I respectfully propose a new rule for this site...

[davideck]

I think it only fair that when any moderator decides to lock a thread that he has previously posted in, that it shall be locked as follows;

1) The moderator submits his final Post, including any last arguments along with a warning that he now intends to lock the thread. The moderator can make no further Posts or Edits.

2) After that, every other member who has participated in the thread is allowed one final Post. No further Edits.

3) After that, the thread is locked, if necessary.

Note that rule violators could be easily spotted and reported by the readers.
Violations by any member and/or any moderator could result in discipline.

It might promote a little respect all around.
And the final Posts should be really good...

[jimmalenko]

Fair ?


Fair has nothing to do it. This is a private site. Mods are "employed" by admin to make sure the rules are followed, taking whatever means they see fit to ensure that this is the case. No-one "deserves" a final parting post; that's just tough titties. Can you imagine a thread like the CIS thread with over 700 replies getting nasty, and then having to wait for everyone who had posted in that thread to make their final remarks ? I think not.

[rkr1958]

Fair ?


Fair has nothing to do it. This is a private site. Mods are "employed" by admin to make sure the rules are followed, taking whatever means they see fit to ensure that this is the case. No-one "deserves" a final parting post; that's just tough titties. Can you imagine a thread like the CIS thread with over 700 replies getting nasty, and then having to wait for everyone who had posted in that thread to make their final remarks ? I think not.

Wow ... I didn't realize you're a mod ...

[jimmalenko]

What ?

Only mods can have opinions now ?


That's as bad as the proposed rule

[canadateck]

Some People feel the need to Hide they're real opinion,In fear they will never be a Mod.

[ZAPPER]

With all due respect, Sirs.

It appears that...Eh, nevermind.

[jimmalenko]

Some People feel the need to Hide they're real opinion,In fear they will never be a Mod.

Nah, I *still* think the idea blows, *despite* my mod aspirations

[thecoalman]

Sorry but that's not the way it works, and wouldn't work for that matter. My suggestion would be if a mod feels a thread needs to be locked at least don't remove it..... locked is fine with me. Deleted aggravates me though, especially if I posted too it.

Some People feel the need to Hide they're real opinion,In fear they will never be a Mod.

[Headbanger's Ball]

Happened to me today.
Made a post asking what happened to another post, respectfully stated my opinion and BAM deleted. No explanation!

I don't think the proposed plan will work but a warning to put the post back on-topic or to stop the flaming would be better than slamming the door shut. My opinion...mods have gotten out of hand.

[davideck]

Happened to me today.
Made a post asking what happened to another post, respectfully stated my opinion and BAM deleted. No explanation!

I was wondering where that thread went!
A lot of disgusting things happened here today...

and then having to wait for everyone who had posted in that thread to make their final remarks ?

If the rules are followed, the thread dies out on its own...

No-one "deserves" a final parting post

Except for the moderator.
That is precisely the problem...

[gll99]

Happened to me today.
Made a post asking what happened to another post, respectfully stated my opinion and BAM deleted. No explanation!

I don't think the proposed plan will work but a warning to put the post back on-topic or to stop the flaming would be better than slamming the door shut. My opinion...mods have gotten out of hand.

I have a feeling Baldrick was cleaning up today, he was online at the time because I posted there too and went back to read it but it was gone.
Jim warned that it might go but frankly I was surprised because there wasn't really much to offend in there. Funny thing is that it may have been due to references to a thread which up until lately is still online.

----------------
As far as the suggestion, I too find it frustrating when threads are removed and they contain useful or interesting information. Too bad there isn't a way for the mod who sees offensive material to just edit it out rather than removing the thread from sight. It's understandable that some threads are just too far gone or should never have existed in the first place. Letting someone have one last post would probably cause more problems than it's worth. Can you imagine that after you post your last one someone else you consider your nemesis in the thread contradicts your opinion. I don't know you so can't really second guess your actions but I'll bet you would start a new thread just to continue the debate and get your point across. I think most people would. That's why the mods have to take action sooner rather than later.
My only point here is could the moderator action be modified in some way from current practice to minimize the removal of threads.

[ROF]

I propose a better idea.

Moderators close whatever threads they feel violate the rules.

The thread either:

1) Goes nowhere and falls off page 1. . . 2. . . etc of the forum it is in.

2) The thread is too despicable by the closing moderators standards in accordance with forum rules and is immediately removed from membership viewing.

Auto-Removal of locked threads would no longer be the norm and maybe in some cases the membership could plainly see why such threads were locked.

[Nelson37]

One, most threads simply have too many people involved.

Two, your idea assumes that we are talking about reasonable people having a reasonable debate, who would follow the rules. But wait, why exactly should such a thread be locked?

The mods DO have the capability to remove offending material without locking or deleting entire threads. This ability appears to be rarely used.

This is not a democracy, one guy makes the rules. There are several, however, who enforce them. That enforcement used to take the form of locking or removing only threads which contained clearly offensive content, discussed illegal activities, or had devolved into childish name-calling. Nowadays I am seeing numerous threads where simple disagreement, or in some cases no reason that I can determine, will get a thread locked regardless of its informational value or interest to others.

There is one item that is feasable, easy to implement, and reasonable. That is that if a mod is participating in a discussion, as opposed to simply moderating it, any decision to close the thread should come from a mod not involved in that particular thread. An impartial third party, which is what a mod is supposed to be.

[davideck]

There is one item that is feasable, easy to implement, and reasonable. That is that if a mod is participating in a discussion, as opposed to simply moderating it, any decision to close the thread should come from a mod not involved in that particular thread. An impartial third party, which is what a mod is supposed to be.

That would be good.

[mats.hogberg]

If the rules are followed, the thread dies out on its own...

If the rules are followed, the thread wouldn't have been locked in the first place.
This is Baldricks site. He makes the calls what's OK and what's not. If he feels the mods iterpret his rules wrong, I'm sure he takes him/her by the ear, and set them straight. If he'd think a thread was unduly locked/removed, he has the power to unlock it.
Some threads contain things that would make RIAA/MPAA close this site. Why such a thread i removed enirely (not merely locked) is obvious.

/Mats

[RDS1955]

Everywhere I go, all the differing forums I float about in are all having the same issues and problems...

[Headbanger's Ball]

Here's the reply I got about my post being deleted.
SatStorm wrote:

It turned out Flame war.
It has nothing to do with you wink.gif

There were 6 replies!!!! There was no flame war!!! If the final post was offensive (which I doubt) then that post should be removed NOT the entire thread deleted!
Appears to me like it's lazy mods who don't like criticism. Hope Baldrick cleans house. This is unacceptable!

[smearbrick1]

Anyone read the "Adam Gone" post yesterday? I'm assuming that's one of the reasons everyone is posting on this subject. Notice it didn't take long for the "Mod" in question to lock yet another topic he didn't agree with.

[MackemX]

OK, everyone knows I'm the fool and I will admit I play around but I try to stick within the rules for this place and 99% of the time I joke around so people will hopefully laugh. If the rules get tighter then I've got no problem as I'll just adjust to stay within them. If I step outta line and a mod tells me personally in the thread (or a PM) to ease up then I would respect that and so far (touch wood) I haven't been carded here and never really want to be

one thing I see is that some members don't listen to a mods warning and it continues on in the thread so 'sometimes' a mod has no option to lock it as they simply can't wait around to check every new post. This sometimes just takes it elsewhere until the next time. It takes minutes for a thread to flare up in a forum as we all know. Sometimes people don't realise that members involved in previous 'heated' debates or 'controversial' posts have a reputation preceeding them (just like I probably do now ). If this person is constantly getting close to the rules then in time when they 'just' step over the line and get a warning they feel hard done by. It may be a simple minor offence not really worthy of a card but add them all up then it's more than worthy of a card. I don't see the big deal about getting a card (if it's your first and you've been verbally warned previously on numerous occasion) as it goes within 30 days anyway. If you've received cards before and keep getting them every so often after being warned then surely it tells you something about your posting manner? Why make it difficult for yourself, others and the mods?

maybe people can understand the fact that to modify all the selective posts in a locked thread would sometimes take up quite a lot of time . Although I'd think it would be good if it could be done but if mods haven't got the time and the vast majority of the post is crap, it's probably simpler to remove it that's all

Fair ?

Fair has nothing to do it. This is a private site. Mods are "employed" by admin to make sure the rules are followed, taking whatever means they see fit to ensure that this is the case. No-one "deserves" a final parting post; that's just tough titties. Can you imagine a thread like the CIS thread with over 700 replies getting nasty, and then having to wait for everyone who had posted in that thread to make their final remarks ? I think not.

Wow ... I didn't realize you're a mod ...

he's a wannabe just like I was (still do, never will be)

[offline]

@everyone

Baldrick has determined that he prefers problem threads to be locked rather than moved.

@davideck

Thanks for your idea. I realize how frustrating it can be to see an informative or entertaining thread removed. I try to keep some of the best threads, like the CIS thread, open by editing out problem posts. But it is too much work to include everything and this means all off topic and non video posts.

[thecoalman]

@everyone

Baldrick has determined that he prefers problem threads to be locked rather than moved.

I think that's best, if it's locked so be it but as I mentioned before the removal of them can be quite aggravating.I'd suggest you do that with any thread including spam posts, it will serve as an example for any noob that comes across it.

[skeg64]

that will just encourage more spammers who will get free advertising in locked threads. spam threads definitely need to go.

[thecoalman]

that will just encourage more spammers who will get free advertising in locked threads. spam threads definitely need to go.

Not if there link is removed. That would actually deter spammers, besides there's little spam posted here anyway.

[Cornucopia]

What about the (hypothetical) case of a thread that is very active and heated, but still within bounds. Then some smart@$$, who doesn't like the direction it's going in and wants the thread locked or removed, creates a new account and posts spam to that thread. Instant locking and removal, just because it's SPAM. And the account gets warned/banned, but so what? The original smart@$$ still has his original account. Surely not an infallible system.

Scott

[MackemX]

that will just encourage more spammers who will get free advertising in locked threads. spam threads definitely need to go.

Not if there link is removed. That would actually deter spammers, besides there's little spam posted here anyway.

sorry, I just had too

[Cornucopia]

Go and see the musical. I hear it's great!

Scott

[offline]

Certain posts, like spam, are likely to be removed at mod discretion.

Surely not an infallible system

If you find such a beast, stuff it and mount it for sale on e-bay. You'd be rich.

[gll99]

offline wrote

@everyone

Baldrick has determined that he prefers problem threads to be locked rather than moved.

Will previously removed threads be restored to their rightful place of honor or will Baldrick's directive apply only from now on?

Thanks

[lordsmurf]

Preference to lock rather than remove has always been the rule. But that doesn't mean we won't remove threads when needed. It just means there's a preference to lock and leave. Only a handful per month ever get removed, while locking can be a daily occurance (usually doubles and other minor issues).

Locking and removing reasons are covered here:
https://www.videohelp.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=284099

[Headbanger's Ball]

Removing is becoming a daily occurence when there is criticism within the post.