Spoiler: bit of background information I've been on these forums for many months now. So, naturally, I've seem many threads get locked. While I agree with most of the mods' and admins' decisions, there were a couple that I disagree with. But since the rules state that you must agree with what the mods do, so I am perfectly fine with these choices. (Discussing the above isn't the point of this thread by the way.) So the point of this thread is pretty much explained in the title. What must a thread come to for it to be locked?
Actually, there's a staff rule That states you can criticize the staff without Risk of post deletion. Rule 5 specifically.
I'm fairly sure it's anything that breaks the rules or threatens to.... Than again, some could be of mods personal prejudices...
Surely something that petty deserves to stick to the PMs or VMs. But on topic, one particular example where I disagreed was where a thread was locked because they thought that it would turn into a flame war, when it was actually far from it. - - Auto Merge - - Also when one member rages, the thread gets locked. Why should we miss out on the fun if one person can't handle it?
For a thread to be locked, it has to prove itself in some way detrimental to the State of the community or be completely resolved. That being said, in regards to locking out a thread because of a few members, we're actually fiddling around with ways to evict certain members from certain threads so this doesn't become a thin where the minority screws it up for the majority. To be blunt here though, it's more of a process than anything where we go "This thread isn't looking too good, someone keep an eye on it." which will later turn into "This has gotten out of control, should we lock it?" and then a few of us will voice an opinion. As for the times where a thread shouldn't have been locked, well, we messed up I guess; human error. Live and learn, y'know? Edit: You can always ask for an unlock you know, that's a thing
You do realize that all that's saying is you'll be punished for not following the rules, right? It doesn't say to agree with and like everything the mods do. Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2
I think you misinterpreted it. That's not in regards to opinion, that's in regards to following other rules and stuff. Like, say User A is being a troll. I tell User A to stop. User A doesn't stop, he gets in trouble. You're perfectly allowed to have an opinion as to whether or not a locking was justified, just shoot someone a PM if you ever want to discuss it. :3
I'm pretty sure you can appeal to a mod for threads to be re-opened. Though I haven't seen any mod make irrational choices so far. Until then, I'm completely fine with their decisions when tackling potentially argumentative/abusive threads. Even if it is denying reality to wish for complete and utter Love and Tolerance, this is the closest I have to escaping discrimination in my own world, so selfishly I would love to keep it all frolicking in fields of flowers, bunnies and rainbows. I don't think there's anything wrong with a bit of escapism.
Yeah I do. If I've come across as if I'm butthurt, sorry for the misunderstanding. In fact, I'm currently kind of voicing my opinion against the mods in this thread. How badass am I? I made this thread because, unless the staff have the rules somewhere else, there is no guidelines as to when a thread should be locked. While human error is almost certain, a list would hopefully reduce this (even if it is by the smallest percentage). Also, if members remember this list, it may avoid situations where the thread has to be closed in the first place. Zeph, you were saying about disabling certain members access to certain threads. That would be ideal, although it's probably much, much more complicated than it sounds. - - Auto Merge - - Yeah, I wasn't serious. If you met me in real life, you'd know that a lot of what I say is meant as a joke. It's harder to portray feelings through text.
It might not have been deserving of an unlock. Many times have I seen a thread locked, for better or for worse. Seldom is it discrimination, yet you cannot dismiss that as a factor. If it is, you are able to report it to the higher up. In response to the original post, in general threads, they are usually locked if the thread gets so far offtopic or it's becoming a problem within the community. As for questions about the site itslef, it is usually locked when the question is resolved. For threads where the moderating team is announcing a new addition to the site itself such as an update to coding or the like, I have never seen one locked.
I think I wrote that line? Hasn't been changed since then? Anyway, my interpretation: If a man owns a field and says some kids can play football/soccer/rugby on it, providing they follow some basic rules - you'd do it right? That's fair enough, because it's HIS field. If you took a dump on it, he's gonna get mad and tell you that you can't play on it no more. For a multitude of reasons like him having to clean the crap up and the other kids being perpetually disturbed by the experience... This is very much the same thing. As much as we'd all like it to be a perfect utopia "run by the community", some pony has to pay the bills and make the tough decisions - thus if you break the rules (which are in place for the benefit of everyone/to stop EP becoming 4chan or a field full of crap^) that person has a right to say, look no, this isn't working, go away/we don't want you here/discussing that. That doesn't really answer your question I know, but it's relevant in retort to what a lot of people are saying. If y'all wanna go buy your own field and rent it out for free, with your own rules and time put into it, no one is stopping you. And if you like people crapping on yo' fields, you can let them do that too. EDIT: Damn. Somepony sticky this post.
Hmmm... Well, let's take a look at a rule: Let's focus on this part. The second part of it below is about starting threads directly to do the above, so I'll not deal with that for I agree that should not be done. So, anyone criticizing anyone else on the site is violating this rule. Does this work both ways? If someone (User A) posts an argument or statement that is not popular and may anger another user (User B) and User B says something directed back about User A - like how they should leave the thread and no one wants them here, etc. should not User B be subject to this rule and disciplinary action? User A has merely taken an unpopular and perhaps controversial viewpoint. User B has criticized User A. My questions are as follows: Will (and has) this rule be used in this way as I read it, so it protects all viewpoints, no matter the source or content (within the constraints of the other rules of course)? Or will it be used to quell discontent and enforce a totalitarian view?
It would depend on how the situation is presented. If User A is just responding with her opinion or argument, and keeps a calm attitude, there isn't any issue. User B is free to respond with his/her own argument against User A. However, User B can't throw an insult against User A's view/s, that's when moderator intervention is likely to occur - to prevent User A from reinforcing his views with (probably) a more angered response possibly fueling an argument. Does that kind of answer you question?
Or in more extreme cases you can petition for a moderator to be punished via the complaint box. We aren't above criticism, and some of us overstep our boundaries a lot. This is a last resort, however. Let me make it clear, however, that there is a very clear difference between 'He did something wrong. Can something be done?' and 'Get rid of him.' Something can always be done, but we can't just up and remove people because 2 or 3 people want it. If you have evidence to support your claim, present it in a stable and unbiased manner. We will investigate accordingly.
