Please explain how this post breaks forum rules

[Mateo]

This was moved to the jail. It was from a thread about Ubuntu Studio. Please explain how this particular post breaks forum rules:


I think it has no reason to exist. A seperate distribution just for a theme change and a few preinstalled apps doesn't make sense to me.

This was posted about as gingerly as possible. Keep in mind that the thread in question was asking for people's general opinions on Ubuntu Studio, so it was not off-topic.

edit: i probably should have posted this in resolution center. please move if needed.

[PriceChild]

Relevant threads for admins:
http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=2632910&postcount=23
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=457036
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=457123
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=457122

*moves to Res Centre.

[matthew]

Your original post took the thread off topic. You could have been issued an infraction for that, but it wasn't deemed necessary as the post was worded appropriately. I agree with that decision and would suggest next time that you start a new thread. The post was moved to the jail, along with the posts that followed you off topic.

General questions would (obviously, to most people) include things like "What programs are included?" and "How are plans coming for the next release?" Your question was not general, but foundational.

Later you were issued an infraction for deliberately choosing not to follow the politely worded and appropriate directions of a moderator who asked you to allow the discussion to move on arguing with his decision. I also agree with this decision, even though it wasn't being questioned.

[Mateo]

Your original post took the thread off topic. You could have been issued an infraction for that, but it wasn't deemed necessary as the post was worded appropriately. I agree with that decision and would suggest next time that you start a new thread. The post was moved to the jail, along with the posts that followed you off topic.

How was it off-topic? The thread was titled " ubuntu Studio - What's your take?"

My take was that it was an unnecessary distribution. That's about as on-topic as it can get.


General questions would (obviously, to most people) include things like "What programs are included?" and "How are plans coming for the next release?" Your question was not general, but foundational.

That's not what the thread starter was asking at all. In the original post the thread starter obviously has used Ubuntu Studio, and therefore already knows what programs are included. He/she was asking for opinions about Ubuntu Studio. Not asking what the features are or what future features will be.


Later you were issued an infraction for deliberately choosing not to follow the politely worded and appropriate directions of a moderator who asked you to allow the discussion to move on arguing with his decision. I also agree with this decision, even though it wasn't being questioned.

How could I? I didn't know what I was supposed to be moving on from. Was I supposed to move on from the other users who attacked me, or was I not supposed to talk about the subject at all? I'm not sure, the moderator was not specific.

Furthermore, I asked the moderator in PM to explain what I had done wrong and he/she pretty much refused to. That's the reason I had to start this thread, for clarification. Because he/she wouldn't provide it.

-----------------------

Thank you for responding matthew, but I'm still not understanding this. If we can't resolve this then I don't feel I can talk in Community Cafe ever again, for fear of breaking some rule that I'm not aware that I'm breaking.

I think it is important that moderators do two things when warning a person in a thread:

1) Make sure you are clear that you are warning them. I wasn't sure if this moderator was just talking to me as another poster or as a moderator.
2) Make sure you are clear about what the poster should stop doing. "Move on" is vague, I had no idea what I was supposed to be moving on from.

[matthew]

How was it off-topic? The thread was titled " ubuntu Studio - What's your take?"

My take was that it was an unnecessary distribution. When I read the first post in the thread (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=457036) my initial response was to discuss impressions of the work so far and useful, constructive suggestions for improvement. It could not easily be construed as a request to dismiss the work of the project leaders.


That's about as on-topic as it can get.Nope. You can express that opinion in another thread if you wish.


That's not what the thread starter was asking at all. In the original post the thread starter obviously has used Ubuntu Studio, and therefore already knows what programs are included. He/she was asking for opinions about Ubuntu Studio. Not asking what the features are or what future features will be.I disagree, as did the other thread participants. The purpose of the thread was to discuss impressions of the work so far and useful, constructive suggestions for improvement. It was clearly not the OP's intention to question the validity of its existence.


How could I? I didn't know what I was supposed to be moving on from. Was I supposed to move on from the other users who attacked me, or was I not supposed to talk about the subject at all? I'm not sure, the moderator was not specific."Move on," in all dialects of English of which I am aware, always means, "Lets discontinue this and either begin a new topic or return to the one we were on before we were sidetracked." Could he have said more? Yes. Would most people have understood him? Yes.


Thank you for responding matthew, but I'm still not understanding this. Hopefully I have helped a little.


If we can't resolve this then I don't feel I can talk in Community Cafe ever again, for fear of breaking some rule that I'm not aware that I'm breaking.Leaving users in fear is not our goal and I think this can be resolved.

[Mateo]

Well, we simply have different interpretations of what the thread starter was asking. You thought he meant "what do you like about it and how can it be improved", and I thought he meant "what are your general thoughts about Ubuntu Studio".

Since the thread starter was not specific, this could have easily been resolved if the moderator had either moved my posts to a new topic or asked me to make a new topic. But he/she choose instead to issue a vague warning, where I didn't even know what I was being warned about, and then to delete my posts. Then later not clarify what I had done wrong after I asked.

So, again, thank you for trying matthew, but this isn't resolved on my end. It seems to me that if a moderator has a slightly different interpretation of the (vague) thread question, I can be violating some vaguely worded rule, and not given a chance to discuss the topic in another place. I can't in good faith participate in any Community Cafe discussions because I never know if my reply is exact enough to the moderator's intepretation of the thread starters wishes.

[matthew]

Well, we simply have different interpretations of what the thread starter was asking. You thought he meant "what do you like about it and how can it be improved", and I thought he meant "what are your general thoughts about Ubuntu Studio".Based on the tone and content of every other post in the thread, you are alone in your interpretation. There isn't much more that can be said about that.


Since the thread starter was not specific, this could have easily been resolved if the moderator had either moved my posts to a new topic or asked me to make a new topic. But he/she choose instead to issue a vague warning, where I didn't even know what I was being warned about, and then to delete my posts. Then later not clarify what I had done wrong after I asked.I have read the exchange (now jailed) several times. You came across as mean and rude, as if you had barged into a business office and demanded to know why they even existed. Plus, you have made this thought known previously in other threads. The warning only seems vague until one reads your posting history on the topic. The whole world likely knew what PriceChild was saying when he gently stated it was time to move on, except for you... ?


So, again, thank you for trying matthew, but this isn't resolved on my end. It seems to me that if a moderator has a slightly different interpretation of the (vague) thread question, I can be violating some vaguely worded rule, and not given a chance to discuss the topic in another place. I can't in good faith participate in any Community Cafe discussions because I never know if my reply is exact enough to the moderator's intepretation of the thread starters wishes.I'm sorry that is the case, but there isn't anything further I can do for you. The question seems quite clear from my side. If this means you will choose to avoid the Community Chat forum, that will be our loss.

[Mateo]

Based on the tone and content of every other post in the thread, you are alone in your interpretation. There isn't much more that can be said about that.

Not really, their interpretation fits within my interpretation. I thought the poster was asking for all opinions on Ubuntu Studio, including those like what the other posters said and those like the one that I said. Just because I'm the only person that had this opinion doesn't mean that the thread starter was not wanting this type of opinion.


I have read the exchange (now jailed) several times. You came across as mean and rude, as if you had barged into a business office and demanded to know why they even existed.

How can you say I sounded rude? Did you read the other people who responded to me? If I was being rude, they were being downright virulent.

My original post was worded about as gently as possible. Then others started attacking me. Those people are the ones who were ruded. I simply defended myself after that point. Was even polite to one person who was originally rude to me, by ignoring the rude part. But somehow I, the victim, got into trouble and nothing happened to these other people whatsoever.


Plus, you have made this thought known previously in other threads. The warning only seems vague until one reads your posting history on the topic.

I was never warned in those other threads. In fact, I only stated this opinion a couple of times in other threads, I never actually had a discussion about it because I realized that it was probably too off-topic for those particular threads. The irony huh? ;)


The whole world likely knew what PriceChild was saying when he gently stated it was time to move on, except for you... ?

You've been saying that a lot, but that's completely unfair. You can't claim that the world shares your opinion. You don't know what the world thinks. You know what you think, just as I know what I think.

I don't have a telepathy, I don't know what a person means unless they tell me what they mean.


I'm sorry that is the case, but there isn't anything further I can do for you. The question seems quite clear from my side. If this means you will choose to avoid the Community Chat forum, that will be our loss.

The reason I started this thread was to know how to avoid breaking this rule in the future. But the moderator didn't tell me what he was asking me to do, even after I PMed him to ask. If you'll read my respond to his warning, you will see that I thought he was asking me not to respond to the people who were attacking me.

I think if you told your moderators to be specific when issuing warnings, that would help. If had known I could simply start a new thread, or if the moderator had moved my post to a new thread, I wouldn't have had a problem with that. But I was left in the dark.

[Mateo]

We can debate what the thread starter "meant" all day long. What matters is that he said "What is your take on Ubuntu Studio" and my response was exactly that. I shouldn't be penalized because the thread starter was vague about what they were asking.

Now, if you want to move my post somewhere else, by all means do so, I don't have a problem with that. But the current method makes it impossible for any user to post here without potentially breaking a rule. Because if you post an unpopular opinion, it can always be construed as breaking a rule. So, if you just move the post so that the discussion can take place elsewhere, I wouldn't have a problem with that at all.