Why do authors of topics have a moderator like ability to lock their own threads. I can understand this if the threads about them or about their actions but in threads that are discussion, or things that are not about them - it's stupid. If the discussion does not go the way it was planned the author has the ability to lock it, despite the time and effort some people put into their posts and despite any interest others have in the direction of the topic.

 

 

 

What is this rule? Whats it's purpose and justification? To me it's just a way for them to take back a thread when they no longer like it, and moderators keep enforcing it. Last time I checked moderators were the ones who are trained to decide when threads go over a certain boundary and up to date on the rules that are enforced. They decide if it is off topic, and so should act appropriately(ie split those posts from the thread) and not close threads on an the authors request.

I totally understand why you think it's stupid when a thread gets locked due to the author having no more interest toward the topic.

You make a good point. At least maybe things should be changed so that if the author requests it to be locked, anyone who had posted on it can request it to be unlocked. But at the same time that sounds kind of weird. Maybe if you posted on a thread the creator had locked just make a new one of your own on the same topic. Although I do agree that currently it's a little weird that someone can lock their topic just because the repliers don't agree with him/her.

I don't know why people can lock their own topics, when did this happen?

 

It's kind of annoying, especially when the author thinks he's getting flamed when its actually tough critizm.

Why do authors of topics have a moderator like ability to lock their own threads.

 

They don't have the "ability" to lock their own threads. Author-requests for locks however, are honored by staff in most cases.

 

 

 

- Ard

Hence "moderator like ability". Perhaps you can comment on the point rather than the semantics?

I'm surprised the topic which you are talking about wasn't locked before the request. It looks like it was going that annoyingly spammy way.

 

Well I can't be sure it was that topic since you seem to be jumping around different accounts Satenza. :?

 

 

 

Either way whenever someone asks for their topic to be locked it is usually for a decent reason. If it's not then you have remember that anyone can make their own thread if they wish, no one is stopping a decent thread being re-created.

This is not directed at one thread, I spoke to Tallest about this a few weeks ago, it came up in a subject for the clan boards. The one that annoyed me most was maybe 4 weeks ago when there was a 16 page long thread that was locked on the authors request after he had not posted on it since the start. The direction of the topic did not go the way he planned.

 

 

 

What does locking a thread on the authors request achive? Surley if the thread was so off topic it would be locked by a moderator or warned to get back on track. What actually comes from locking the thread? Why stop a discussion thats already happened, and why doesn't the author open a new thread? If anyone can give me something good that comes from authors being able to lock their threads then please give me a reason. Otherwise it's an uneeded and useless rule.

It's not a rule at all. We don't have to lock the threads when the users want. It's just that we choose to do so. But I agree every thread is different, the example you gave of where a 16 page discussion, it depends on the circumstances really but those types of locks are generally quite rare and I suppose it was down to the mod on what to do. But what was stopping you from making a new thread on the subject, in that instance?

It's not a rule at all. We don't have to lock the threads when the users want. It's just that we choose to do so. But I agree every thread is different, the example you gave of where a 16 page discussion, it depends on the circumstances really but those types of locks are generally quite rare and I suppose it was down to the mod on what to do. But what was stopping you from making a new thread on the subject, in that instance?

 

 

 

Why do you choose to do so? There is no other reason other than the author requests for it to be locked. If that was not the reason then the moderator would say "Locked for spam" or give a warning to stay on topic. Instead we get "Thread locked on authors request", and no other reason.

 

 

 

Nothing is stopping me making a thread on topic again (which does not have much to do with the point of this topic), but there is no reason for it to be locked in the first place other than the authors wishes. The 16 page thread which I am referring to had long posts yet to be answered that people spent time on making and thinking out. Just for their time to be wasted for the sole reason that the author wants a thread locked. What if other people find it interesting? Whats stopping the author from creating a new thread and specifying the topic he wants discussed a little more? Whats the point in locking a thread soley on the authors wishes?

 

 

 

What I am bringing up is why can an author request a lock to their thread on a public forum. It is not like they have an authority over it or can control the discussion, thats the moderators job. If there was a reason for locking these threads then they should be given, I understand there was a request on these boards awhile ago that moderators continue to post reasons as to why threads are locked on their reply so people could ask them to be unlocked if they disagreed with them. What does "thread locked on authors request" tell us? Nothing.

I suggested this about 7 months ago, and got directed to another thread which also suggested it.

 

 

 

Thats twice its been suggested and not implimented. This makes it a third, so we'll take the hint.