Board Thread:Apply For Staff/@comment-9026519-20160424023728/@comment-9026519-20160424062558

LenLawliet wrote: Flutterbutter wrote: Jackboog21 wrote: It wasn't even highlighted until the 19th. Today was only day 5(or 4, times-zones) of it's highlight. If a thread is ignored and not highlighted for several days, I don't think that should be counted as it's run until it reaches a week past the highlight. I didn't even notice it wasn't highlighted when I left a reply, so I'll take responsibility for that. But it should either not pass or continue running until a week past the highlight.

Here's the problem though. You close down forums that are 7 days older, even if they were highlighted or if they were highlighted late. I think it's unfair for you to be able to pick and choose which ones close earlier and which ones don't. The rules also state " This doesn't mention whether or not it is or is not highlighted. It simply states one week (and 10 supports to pass, though on a different line). That forum ran for one week. It may not have been highlighted at first, but it ran for a week. The rules say one week. I have given adequate proof the forum, time wise was over.
 * 1) A vote should run for a week.

Let me also point out you said "it didn't pass". If this forum didn't run it's full course, then why are you also saying it didn't pass, inferring that it did end?

Wow. Power hungry much Flutter?

If defending a forum of mine from admin bias is being "power hungry" then I feel you're just as bad if not worse. You even supported a forum because '"I'm going to reapply for a staff position when I'm ready. And when people are ready to have me." 'Not only that, but you argued quite a bit and ended up leaving for awhile after you lost your power. If that's not being power hungry, then how is this anything near being "power hungry"?