appealing thread locks

What if we bring up the topic again after a long period of time, like six months? Would that be a long enough of a cool-down time to reboot the thread?

Yes. January sounds reasonable.

...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.

OK, thanks.

I'll drop the subject at that.

edited 3rd Aug '11 1:26:03 PM by SpellBlade

Let me ask just to make sure I understand, January I can appeal again, or january I can start the thread "Entries that make you go "Wut": Mark II?

He who fights bronies should see to itthat he himself does not become a brony. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, Pinkie Pie gazes Also

In January you can ask to start the thread over.

...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.

Can I ask then about edit banned then too?

edited 3rd Aug '11 2:54:40 PM by dontcallmewave

He who fights bronies should see to itthat he himself does not become a brony. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, Pinkie Pie gazes Also

PM the person who locked the thread.

How do I find out the person who locked the thread?

^If the last poster is a mod talking about why the thread's getting locked, that's generally a pretty good clue.

Infinite Tree: an experimental story

It's not. Now what?

Then look for the latest mod post. If you don't know who the mods are, there's a handy list available by searching around.

Quest 64 thread

What thread are you talking about?

The easiest way to get in touch with a mod—assuming you don't know which one you want to talk to—is to Holler from the thread in question.

I'm bad, and that's good. I will never be good, and that's not bad. There's no one I'd rather be than me.

So what was the reason that it got locked, now? Because the idea I got from Madrugada's post is that the whole problem was that discussion was happening in a thread in a discussion forum, which sounds kinda...stupid as a reason to lock a thread.

Was there flaming in the last few pages (I think I missed it???)? Or was it that the Mods would have preferred the thread was only about the examples (only examples and no discussion, even?)?

If the latter, I think a warning to keep things truly and only narrowly on-topic with no side-discussion would have been nice. Sure, there was a warning at one point to keep things on-topic, but it was no different from warnings in OTC threads, and I don't think we went more off-topic than some OTC threads (want me to do the post count for the GOP thread?).

Moderators need to be as unambiguous as possible; if you leave anything vague or forget to specify how a thread is going to be moderated a lot stricter than others it's no good. People can't read the minds of the mods, so tell us, and everyone will be happier.

"That said, as I've mentioned before, apart from the helmet, he's not exactly bad looking, if a bit...blood-drenched." - juancarlos

I don't get that impression at all. There concrete reasons given in the locked thread and they do no equate with "no discussion about anything ever." Plus, there have been several other issues raised in this thread that don't amount to that, either.

We don't do complaint threads. This one started with "AKA entries that you find stupid." Like Ironeye said, a dark gray area at best. Then it decayed: people started randomly chatting. Some of them started bitching about tropers and other matters. So after 7236 posts, a thread that started off pushing the border of acceptability got locked. I don't see why that would raise even one eyebrow.

The absence of this thread shouldn't slow down anyone who wants to do something about "stupid entries" rather than just complain. We've got an abundance of threads where we thrash out what constitutes a problem entry and how to fix the problem, if any.

It started off as a grey area, yes.

But it ran for, as you said, 7236 posts, with the premise still being the same. This was despite moderators posting in the thread- and, yes, even Fast Eddie posted in the thread.

Then, after this many posts, there was a derail that was dropped before a moderator got there, and it was locked.

It was cited that the thread had gone off-topic and had drifted to attacking Tropers. However, there were no warnings, the posters in the thread had no idea that their behaviour would cause the thread to be locked.

Instead, it was locked without warning. If there had been a warning, I could understand. But it wasn't.

If behaviour is going bad enough that a thread lock may be needed soon in the future, then a warning is appropriate.

There is an unofficial rule in Yack Fest, that some posters outright say: "Derails happen. Deal with it ". I am not meaning anything by that, except that in the area the thread was in, derails are not only common, but threads that do not derail are the odd exception. Furthermore, the longer a thread gets, the further off-topic it usually is.

There was no indication that this was not the case in the thread.

If the thread was locked because of personal attacks, that is slightly more understandable but it is still annoying, as no mods stepped in and said "Cut that out."

A thread lock should not be your first recourse. If people are doing something wrong in the thread, then they should be told this, because how else are they going to know that their behaviour is disapproved of?

In short, I believe that if people's behaviour is wrong, they should be told so. You should not lock the thread they were posting their behaviour in unless the thread has no chance for salvation, which was not the case here.

I suspect that everyone would be a lot less upset if the thread had been warned- if the moderators had given any indication recently that that behaviour is unacceptable, rather than locking it out of nowhere.

After all, is that not the purpose of the Thump feature?

There are too many toasters in my chimney!

my point exactly

He who fights bronies should see to itthat he himself does not become a brony. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, Pinkie Pie gazes Also

I can see the point from both sides. The ones appealing the lock has the point that there was no warning, and the mods say that second chances usually end badly.

So basically, it's yet another incident that could've been handled better.

But I'm backing up my "six-month" proposal to be safe.

edited 4th Aug '11 7:57:21 AM by chihuahua0

The question that is bothering me about this discussion is why do people have to be told that the behavior is unacceptable when there are clearly posted forum rules?

A warning is just a moderator being nice about an infraction, it isn't a requirement. No one owes anyone multiple chances or a discussion, especially since the rules and expectations are clearly stated.

That the mods let the thread slide for as long as we did was a gift. That the mods are willing to entertain the idea of the thread being recreated in the future is another gift. And remember, these are gifts, not rights.

So apparently, that is an official rule. Okay then. But the 'personal attack' rule still stands as a reason to lock it.

This is not a very good attitude to have, but whatever. I will, though, point out that there are multiple precedents for a moderator posting a warning before locking the thread if the premise of the thread was not breaking the rules. While that may just be politeness and not a necessity, it is still, well, polite. It is not very hard to figure out why people are questioning your decision if you usually do things one way, but then decide to do it another way for this one thread while not doing it to others. I have already seen people asking if Madrugada was just waiting for an excuse to lock the thread, because without warning people beforehand, that's what it looks like.

May I please ask what other threads are just being tolerated and may be locked or deleted at any time?

There are too many toasters in my chimney!

I agree with this, but here's the thing...

There was more than one poster in that thread. Why lock a thread because it had 2-3 people who were complaining and attacking? Why not warn them and thump them as needed so those of us who follow the rules would be able to keep using the thread?

And if the rule breaking got massive...well, I apologize, but not all of the people in there were rule breakers and I don't think that locking the thread was really necessary. A warning and thumps would have sufficed, in my opinion.

"My life is my own" | If you want to contact me privately, please ask first on the forum.

It's always irritating when a perfectly acceptable thread gets locked because of one troll or unruly poster.

Kill all math nerds

Just read the forum rules, and I fail to see how the thread in question violated them any more then most other threads

He who fights bronies should see to itthat he himself does not become a brony. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, Pinkie Pie gazes Also

Threads with an inherently negative premise aka complaining threads. They start on their last warning (see: the closure of IJBM). If they can stay on the right side of the line, great, but they get locked down at the first signs of trouble. A similar thread with a broader premise (eg Entertaining Entries—covering all entries that are interesting to read, no matter the reason) would have been treated like a "normal" thread.

I'm bad, and that's good. I will never be good, and that's not bad. There's no one I'd rather be than me.

Okay.

There are too many toasters in my chimney!

So Maybe instead of bein locked, it should have been retitled?

He who fights bronies should see to itthat he himself does not become a brony. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, Pinkie Pie gazes Also