ye I will sya this Lamesy always states why he locks a thread and the reason but SOME mods (not metnioning any names) do
Printable View
ye I will sya this Lamesy always states why he locks a thread and the reason but SOME mods (not metnioning any names) do
Lamsey
If you thought a law was unfair, would you speak out against it. Would you walk in a demonstration.
If you were told you were not allowed to speak, because the Law is the Law and common citizens are not allowed to question it, how would you feel.
Would you live in an oppresive dictatorship, where the subjects were not allowed to even question that which they saw as being wrong.
There have been many bad Laws, which have been changed because the people made it clear they ....
You want to demonstrate, you think there is a problem?
Fine. There are mechanisms in place to allow that.
Send Paul or VB a PM.
If you believe there is an issue with the rules, do the same.
I'm just upholding the rules until I am told otherwise.
Heres an interestign example In musicworld Gutter made a thread "what music you listenin gtoo now"
I stated in the thread it would be locked within a mater of minutes even though its music related, however there are already several threads simular to that particular thread I now come to the board 7 hrs later it has been locked without an explanation.. was that becasue I stated the ovious?? Or the mod was hiding becasue of my statement and didn't want to say the reason becasue I ahd already said :"this is Music related"
Or it could be because that thread in particular usually ends up as spam for a group of people. ;)
:ninja:
Adster, I think you've said it yourself, "I stated the ovious".
Neverless, a simple one-liner would have prevented you feeling the need to comment on it.
Lamsey, it was never my intention that this should be a personal attack on you, it was simply that your closures yesterday, on top of many others that I have seen recently, prompted me to think it was time to speak out.
The intention is not to undermine the authority of the mods, if anything it is exactly the opposite. People are less likely to be upset with a thread being closed if there is a reason given, and if they are not upset there are going to be less of the "Why was my thread closed" rants which often ensue. Surely that makes life easier for all concerned?
And fewer anti-mod postings surely means the mods are respected more?
Why am I hearing the word Nuremberg at the back of my head, Officer.Quote:
Originally posted by Lamsey@11 October 2003 - 12:47
I'm just upholding the rules until I am told otherwise.
I don't have a problem with anyone closing or locking topics, never said I did. Sometimes I am at a loss to understand why it is done, but these judgments are subjective. Most of the threads are mindless drivel anyway as far as I am concerned, however to each their own.
I just don't appreciate it that, when someone asks a question he is told, rules is rules. Effectively if you don't like them tough luck.
That's a cop out and well you know it. Pardon the pun again Officer.
The "proper" way to change laws is to Lobby your MP, perhaps write to the appropriate Minister etc. However sometimes people wish to make a public stand and have a meeting of protest. That is their right and as long as it is non-violent then it's a good and healthy thing to do.
I see this as being wholly analogous, it's just a matter of scale. Any erosion of civil liberty is an erosion of civil liberty.
I'm undecided so I won't vote, but for what it's worth I don't believe that this should scare the mods off from doing their work, most of the time it's pretty much crystal clear why something is done IMO(though not all of the time), and that there's a reason why it's done.
Edit: to clear things up.
Why am I hearing the word Nuremberg at the back of my head, Officer... [/b][/quote]Quote:
Originally posted by JPaul+11 October 2003 - 13:50--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (JPaul @ 11 October 2003 - 13:50)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Lamsey@11 October 2003 - 12:47
I'm just upholding the rules until I am told otherwise.
I hardly think Lamsey is like Hess, JPaul.
That's a bit h4rsh.
:ninja:
I hardly think Lamsey is like Hess, JPaul.Quote:
Originally posted by MagicNakor+11 October 2003 - 14:31--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (MagicNakor @ 11 October 2003 - 14:31)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Quote:
Originally posted by JPaul@11 October 2003 - 13:50
<!--QuoteBegin-Lamsey
Quote:
@11 October 2003 - 12:47
I'm just upholding the rules until I am told otherwise.
Why am I hearing the word Nuremberg at the back of my head, Officer...
That's a bit h4rsh.
:ninja: [/b][/quote]
Same defence, it's all just a matter of scale.
I've decided to add a few words:
In rule #1, it states: Posts may be deleted for any reasons the administrators and moderators deem reasonable.
Perhaps, what a moderator deems "reasonable" sometimes doesn't fit our definition of reasonable.
Also, I disagree with rule #11: Complaints concerning moderators or their actions may be discussed with that moderator or brought to the attention of an administrator via PM.
One definition of 'forum' (from Dictionary.com): A public meeting or presentation involving a discussion usually among "experts" and often including audience participation. (Note: I added quotation marks to 'experts.')
Isn't the whole point of a forum that everyone is able to present and discuss different points of view openly?... Free expression. But, what's the point of a forum if it's only going to include people who say what you want to hear? Censorship completely defeats the point of a forum.
I'd like to address this statement quickly - in some cases, yes it is a public rebuke of the member. However, 9 times out of 10, the reason for locking a thread is not because of the person who started it. A thread can be closed because it has gotten way off topic or has become a 'flame fest', which is the case a lot of times. Most times if this is relatively minor, I will prune away the off topic or flame posts, and then possibly post a message to please keep things on topic. If the thread continues in this manner, it will get closed. In cases such as this, it's not the topic starter who is at fault. And a lot of times, in cases such as this, when a few posts are removed from the thread, we will have a rash of "why was my post deleted?" threads started. It's a no win situation. What starts out as a good thread goes downhill because of a couple of people and then escalates. Obviously this is the case - or we wouldn't have threads such as this. People like you, lynx, are able to discuss the matter reasonably in a calm and constructive manner. Unfortunately, this is not the case with everyone.Quote:
Originally posted by lynx@11 October 2003 - 05:14
I think that in most cases it is obvious why a thread shoud be closed, but there are occasions where it appears to be because the mod simply doesn't like the subject matter. When this happens, it is hardly surprising that the person who's thread is closed is upset, having had what is effectively a public rebuke. And to summarily close a follow up thread with the rule 11 clause is in itself inflammatory.
So whats the problem with putting
Closed - Excessive Flaming
or whatever.
That way people know the reason. They may not agree but they do know.
The fact is that there are certain people among us who will be displeased and will make waves no matter what we do.
So it's a lose-lose situation.
All we can do is use our best judgement, using the forum rules as guidelines for our actions. And that is what we will continue to do.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:Quote:
Originally posted by Lamsey@11 October 2003 - 18:12
So it's a close-close situation.
:rolleyes:
Same defence, it's all just a matter of scale. [/b][/quote]Quote:
Originally posted by JPaul+11 October 2003 - 14:49--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (JPaul @ 11 October 2003 - 14:49)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Quote:
Originally posted by MagicNakor@11 October 2003 - 14:31
Quote:
Originally posted by JPaul@11 October 2003 - 13:50
<!--QuoteBegin-Lamsey
Quote:
Quote:
@11 October 2003 - 12:47
I'm just upholding the rules until I am told otherwise.
Why am I hearing the word Nuremberg at the back of my head, Officer...
I hardly think Lamsey is like Hess, JPaul.
That's a bit h4rsh.
:ninja:
Quoting Jonno
"No m8, I simply meant that when you used to get bollocked at school you never agreed with it, you were always inocent right......I was :rolleyes:"
Didn't your family teach you anything about accepting responsibility?? <_<
Infestedcats. You are right about the needless censorship by Mods destroying the point of having a Forum. Why can't people let off a bit of steam by flaming or arguing?? It's not like anyone is getting hurt - the internet isn't real life!! Most members here find the flaming funny, only the overly sensitive "Spam gang" moan about it. I've been involved in some great flame wars with people like Adam and Nahan which I actually look forward to replying when I get home from work - it's a release from REAL life. You all take it too seriously!!
JPaul, liked the Nuremburg comment - very apt!! ;)
:lol: Hilarious. Someone has finally rumbled Sturmbanfuhrer Lamsey!! :lol:
Well reading all this gives me a sad feeling. This forum is still very liberal imo.
Think with the mod team we have left now locked topics are gonna be far less then we did had few days back ;)
I saw people saying leave topics open and just delete the offensive posts. Think mods are more censoring then as that they just lock a topic but still everyone can read and see for themselves what was going on. ;) Every mod makes his own calculation in how to treat a topic. We don't close topics easily... never did.
So where is this fuzz all about ? If a topic get locked some people will disagree if we delete posts, some people will disagree, we can't have a 50.000 people agreeing on things. Simple as that. I can live with the ad on that was made by JPaul, that mods will ad a reason for closing. But for the rest i think that if you really can't live with a mods decission you just pm an admin!
It is so simple, we mods never can please you all, we just do what we think is best for the board and the majotity of members. No more no less ;)
BTW i think the basic discussion is wrong, we better debate on how we can make a nice discussion board that doesn't need mods. Some suggestions?! Can we agree with the next rules...
1st you all read forum rules (you to JP) and obbey them
2nd never post double, use foul language, spam, or made a post that is not on topic.
3rd search before you post so no double topics will be here
4th only post if you are 100% sure you post in the right category, and if you have something to ask or answer!
I think we don't need any moderators then ;)
I've watched topics locked on poor judgement, not jetje though, and when I found it truly irritating I PM the mod and requested it reopend and why, and it was, simple.
Well I've had shutdowns I didn't agree with, one drew this response from jetje ...
No need for this kind of topic my opinion,... ;) check the funfiles for a topic about this...
Also Board rules... there will be no.... etc... go read that!
**closed**
.. very informative!
I then started another thread in response to the censorship, this was also closed by jetje with this remark ...
What if you checked the funnies 1st... there is an exact the same topic just a day earlier started.. we left that one open! So... ;) I should have merged this one in there but i gues yoou then would have start with ... who deleted my topic...? etc..
An explanation should be given every time, without rudeness, or smartarse remarks.
:)
did I mantion that arragane can be a factor :lol:
well Im not votign on this at all btw its a yes and no sort of thing.
heres the strange thing
why not delete the flame crap instead of locking it??
I noticed once NikkiD did this in musciworld which was good she nicley deleted the flame shit that was in a thread and kept it going and if the same member or members keep the shit up put them on moderation or soemthing!!
Because sometimes it causes "where'd my posts go?" problems and sometimes it raises issues of censorship.Quote:
Originally posted by Adster@12 October 2003 - 09:38
why not delete the flame crap instead of locking it??
It also causes a serious stress on the server to delete or move posts; merging is the worst.
Closing topics is much less strain on the server, so it's the best thing to do when the board is under stress - if we do too much, we temporarily take the board offline while it tries to deal with what we're doing.
yep ok you have a very good point there Lamsey
thansk for clearign that up
Uhuh, fair point.
However this isn't really about the logistics of closing threads, it's about the reasoning.
For the record I think censorship is worse. Just deleting posts or threads is surely a bad thing.
Reeks of book burning to me.
I agree JPaul, i'd usually much rather close a thread, or throw it into the lounge, than delete posts...even if they are crap and flamebait.
Its not just about the perception of censorship, if posts are deleted...its about the boards history.
I thought LeGo was a troublemaker, some kid out on a crusade for unspecified reasons. If he'd said who he was I'd been more inclined to listen to him, as it was I thought he wasn't worth taking seriously.
Edit: Not to say I disliked him, I just didn't know why he was hellbent on critisizing the mods.
http://www.klboard.ath.cx/index.php?showtopic=73593