CheckEmoji Community · the emoji forum
🏠 Home 🆕 What's new ❓ Unanswered 🔥 Popular 📡 RSS Members 👥 0 online
log in · register
Home › Miscellaneous › Feedback & Suggestions › FBI - Thread locking policies

FBI - Thread locking policies

Started by gentlepuma20 · · 👁 6 views · 25 replies

📡 Subscribe to replies

Participants gentlepuma20wiredvipervelvettrucker52Jose White18hollowtrucker77Nicholas King
hollowtrucker77 hollowtrucker77 Regular
681 messages
joined Nov 2007
#21 ·
gentlepuma20 said:They aren't just locking threads for no reason. Usually, it happens once a topic starts circling the drain and the sheer amount of banning and account suspensions starts ramping up. Every single lock can be justified if you look at it from a certain angle, but the real question is whether we want the moderators to act as the ultimate arbiters of when a conversation has lost its utility, or if they should let users talk their heads off while simply stepping in to clean up the trolls, spammers, and people drifting off-topic. Back in the day, the latter was actually how things functioned.

Honestly, wouldn't it be a much better move to just close a thread once the substance is gone and everyone's just talking nonsense?
I mean, who actually benefits when a discussion devolves into a mess where mods are constantly deleting posts and handing out bans?
It’s a lose-lose situation—it sucks for the community, it’s a headache for the moderators, and it’s especially bad for the newer users who haven't quite learned how to spot a troll or a spammer before getting caught in the crossfire.
Nicholas King Nicholas King Regular
716 messages
joined Jan 2023
#22 ·
wiredviper said:My own take on this whole subject...

Did I actually ask you what your thoughts were on this topic? 😁
wiredviper wiredviper Member
10 messages
joined Dec 2010
#23 ·
Nicholas King said:Did I ever actually ask for your take on this? 😁

Irrelevant. I brought them up because I wanted to express my view—whether you were part of the conversation or not.
By the way, you’re clearly just trolling and trying to steer this toward a flame war so I—the "newbie"—get flagged, while you pull the classic old-timer move of dodging any actual consequences.
And honestly? I have zero interest in debating whether someone will speak up just because you mentioned them or stay silent if you don't. It's exhausting. 😛
Whatever. I'm out. 😁

It’s a good thing hollowtrucker77 pointed out the trap. 🙂
Jose White18 Jose White18 Member
45 messages
joined Dec 2010
#24 ·
wiredviper said:In this specific instance, the OP explicitly stated she wanted a five-star rating and that the thread should be locked, plus she thanked a few people for their input earlier. Then velvettrucker52 chimed in to say that the OP doesn't have exclusive ownership over the topic and that once a thread is posted on the forum, it belongs to everyone. Everyone participates regardless of who started it. I can find velvettrucker52's post if anyone needs it.

That’s the part I don't get. It feels like double standards at play.
Basically, when the veterans talk to each other, they can pat each other on the back or criticize one another on someone else's thread and it's fine. But if a newcomer tries to blend in, they get hit with deletions, warnings, and locks.

Look, velvettrucker52 actually made a good point. The OP isn't the one with the power to decide whether a thread stays open or gets locked—that's the moderator's job.

As for the whole "newbie vs. veteran" thing, it's the same everywhere. When someone new joins, they have certain rights and are welcome, but it's pretty naive to expect the old guard to bend to them instead of the other way around. That doesn't mean the veterans won't face pushback or get called out when they go too far. They will. It's just that newcomers often lack a sense of what is actually tolerated here and what isn't. 🙂

If something specific is bothering you, you can always use the report tool—just click on image)
velvettrucker52 velvettrucker52 Member
31 messages
joined Dec 2011
#25 ·
gentlepuma20 said:Any lockout can be justified; the real question is whether the rule is that moderators decide when a conversation has lost its purpose, or if users should be allowed to ramble indefinitely while mods simply clean up the trolling and off-topic spam. It used to be the latter.

Regarding the Green Party, as I’ve already stated, our general policy is to lock threads once they’ve deflated—those moments where constructive dialogue dies and the feed becomes nothing but trolls, insults, and mindless noise (which, frankly, isn't hard to spot when it happens).
On top of that, we lock or delete obvious troll bait (for instance, "I slept with my son-in-law. Is there any chance my daughter will accept me as a second wife in their marriage?"😍, or those threads where an author just talks to several of their own burner accounts, etc.), which occasionally flood the Green Party.

There is also a handful of indestructible, uninspired troll clones and reincarnated problematic users who—likely due to higher unemployment rates in the US and/or a general lack of purpose or sheer malice—regularly and persistently open incredibly moronic threads. We lock those the moment we see them; we have no intention of handing out free passes to people who clearly haven't found a productive hobby.
gentlepuma20 gentlepuma20 NewcomerOP
1 message
joined Jun 2005
#26 ·
Nicholas King said:That second one—it’s probably going to take a fair amount of moderator work, I guess.

I know—I’ve been there. I was basically running my own little sub-forum by myself back then... exhausting, I guess, though maybe not exactly breaking my back at a construction site. 😁

Maybe we’ll see even more of those pointless protests about "legacy resident" privileges—it feels like that's headed our way.

I’m leaning toward just ignoring people like that—if it isn't true on the Green Party forum, then it isn't true. wiredviper, you’ve got that classic "everyone hates us" routine going on, which doesn't really have much substance behind it. You're trolling—don't.

hollowtrucker77 said:Maybe it’s better to just lock the thread once everyone starts getting drunk and things get messy—I guess.
Who—or what—actually stands to gain if we end up in a situation where mods just start deleting and archiving everything? I guess it depends on who you ask.
It’s not great for the forum—not for the mods, not for the users, and especially not for the newbies, who I guess tend to fall for the trolls and spammers more easily.

Maybe you should run those questions by Anderlon instead? Since I haven't been on the forum all that long—I guess I’d be a little surprised to see a supermod asking things like that...

velvettrucker52 said:...

Topics that make zero sense from the jump are one thing—obviously you aren't going to let those sit on the sub-forum. As for the other ones—the ones that actually made sense initially—I guess I see the upside in mods deciding when a thread has just run its course, but then again, I seem to remember being told directly not to do that.

You must log in or register to reply here.

Log in Register

🔗 Similar threads