoided if you hadnt placed so many stupid restrictions, over edited and allowed the discussion to evolve to either come to a pass a conclusion or a pig headed closure.



* let me make clear those were clearly homophobic remarks. they should have been at the least edited. people are entitled to their views , hannah included, but some things need to stay in your personal space bubble, especially while in public.
 
you don't get to completely edit and change the topic and intent of the op of a closed almost 2 week old thread and then tell people that are replying they are off topic and that's not what you were saying. it's absolutely ridiculous to now be like "well if you look at the op and what it says...." yeah what it says now almost 2 weeks later. after pages of people have already responded.

and this...this is fucking brilliant "Ill leave it to CM to do whatever he wants with any thread as this isnt a priority for me."

you have the nerve to say something like this to try and act above it all and that you can't be bothered....after you completely change a nearly 2 week old thread.
 
There is no significant material difference between, "define homophobia" and "say what you think homophobia is" or "what does it mean to you" thats semantics. What wasn't semantics was the replies because quite a few went off topic and are thus unaffected by a simplifying of the premise.

I don't live with baited breath on every forums move, there was nothing improper at all about fixing up that thread a short time later. No epidemic of that ya know?

At another time Ill simply ask for thoughts from my superior, like ive always done.

if "how" thread mechanics are done is a problem- Ill look at that when I have time.

edited- ofc
 
H.R. PufnStuf said:
I don't have any problem with any previously deleted messaged restored, as long as they conform to a general discussion as I understand it should be.
Click to expand...
H.R. PufnStuf said:
There is no significant material difference between, "define homophobia" and "say what you think homophobia is" or "what does it mean to you" thats semantics. What wasn't semantics was the replies because quite a few went off topic and are thus unaffected by a simplifying of the premise.

I don't live with baited breath on every forums move, there was nothing improper at all about fixing up that thread. At another time Ill simply ask for thoughts from my superior, like ive always done. 🙂
Click to expand...

as you think it should be. you may be here to edit and delete but you cannot tell others what a thread should be.

a thread evolves either good or bad or even based on the discussion. you keep saying what you think it should be. it should be what it is. thats it.


give us enough credit. we arent 2 years old. we can read around spam and off topic. (pages and pages of gif diarrhea is a completely different issue)


edited: fix spelling mistakes and missing words
 
H.R. PufnStuf said:
There is no significant material difference between, "define homophobia" and "say what you think homophobia is" or "what does it mean to you" thats semantics. What wasn't semantics was the replies because quite a few went off topic and are thus unaffected by a simplifying of the premise.

I don't live with bated breath on every forums move, there was nothing improper at all about fixing up that thread. At another time Ill simply ask for thoughts from my superior, like ive always done.
Click to expand...
HR. give it up. You’re embarrassing yourself now, unless you can show that it’s this site’s policy to allow for the re-opening and then editing of threads days/weeks after they’re closed I don’t think there is anything you can usefully add. If you wish to make it about semantics I’m sure you can make a thread about that.
 
Inkandtatts said:
HR. give it up. You’re embarrassing yourself now, unless you can show that it’s this site’s policy to allow for the re-opening and then editing of threads days/weeks after they’re closed I don’t think there is anything you can usefully add. If you wish to make it about semantics I’m sure you can make a thread about that.
Click to expand...
Ill I can do, is suggest you take it up with the site admin or CM, or whoever you wish.

purplerose said:
site admin would never tell you to control the discussion based on your views.

"things have changed" since 3 years ago, but i sure as hell know THAT hasnt.
Click to expand...
its clearly stated here: https://forum.chat-avenue.com/threads/homophobia.951936/page-5#post-1403566 I know this is very important to you, so enjoy.
 
I very much doubt site admin would say

“Yes, go back and re-open a closed thread, edit post 1 to change the meaning behind it…almost two weeks after it was closed”

If HR can provide proof that this is the approach to be taken, endorsed by Site Admin then I’ll apologise and request that this thread is closed.

My feeling is that no-one ever said that and HR interpreted this incorrectly.
H.R. PufnStuf said:
The admin told me, to make sure it was clear, that it was for people to say how they feel about homophobia, and to take care it was understood it was for general discussion only. That was done here also, with the OP noted it had been revised (to follow the administrators directions). https://forum.chat-avenue.com/threads/homophobia.951936
Click to expand...


Misinterpreting something is fine. We all do it.

I’m sure one of the other UMs can help though, on the topic that this thread is about.

I’ve been here for almost 3 years. Others have been here upwards of 20. I don’t believe it’s ever been the case that dead threads should be re-opened to change their meaning
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top