Please Reinstate Thread 6769505

I don't mean to be a thorn in anyone's side, by why in heaven's name was this thread closed? Someone revived the rather old thread, that was deemed dead long ago. At the time it was originally posted, no one made any rude, crass, or demeaning remarks. In fact the thread is about Bean Count. Someone posted a comment this afternoon, and immediately the thread was closed. I'm not in the position to demand anything, but I can see no logical explanation why this thread was closed. I did not violate the CoC -- or even come close to a violation. Reopen the thread, and let it die once again, or provide a suitable explanation why the thread was closed, other than personal objection.

For the benefit of the admin's, this is the thread in question: http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=878965

I don't see any logical reason to open it, other than to dredge up old issues.

Forum CoC:

You agree that the web-master, administrators and moderators of this forum have the right to remove, edit, move or close any post, topic or thread at any time they see fit...

No old issues were being dredged up! The post was about bean count. In regards to the aforementioned CoC, I think your specific selected reference fails to address other more applicable parts of the CoC specifically in regards to Thread Closure:

Thread Closing:

If a thread has run it's course and posts have begun repeating themes a thread may be closed - if possible, announce that the thread has run it's course before closing so that people may add closing statements - don't forget to thank all users involved in the discussion. If a thread has become a situation where people are simply too personally involved in the issue a thread may be closed and / or jailed. If a thread is a duplicate of another thread, it may be closed (please provide a link to another open thread on the same topic.) _It is always a good idea to post an explanation in a thread that is closed_.

I'm not really upset the thread was closed -- it contained no meaningful explanations or help to really about anyone. It was on a light-hearted topic. I do disagree in the way this thread was closed however, being that there was no explanation given other than on the whim of the moderator that closed it. As far as digging up old issues, some of the comments and references expressed in the thread were originally made months ago, and were more applicable to the historical context in which they were written. The very age of the thread spans many months. To disagree with the historical aspects contained in this thread, although they could lead to controversy, is ridiculous. There was no outright controversy in this thread. To cover up and bury some of the history of these forums is ridiculous. I am sure as a general rule you would agree that censorship in regards to periods of human history that may be controversial of uncomfortable would be wrong! Again I will repeat my point. There was nothing outright insensitive, provocative, or divisive in the comments made in this thread. The real controversy lies in the failure to provide a reasonable and intelligent explanation why it was closed. Although the moderators make the ultimate decision, I believe the CoC demands a reasonable explanation. In addition, although I am on equal footing with the rest of the users in the forums, I have been around for a significant amount of time to realize closure of this particular thread is an anomaly to the normal actions usually displayed by the forum moderators.

Lastly a to the point -- I am aware of some of the circumstances surrounding the banning of LaRoza. Although I might not be privy to all of the facts, I agree with the Adminstrators' decision. However, for the same Adminstrators to fail to recognize the great contributions LaRoza made in the time he/she/it was a moderator is ridiculous. To deny some of these contributions would be in essence to re-write history inaccurately. This thread was originally composed at a time when LaRoza was still a moderator and had a massively high bean count. In fact it was to poke fun at the particular bean count. The context that LaRoza was often referred to as a "bot" was in reference to the common belief that no human could accrue such a high bean count so rapidly.

Rather than cover-up and bury some of the history of the Ubuntu forums, I believe it should be celebrated. There are many comments made in various threads that are focused toward people and comments that have been made throughout forum history. Regular users of the forums recognize these statements and the context in which they are being made. Celebration of the "personality" of the Ubuntu forums is what makes the Ubuntu forums specifically great, separating them from other forums. To essentially bury and censor forum idioms however is ridiculous and unwarranted, particularly when made in a lighthearted discussion.

Quoting a post near the end of the thread in question: > The threads been raised from the dead, a sad reminder of LaRoza's banning.

LaRoza was a wonderful member of our staff for a long time and made many useful and appreciated contributions.

This particular thread, as you noted, had no real value. I will add that it does nothing to either diminish nor enhance LaRoza's reputation, but only makes people think, "That was sad."

Want to remember LaRoza? Great. Note the stickies LaRoza wrote that are still in place and appreciated. A few have been rewritten, because information needs change. Others remain. All the contributions were and are appreciated.

Noting the FCoC quote you used, saying something is a good idea (like posting a thread closure reason) is not the same thing as making it a requirement. bapoumba did nothing incorrect in procedure. I did go ahead and modify the final post in the thread to announce the closure, but it really wasn't necessary.

Finally, censorship involves making information unavailable. These are moderated forums, and that may happen from time to time, but mainly in the removal of abusive, obscene/porn, and spam posts. The thread you brought up was not censored. It is still available and may be read in its entirety. It was closed to new comment. That is different.

Matthew

I appreciate your honestly. But lets lay the chips on the table. Why was this thread closed? From your last two posts, the answer is unclear. The thread was not specifically about LaRoza (although he is mentioned in the thread a few times), it was about bean count!!

How is bean count controversial?

You stated in your original post you saw no reason to reopen the thread. Fair enough. What reason however do you see why the thread was closed in the first place. It remained open since August 2008, and then closed in February 2009. Why was it open for so long if it was "offensive"? My solution is to reopen the thread, let it die again and fade out of existence. I'm not specifically fighting for this thread, just against the perceived arbitrary closure of a thread with no justifiable reason! You must admit that closure of this thread is outside the norm compared to other threads that are usually closed. Usually however there are obvious reasons for their closure. In this case, I am really confused.

The thread had died out. It served its usefulness. Someone found it and resurrected it, so we reburied it.

The thread's title is "Have you ever had a higher bean count than _LaRoza_?[B]"[/B] So, yes, it is directly related to a former staff member, and regardless of the thread's intent, it's content is connected.

If you want to talk only about bean counts, start a new thread. Really, that's not a big deal.

So I take it from your explanation of old threads should be closed? Come on Matthew -- there is something else going on here! Be truthful and stop being disingenuous. And who cares if the thread is about LaRoza? Is the association between bean count and LaRoza just "magically" off limits? I'm going to let this go, but give me a break.

Making reps here does not give you leave to call staff liars

You have been given an answer.

KiwiNZ

That's a serious claim. If you can tell me where I called someone a liar -- I'd like to know! Telling someone to be truthful is not the same as calling someone a liar! I'd definitely cite you an infraction if I could for provactive language.

And no I don't believe my original question has been answered. I asked why was the thread closed. Telling me because has the staff has justification to close any thread, and that the content was too old are not appropriate answers. I can point to thousands of threads that meet this criteria. To give me those two answers is being disingenuous.

I'd at least defend Matthew since he has tried to make an effort for explanation. But the original moderator and others who have responded in this thread, lack the integrity to defend their opinions within the CoC. Ive been diplomatic in this thread about demanding answers, but now some of the moderators are becoming quite disrespectful to me as a user. Please be civil. "You have been given an answer" is quite dictatorial in tone!

kevdog said: SCome on Matthew -- there is something else going on here! Be truthful and stop being disingenuous. .

That is where you are saying Matthew is being untruthful ,insincere and as such a liar

kevdog said: I'd definitely cite you an infraction if I could for provactive language.

I have been really patient with your insubordinate and self-righteous tone, but you are treading on thin ice. I'm just about done being patient.

Asking someone to be truthful is not the same thing as calling someone a liar. Someone can not be forthcoming about the entire facts surrounding a situation. Just because someone may fail to reveal or disclose the entire facts surrounding a situation, does not make them a liar. Demanding someone be truthful however is asking them to reveal the entire facts in reference to the situation.

I believe however your accusation about me calling a staff member a liar however is deceitful and a gross misrepresentation of the facts. In a real world situation I would demand an apology for such an accusation, but here in the forums I only ask that my infraction by recanted.

Saying someone is being disingenuous and not being truthful is saying they are not telling the truth . That is calling someone a liar.

Read the definitions of your words.

As with Matthew I am becoming very impatient with your tone and accusations. This can be regarded as your last warning

Saying someone is being disingenuous and not being truthful is not in all cases saying someone is a liar!!! That is ridiculous! There are crimes of omission and comission. The two are not the same.

You have a decision with regards to the thread being reopened.

That decision is that it will not reopen.

This matter is now closed