Rule

[Samuel]

"1.20.1 Do not continue to argue with staff members over staffing related decisions after it has been finalized."

What if the decision isn't right? For example, a moderator might not see your point and make a "final" decision. You should still have the opportunity to discuss more with them.

 

[Justis]

A decision being finalized means that no further discussion will have any influence on the decision that was made; hence the word 'final'.
It means you're just arguing to argue.
It can be said that a decision is never actually finalized until Mick makes that final decision, since he is the one with the power to override a moderator's 'final' decision.

However, once that decision is made, the subject needs to be dropped completely.

Similar to ban appeals. If you made a ban appeal, and after making your case, you were denied, then that's that. You can't start another ban appeal. You should have put forth all relevant information the first time, or said "Wait, while I get this relevant information".
Dragging on your personal issues because you're too stubborn to take responsibility only wastes staff time and therefore the time of everyone else requiring staff support.

 

[Samuel]

A decision being finalized means that no further discussion will have any influence on the decision that was made; hence the word 'final'.
It means you're just arguing to argue.
It can be said that a decision is never actually finalized until Mick makes that final decision, since he is the one with the power to override a moderator's 'final' decision.

However, once that decision is made, the subject needs to be dropped completely.

Similar to ban appeals. If you made a ban appeal, and after making your case, you were denied, then that's that. You can't start another ban appeal. You should have put forth all relevant information the first time, or said "Wait, while I get this relevant information".
Dragging your personal issues on only wastes staff time and therefore the time of everyone else requiring staff support.

I'd be ok with a final decision being left to Mick and only Mick

 

[Justis]

I'd be ok with a final decision being left to Mick and only Mick

It can be said that a decision is never actually finalized until Mick makes that final decision

If a moderator has made their final decision on a topic, and they will let you know that they have, then arguing with them further is a waste of time for everyone. As I've stated above, Mick is the ultimate decision maker, so if you want to continue arguing against a decision that was made, you can bring it to him, but only to him.
And once he's made his decision, that's that. You need to move on.

In a perfect world, however, the mods and Mick agree on everything and we're always on the same page.
Unfortunately, that sometimes fails to be the case. That is why Mick makes the final call.

 

[Samuel]

If a moderator has made their final decision on a topic, and they will let you know that they have, then arguing with them further is a waste of time for everyone. As I've stated above, Mick is the ultimate decision maker, so if you want to continue arguing against a decision that was made, you can bring it to him, but only to him.
And once he's made his decision, that's that. You need to move on.

So then you start a new PM?

"1.20.2 Do not add staff members to a conversation related to or requiring staffing duties without prior permission."
Permission to do this is never going to be granted by a moderator who is adamant that their decision is the ultimate one.

 

[Justis]

So then you start a new PM?

"1.20.2 Do not add staff members to a conversation related to or requiring staffing duties without prior permission."
Permission to do this is never going to be granted by a moderator who is adamant that their decision is the ultimate one.

No, you don't start a new PM; and you are one of the greatest offenders of this, in that you are constantly creating private messages with staff members for the sake of arguing or bumping your complaint because it's not getting handled as fast as you want, and on some occasions even adding normal members to argue on your behalf.
If Mick has made his mind up about a decision which was made, then no you should not create a new PM, creating a new PM will only further waste everyone's time. As I said, at that point you need to move on.

Also, use the ticket system for support or trying to contact a staff member for staffing related duties. If it's something which is appropriate to be taken to private messages, then that can be established in the ticket, where we have records of it as a staff team, and where every staff member who is and or should be involved may offer input on the situation without clogging up their inboxes or including other normal members who should not be involved at all, and if they should, then a private conversation can be made by the staff member(s) handling your issue.

 

[Samuel]

No, you don't start a new PM; and you are one of the greatest offenders of this, in that you are constantly creating private messages with staff members for the sake of arguing or bumping your complaint because it's not getting handled as fast as you want, and on some occasions even adding normal members to argue on your behalf.
If Mick has made his mind up about a decision which was made, then no you should not create a new PM, creating a new PM will only further waste everyone's time. As I said, at that point you need to move on.

Also, use the ticket system for support or trying to contact a staff member for staffing related duties. If it's something which is appropriate to be taken to private messages, then that can be established in the ticket, where we have records of it as a staff team, and where every staff member who is and or should be involved may offer input on the situation without clogging up their inboxes or including other normal members who should not be involved at all, and if they should, then a private conversation can be made by the staff member(s) handling your issue.

I add other members to argue for me because moderators don't get along with me as we previously discussed

 

[Ivain]

I add other members to argue for me because moderators don't get along with me as we previously discussed

That could not possibly be related to how you insist on breaking established practice, could it?

 

[Samuel]

That could not possibly be related to how you insist on breaking established practice, could it?

Arguing my specific cases is off-topic. Please stay on the original topic and keep this as broad as possible. Thanks.

 

[Mick]

Justis summed it up pretty well.

Denied, thanks for the suggestion.