An admin abuse suggestion

[edgie]

Alright, in my opinion, and others that I know, I do not think that admins arguing against a person who calls abuse in a thread should be able to close that same thread right away. I find it annoying that an admin can just say "oh no abuse, so too bad". I think only Super admins, Soul, and Nudelholz should be able to close any abuse threads. It is obvious in a thread that does not need to be named that an admin argued against the abuse, and decided that they did not want to have to deal with it anymore, and locked it.
This was the lock reason:
"Thread was locked for duration of review to avoid evidence tampering."

..hmm? evidence tampering? what does that even mean? There was a screenshot slapped on the first page. This should not continue happening. More input should be in the thread, and should not be closed in around 4-5 hours. Especially if there is evidence of the rule broken, admins should not be able to close a thread whenever they want.
I am not trying to make a flame thread. I am just making my opinion here. I think super admins and the two leaders would be able to handle the situation more appropriately.

[Killjoy]

Only SAA and Owners can make a final call. Your thread was locked to avoid any posts being edited and it was no longer progressing anywhere. Look up the word "ESCALATED" in a dictionary.

[equal]

How do you guys know that they haven't made the final call in the Admin's Office?

Maybe Soul, Dry, Pinkie or Nudel is busy doing something else?

So, they ask Killjoy to go close the thread, aslong as it isnt the accused admin who closes the thread right away I see no problem..

[Killjoy]

You received your argument. This thread proves one of my earlier claims, as you are very interested in causing a commotion, shouting abuse and corruption at anything to cause a stir and badmouth our staff, just as a tabloid paper does with local governments. I'll quote my reply to your arguments and evidence.

You claimed abuse against BlackDog for saying 'go to hell.' You reported that you find this to be inappropriate behavior from an [FL] staff representative.

This is not a damnation with any religious grounds, as BlackDog did not make any religious claims there nor was there such a background set. This is a phrase, not the politest one - I'll give you that, but not an offense either.

In my eyes, the administrator accused of inappropriate actions did not breach any of our rules, neither did he carry out any misuse of his authority or the tools at his disposal.

Your reply was unconstructive, proved that you had nothing to add to the case besides argue in a childish "NO YOU" manner. Thus I locked and escalated the case to be reviewed to avoid any uncivil behavior breaking out, but hey, that didn't work out too well either.

[edgie]

(Equalizer)
Because by saying this you have obviously not read the thread.
Read the last page. Slick's message, replies, and finally the lock. It speaks for itself.

[Slick Rick]

Deleted what I posted, because I don't want to bring this to a whole other thread.

Read the admin abuse thread for proof I'm not using a NO YOU template.

[Faustie]

Several times recently I have intervened in admin abuse threads to stop any oversightedness or possible forums abuse by my fellow admins, specifically looking at s.J's thread here. I do this to keep admin abuse threads objective and actually reviewing the admin at hand, as well as anyone else involved which may have lead to the incident, i.e. this one.

In this case, I fully support Killjoy's actions. He did good, and escalated the thread, not closed it, there's a difference, he's preventing fighting breaking out in it and leaving it for superadmins+ to review. I also fully agree with everything Killjoy has said in this thread.