|
Post by henry on May 3, 2007 11:39:49 GMT -5
Why is it the policy of this board to have off-topic threads locked?
|
|
|
Post by dietspam16 on May 3, 2007 13:34:07 GMT -5
Its become policy not of the board at large but instead decided by individual moderators... I for example only locked threads that were stupid and or offensive, while other moderators believe or have believed it is appropriate to lock anything deemed offtopic. Pavel kinda stays out of it...
|
|
|
Post by Monolith on May 3, 2007 18:04:51 GMT -5
I thought it was going downhill, so I locked it. It's common policy to lock OT threads though.
|
|
|
Post by henry on May 3, 2007 18:08:07 GMT -5
I don't see the sense in that. We were having a conversation in that thread and although it was not on the original topic, it was still being enjoyed and wasn't harming anyone.
|
|
|
Post by Monolith on May 3, 2007 18:13:18 GMT -5
I think you mean 'they' were having a conversation since you weren't involved. Your right though, in the future I'll just wave my mod stick and maybe delete the offending posts. Someone already started a new topic though, so there's not much sense in reopening the old one.
|
|
|
Post by henry on May 3, 2007 18:17:43 GMT -5
That's not the point. There is no sense in a policy that calls for the deleting of posts or locking of threads when the "offending" material doesn't offend, and it's rude to interrupt a friend when he's talking.
edit: Obviously this was not your intent.
|
|
|
Post by Monolith on May 3, 2007 18:26:35 GMT -5
I already said you were right and that it was somewhat of an overeaction, I don't see what the problem is anymore. The only reason I even locked that one was because I've seen threads where people start getting on each other's case about spamming and then it goes downhill into a flame war. I'm sorry for doing my job, and I'm getting pretty tired of getting elected and then people complaining about it. There's no reason to get up in arms about such a minor event.
|
|
|
Post by dietspam16 on May 3, 2007 22:51:05 GMT -5
Sorry nick, Henry is just having the same rant I had a few months ago. This really isn't about you. This is a generation of hippie children seeing your actions as microcosmic paralells of our government, and taking advantage of the stronger voice we have here than in government at large. My perspective on your mod situation is that people like you, and they like you as mod, but they're going to be upset everytime you lock a thread they dont' see as a flame war. At the very least, that's what's up with me: I'm going to keep voting for you, but that doesn't mean I won't object if you lock a thread I enjoy.
|
|
|
Post by henry on May 3, 2007 23:10:21 GMT -5
No.
If people are having a conversation, there is no reason why a conversation should not be allowed to continue, regardless of the thread topic. The exception being if someone objects, in which case they may make their objection known by saying something. What is closing a thread or deleting posts, really?
If we were all talking in person and the subject of conversation changed, would it be reasonable for someone to duct tape all our mouths shut?
(clearly this isn't about you closing that thread, Nick)
|
|
|
Post by Archagon on May 3, 2007 23:50:35 GMT -5
The "conversation" was stupid and clearly going nowhere.
|
|
|
Post by henry on May 4, 2007 0:04:02 GMT -5
And?
If we were all talking in person and some of us were saying silly things and having a laugh, would it be reasonable for one of us to put duct tape over everyones' mouths?
|
|
|
Post by Archagon on May 4, 2007 0:17:06 GMT -5
But we're not talking in person. This is a public forum. Predominantly private discussions should be held in private. This is what the PM system is for.
|
|
|
Post by Monolith on May 4, 2007 0:20:37 GMT -5
Well, I've more or less appologised for my actions and I'm done, but I'd like to add a few coments. This is not public, you do not have freedom of speech. What's reasonable doesn't matter. I'm not so brash as to say that I own the forum, I'm just an elected mod, but if I owned the forum there would be nothing, polite or not, that would not be reasonable for me to do. If I wanted to ban all the members, or lock threads randomly, then it would be my choice and right. In other words, "My house, my rules." If you don't like it then leave, so to speak. What I'm getting at is that, if I were Pavel and therefor the site admin, I would not need reason or justification for my actions. That is not to imply that you would have to like me. This is hypothetical, however, as there are certain content restrictions established by the owners of the server and legality in the US. These are irrelivent in this context though.
Directly relating to the situation, however, is the matter of 'duct taping our mouths shut.' Nobody is duct taping your mouths, you can start a new thread and continue talking, as happened. However, when the nature of the conversation becomes threatening, as I perhaps mistakenly deemed it so, then there is nothing wrong with an outside party stepping in to close the subject. It's why we have security guards at school and bouncers in bars.
In addition, the policy is there on other boards to avoid clutter and post count whoring. Neither of these is a problem on these boards, but it bears mentioning for seeing the picture as a whole.
|
|
|
Post by henry on May 4, 2007 0:22:25 GMT -5
[this post was written before I saw Nick's post]
I disagree.
Almost everyone on this forum is friends with everyone else on the forum, and although anyone could come to this forum if they felt like it, they generally don't. This is, effectively, a private forum. In a true public forum, the moderator's purpose is to control the chaos that is anonymous public communication.
What is the purpose of a moderator in this forum?
|
|
|
Post by henry on May 4, 2007 0:26:00 GMT -5
|
|