I'm on the fence about this rule. I'm okay with no topics/posts about this, but I'm a bit miffed about the whole status and blog posts bit. 

I'm fairly sure they want all criticism and complaining to go directly to the staff through the support forum. Generally speaking, complaining over the forums will most likely get you a referral, so nothing actually gets accomplished. I get that bit.

But I'm a tad annoyed at the whole status bit. I mean, can't I say "I'm a pissed off at the warning points I'm being given."

That's probably more of a status update than most updates.

And why not speak of it in the blog? I mean, blogs are generally used to talk about one's life (at least, the purpose is for an extended status update) and if you're invested in the forums enough to care, wouldn't you want to write about your warning points, in a similar fashion as you would if you got detention at school.

I see how someone like you would disagree with it, but if you're going to leave in the end anyway, don't bother posting stuff like this, it doesn't make anypony happier.

I see how someone like you would disagree with it, but if you're going to leave in the end anyway, don't bother posting stuff like this, it doesn't make anypony happier.

"Someone like me"? I'm just as much of a member as you, and I've been here longer too lol

The biggest problem with allowing it is that users who get warned are not likely to give the full story or possibly only their half of the story.  Cultural differences and so forth can arguably change what one person sees that is OK and another that isn't.

As for the whole feedback thing I will agree with you on the basis that the more behind-the-scenes staff are the less likely it is assumed things will get done.  The problem that discpinary actions lie is that each case is different, most games I've played keep those matters private   There really isn't a reason if somepony broke the rules that the site has to know about it (arguably I've seen cases in other communities where moderators do in fact punish users in public and that in and of itself backfires on the unwanted drama department).

The last point I can think of is that it has to be about consistency.  Having the things done through the ticket system means everything is in hooves' range for staff to verify and that it's difficult to say 'X can talk about this while Z cannot' despite the only possible differences is either tone or the warning itself.

Needless to say I wish this rule existed from other sites I used to visit.  Sure many and tons of sites have these rules and it's always the ones that don't that seem to have the biggest problems in calming user disputes.

I can certainly see the administrator side of this, being one on a different side of this.

Of course I understand that one can definitely feel limited in what they can say, but from what I've seen on the site I'm an administrator of...

Just about every user that publicly complains about their warning/ban is a user that is 100% guilty of an offense. And they always either say "I don't know why I was banned!" or "I was obviously banned for being right". These people are neglecting the actual story (intentionally or not) and sometimes choose to ignore it when an administrator directly addresses them via Private Message.

I, personally, wouldn't want to see a bunch of people trying to stir up drama in public for no real reason because they're angry for being warned/banned, as such issues should be dealt with properly by contacting the administrators.

If the warning/ban IS valid, then the only person you have to blame is yourself and there's no real reason to drag others into a mess that doesn't concern them in the first place. And to maintain consistency, as Prismatic has stated, if the users with valid warnings/bans can't complain publicly, no one else should either.