Lock Requests

[Lateralus]

Firstly, I'm not PMing this to a staff member because this way I might get a little bit more weight behind this, assuming it's not just my opinion.

 

 

 

Does it bother anyone else when you see "locked under request of author" as a reason for a lock? The only control I'd like to see an author have over a discussion is in the original post, and even then it's pretty minimal. Once the thread is out there, it's not really yours anymore. I'm sure at sometime someone has had a discussion killed because the author decided the conversation was over, and I can imagine that's pretty annoying. Of course there's got to be extreme circumstances where it'll happen, but I think mods could be a little more selective about allowing this.

[Zierro]

If people are flaming you, then I guess it's alright to avoid further disputes. But I agree, there is still discussion value that could be held if there are no problems on the thread.

[tripsis]

Unless things have changed since I left Staff, moderators are only supposed to accept lock requests if their entire first post has been edited out. Then in that case, the moderator is supposed to make it clear that the thread may be recreated. Otherwise moderators are supposed to leave the thread alone and decline the request.

[mrpez]

i agree with you, but if the thread has veered off-topic and/or is full of flames, then the author should be able to ask for it to be locked.

 

 

 

the mods will never take that privilege away from authors of threads unfortunately

[Lateralus]

Unless things have changed since I left Staff, moderators are only supposed to accept lock requests if their entire first post has been edited out. Then in that case, the moderator is supposed to make it clear that the thread may be recreated. Otherwise moderators are supposed to leave the thread alone and decline the request.

 

 

 

Sorry, I didn't mean to place the blame squarely on the mods. It would be nice if people didn't feel the need to even ask for a lock.

[Powman3]

He got the idea from my last thread I asked to lock. I know it. :oops:

 

 

 

I felt that I was tired of arguing with everyone and that I thought I had enough advice to use. So I wanted it locked so I didn't have to fight anymore and make people think the wrong thing. So... yeah....

 

 

 

I believe the my reasons for asking for it to be locked were decent.

[Lateralus]

He got the idea from my last thread I asked to lock. I know it. :oops:

 

 

 

I felt that I was tired of arguing with everyone and that I thought I had enough advice to use. So I wanted it locked so I didn't have to fight anymore and make people think the wrong thing. So... yeah....

 

 

 

I believe the my reasons for asking for it to be locked were decent.

 

 

 

The locking of your thread just brought it to the front of my mind - I didn't mean it in any kind of spiteful way.

 

 

 

If I was a different way inclined I could easily see why you locked it, and the reasons you did are quite obvious, but it would have been just as easy to either ignore the argument or just post and say you wouldn't be responding to it further. I just don't see the necessity of the lock (and ideally locks should be due to necessity).You sacrificed the prospect of any further advice when you got the thread locked.

[Giordano]

I see where you're coming from. I remember some topics being locked after they turned slightly off-topic but still revelant to the original thread and got locked. Wheither there were flaming I do not recall.

 

 

 

I guess I have to wait to see what other mods think.

[Powman3]

When you say that, I feel it's kinda true. But I got tired of the 'You're the typical teenager' stuff when I had already admitted I had the similarities of one, and I felt I had enough advice to keep me going anyway. So I wanted it gone. I know now who is willing to help me now and who isn't, so I'm okay.

[BlueLancer]

If someone just says 'lock my topic because ppl r disagreeing wit me' it's not really a good enough reason -.- Lateralus is right on that, it's not really "their" thread if all they did was open a discussion. (But if it goes way off topic and talk about global warming turns into 4chan and Star Trek cameos, it's reasonable to just close it if that author wishes so)

[Powman3]

If someone just says 'lock my topic because ppl r disagreeing wit me' it's not really a good enough reason -.- Lateralus is right on that, it's not really "their" thread if all they did was open a discussion. (But if it goes way off topic and talk about global warming turns into 4chan and Star Trek cameos, it's reasonable to just close it if that author wishes so)

 

 

 

I hope you're not pointing that statement towards me. :oops:

[dsavi]

Unless things have changed since I left Staff, moderators are only supposed to accept lock requests if their entire first post has been edited out. Then in that case, the moderator is supposed to make it clear that the thread may be recreated. Otherwise moderators are supposed to leave the thread alone and decline the request.

 

Not bashing the staff here or anything, but I've hardly seen that happen.

[PoorLepRecon]

Unless things have changed since I left Staff, moderators are only supposed to accept lock requests if their entire first post has been edited out. Then in that case, the moderator is supposed to make it clear that the thread may be recreated. Otherwise moderators are supposed to leave the thread alone and decline the request.

 

Not bashing the staff here or anything, but I've hardly seen that happen.

 

 

 

Me neither. They normally just lock it.

 

 

 

I agree that topics should be left open even if the original poster decides he is done with it. There would be plenty of discussion left in it, and the original poster can just ignore the thread, not make everyone stop discussing it. Though there are times when it is necessary to lock it on user request, most cases it is not.

[doomy]

Yah, for things like a question or a personal issue I can see why, but an open discussion about something shouldn't be under the authors control if it's locked or not.

 

 

 

It always gets locked though.

[tripsis]

Unless things have changed since I left Staff, moderators are only supposed to accept lock requests if their entire first post has been edited out. Then in that case, the moderator is supposed to make it clear that the thread may be recreated. Otherwise moderators are supposed to leave the thread alone and decline the request.

 

Not bashing the staff here or anything, but I've hardly seen that happen.

 

 

 

Me neither. They normally just lock it.

 

 

 

I agree that topics should be left open even if the original poster decides he is done with it. There would be plenty of discussion left in it, and the original poster can just ignore the thread, not make everyone stop discussing it. Though there are times when it is necessary to lock it on user request, most cases it is not.

 

In that case - I sent a PM to an administrator, suggesting that unless their policy has changed, they post a reminder for the moderators about not locking threads on request unless the entire first post has been edited out :)

[silver_wits]

um... my personal opinion is that if it's in flames, locked.

 

if it's already been done, locked.

 

if everyone is all talked out.. and there's just too much stuff... locked.

 

 

 

but usually the mods read the threads.. or at least scan through it to see wtf is the reason for a lock.

 

I'd like to think that mods aren't turning into bots and are still sentient.

 

and have a good amount of common sense.

[Jimmyw3000]

I'm pretty sure sometimes mods lock threads on requests if the thread's also become pointless, for example a thread owner who made a thread on a website crash may ask for it to be locked after it's back up and running, as it becomes pointless.

 

 

 

But it does get annoying when i see a thread locked that still had discussion value left in or a thread that's been locked in which i'm like to post my view.

[tripsis]

um... my personal opinion is that if it's in flames, locked.

 

if it's already been done, locked.

 

if everyone is all talked out.. and there's just too much stuff... locked.

 

 

 

but usually the mods read the threads.. or at least scan through it to see wtf is the reason for a lock.

 

I'd like to think that mods aren't turning into bots and are still sentient.

 

and have a good amount of common sense.

 

 

 

I'm pretty sure sometimes mods lock threads on requests if the thread's also become pointless, for example a thread owner who made a thread on a website crash may ask for it to be locked after it's back up and running, as it becomes pointless.

 

 

 

But it does get annoying when i see a thread locked that still had discussion value left in or a thread that's been locked in which i'm like to post my view.

 

Yeah that's the general way we went about it when I was an admin. That's what I tried to promote anyway. If it's a thread in Help & Advice or something where the author is asking for assistance, it's okay to lock. But if it's a thriving discussion that isn't violating/touching any rules, then leave it open.

[QueenValerie]

Unless things have changed since I left Staff, moderators are only supposed to accept lock requests if their entire first post has been edited out. Then in that case, the moderator is supposed to make it clear that the thread may be recreated. Otherwise moderators are supposed to leave the thread alone and decline the request.

 

 

 

Yes that is still our policy sometimes we all just need to be reminded. ;)

[1_man_army]

Yeah lock requests can be annoying. I think a lot of the time they happen because the author of the thread hasn't gotten a positive response to their topic (ie when they make stupid topics and get flamed accordingly) and other times it feels like topics are locked on request because of genuine differences of opinion (even though that perception often may not be the case).

 

 

 

In these cases, it often feels like a cop-out (by the OP) to avoid conflict when they haven't got their own way. Sometimes I'd rather see topics that are affected by flaming stay open and cleaned of the offending posts but to be fair to staff, that is a pain in the backside with so many topics and it takes time.

[Lionheart_0]

What if the reason is more "I asked something and it is over, so this thread is no further use". There is a difference between asking a question to get help and creating a discussion.

 

 

 

I know this thread is directed at me, so you will next time PM me if you have trouble with my moderating, Lateralus.

 

 

 

Edit: I have re-opened this topic.

 

 

 

I from now on will not accept ANY PM's from people requesting me to look at stuff. Everyone WILL use the report button and wait in line to get stuff done.

 

 

 

This should be locked, but I will leave it open for it's 'discussion value':

 

 

 

2.6 - Tip.It Staff

 

 

 

Moderators and Administrators of this site monitor your compliance with the rules of the site and dispense disciplinary action at their discretion. Any posts containing inappropriate content will either be edited or removed from the forums and posting such Words/Phrases/Content after being warned can result in being suspended from Tip.It forums for a given amount of time defined by the infraction and the Staff Member. If you are consistent about posting this sort of content after you have been warned you will be permanently suspended from the site. NOTE: Moderators do not have the ability to ban people. Only Administrators have the power to do this. There are always at least 2 people involved in putting a ban in place - the Moderator who finds a breaking of the rules and the Administrator who takes the action they feel is appropriate.

 

 

 

Tip.It Moderators and Administrators use their discretion in taking any actions. They are here to ensure the rules are applied, to keep order, and to help members. Posting personal attacks against Tip.It Moderators or Staff Members for taking these actions is not tolerated. If you disagree with an action taken by a Moderator, DO NOT confront Tip.It Moderators or Staff Members anywhere on the forums, NOR anywhere else (3rd party messenger programs, chats, etc). Please attempt to resolve the issue through PM's (private messages) in a professional matter. If you are not satisfied with the resolution, please send your complaint to the Tip.It Administrator. Moderators will give everyone the respect they deserve, it's only fair they get the same in return.

 

 

Impersonating or acting like a Tip.It Moderator or Staff Member is forbidden and can result in disciplinary action. This includes use of "Official Tip.It" in thread topics, descriptions or content. If a user finds a thread or post that is inappropriate please report the thread or post and let the administration and moderating staff handle the situation.

[Lateralus]

What if the reason is more "I asked something and it is over, so this thread is no further use". There is a difference between asking a question to get help and creating a discussion.

 

 

 

I know this thread is directed at me, so you will next time PM me if you have trouble with my moderating, Lateralus.

 

 

 

Silly silly, how could you possibly know that? I don't pay much attention who locks a thread. This is directed at you as much as it is directed at powman - Meaning you two were involved in the last instance before I posted this, but you're hardly the single cause for it. Anyway, what would be the point in PMing you specifically if you were just following regulations? I certainly didn't know what the procedure was until I posted this, and now I do. I was suggesting that the procedure be altered, not that some mods tighten up.

 

 

 

What's the point in locking a thread just because someone has the advice they need? I don't see any need to actively prevent further posts just because someone is satisfied. Like I said earlier, it's not their thread. Once it's been posted it belongs to the forum.

 

 

 

If I had a problem with you specifically I would have mentioned you, alright? I don't do passive aggressive.

 

 

 

EDIT to respond to your edit: It only made sense for me to post this, a PM wouldn't have been very useful at all - It would just have been my opinion. By doing this I got some weight behind it. Mods and admins have been through this topic without locking it, I suppose because they can see this is the only sensible way of bringing something like this up.

[dsavi]

Have to say I agree with Lateralus' edit, pming wouldn't really reflect the general opinion of normal users.

[dragoonson]

Have to say I agree with Lateralus' edit, pming wouldn't really reflect the general opinion of normal users.

 

 

 

Kinda obvious now :twss:

[Lionheart_0]

Have to say I agree with Lateralus' edit, pming wouldn't really reflect the general opinion of normal users.

 

Had he not added the very first line to his post about how he should of pmed someone, I would of assumed this thread was just a general discussion on the issue, and that is fine. But the first line tells me he had a problem with something that was done, and I was the last person to lock a thread under the request of someone else, so it tells me he had a problem with something I did and is broadening the topic to get support of his peers (which is fine and is a very good thing to do, but again, if he had not put the first line to his initial post, it wouldn't come off as more of a subtle attack to me).

 

 

 

In response to Lateralus: Lol, please don't bring Powman into this, he just asked me to do a simple task, it was my fault that I pushed the button.

 

 

 

What's the point in locking a thread just because someone has the advice they need? I don't see any need to actively prevent further posts just because someone is satisfied. Like I said earlier, it's not their thread. Once it's been posted it belongs to the forum.

 

The only problem I have with this is that by saying this, you say that everyone on this forum is equal in such a way that if someone posts a bad thread, that it's not solely their fault, its everyones fault, because it belongs to everyone. Ownership of threads are needed (At least I feel), so that we can distinguish between who creates good threads and who creates bad ones. Now, just because I think a thread should have ownership, does not mean discussion should. By this I mean that if one thread is locked due to some reason, it does not mean that discussion can end. Another user can restart up that discussion, as long as it isn't the discussion that is locked out, just the thread.