Lock Requests

[Lateralus]

I put the first line in as a buffer so I could possibly get some kind of lenience from mods when they read it, because I know it's the kind of thing the staff prefer to keep in PM's, but like I said that would be of no use to me.

 

 

 

I'm not bringing Powman into anything - He's already posted on the thread, where I spoke to him perfectly respectfully and he even seems to agree with me now. You're the one that's making a personal issue about this, in much the same way Powman nearly did until I said I wasn't pointing the finger. It was just sort of a 'straw that broke the camel's back' situation. You and Powman just happened to be involved in the case that made me finally want to address it.

 

 

 

As for the last thing you said, I think it's sort of an odd extrapolation you're making, but I can sort of see why. The original poster gets credit for starting the discussion of course, and you'll still be able to tell who the good posters are without giving them any control over the threads they create. I would just like to see locks used as worst case scenarios. By this I don't mean that mods should be more liberal about enforcing the rules, just that it would be nice if threads were only locked if it's actually required.

[Rainy_Day]

Well personally the only lock requests I deal with are Marketplace threads, threads that ask questions that have since been answered, or if a thread has had the first post edited out. Other than that they can stay open assuming they have discussion value which users are putting to use.

 

 

 

Generally there is no need for a lock anyway, even an answered question and so forth could go unlocked without a problem.

 

 

 

As tripsis said, I'm sure it is still the case that we only deal with requested locks if the post has been edited out, or answered questions/marketplace threads.

[tripsis]

There is definitely a difference between discussing the general policy/action of users and creating a thread to rant about a moderator's actions. If this thread had said, "Lionheart_0 - why did you lock this thread? You really should not lock users' threads on requests because blah blah blah," then a lock would have been appropriate because Lateralus would be addressing a moderator and his/her actions directly. Since this thread is not doing that, I don't see anything wrong with it.

[Shazarabbit]

Rarely if ever is a topic locked by request just for the sake of it. If you happened to find a topic that still has discussion value you are more than welcome to report the unfair lock or contact a moderator or administrator. I too did not like the first line of your topic but i can brush that aside.

 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

The point is that you can get a clarified response and discuss the issue there instead of doing it openly in a forum.

 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

So fifty people don't post the same response and keep bumping the topic preventing topics that need being answered from getting a response. If people need the answer to the same question they could use the search feature.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

If you need weight behind a complain you must think it's not a legitimate complaint because everyone at tip.it values the community and you don't need to get ten people to stand behind you to be heard.

 

 

 

 

 

In the mean time i have moved this to Forum Updates and Suggestions as this is a forum discussion and not really an off topic discussion.

[Lateralus]

I was just trying to avoid any bureaucracy because I didn't think it was necessary.

[das]

Ive always thought it was beyond cheesey to allow lock requests because someone messed up and is taking some heat, I really wish something could be done to prevent entire post editing.

[tripsis]

Ive always thought it was beyond cheesey to allow lock requests because someone messed up and is taking some heat, I really wish something could be done to prevent entire post editing.

 

That wouldn't work. People need to edit their first posts all the time for reasons not related to requesting a lock. But I agree that it is annoying. A global announcement saying that threads will not be locked on request might be helpful.