goddamnit names are a pain Posted April 17, 2014 Report Share Posted April 17, 2014 Ok, as of late I have seen numerous threads get locked without ample reason. Now this isn't directed just at Yin because its happened with other mods. I don't know how you guys decide what needs locking or not, but as of late it feels highly in the heat of the moment, on a whim, or just due to opinions on the matter. I am proposing that we have at least 2 mods decide before locking a thread only in the General section. Most locks elsewhere are highly warranted but in General they seem to be an issue. It seems having intelligent conversation is frowned upon here and so is having opinions. Having verification from both mods in the locked topic would also be nice. Both mods would have to produce evidence that the thread in question deserves a lock, which honestly should not take long at all. At the very least, a heads up or warning would be nice. You know "get back on topic" or something. Half the time we are following rules and threads getting locked for something that barely constitutes spam is just...frustrating. However, mods would still have full rights to lock a topic based on advertising, nudity/sexstufforwhatever, or something that directly insults another user here. Anything like that is directly against the rules here. Also, the thread will not be locked (unless it breaks one of the above bold rules) unless two check it, no matter how long that may be. Simply because by then it could have already gotten back on topic or died out. Locking it preemptively takes away from perfectly good conversations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slinky Posted April 17, 2014 Report Share Posted April 17, 2014 Support. (and requesting lock for the lolz and just to be an ass) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cin Posted April 17, 2014 Report Share Posted April 17, 2014 Only works when there is more than 1 mod actually on. You do realise that means spambot topics would need to be double checked before lock if I'm taking literally (which I do to annoy people). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goddamnit names are a pain Posted April 17, 2014 Author Report Share Posted April 17, 2014 I am thinking of a way to revise the OP. There are certain rules that shouldn't be broken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Night Posted April 17, 2014 Report Share Posted April 17, 2014 Only works when there is more than 1 mod actually on. You do realise that means spambot topics would need to be double checked before lock if I'm taking literally (which I do to annoy people). Pretty sure in this hypothetical spambots aren't factored in. Assuming every single other mod supports this, then I'll be for it. Otherwise it's just going to promote issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frunk Posted April 17, 2014 Report Share Posted April 17, 2014 I've seen a lot of threads with potential for good discussion locked because of one person's opinion. We also often don't even see who's locked it, so it's sometimes impossible to bring the issue up with them. Mods should have to comment with a reason as they are locking a thread. This was done to great effect in the old days, as there was actually a lock tick box for mods in quick (or at least regular - I can't quite remember) replies, so it just made sense to give a reason, or at least say "LOCKED", and they knew it was me. However, I'm not quite sure the 2 moderators idea is very practical. This is something that would increase the workload, with mods (presumably) having to PM one another about whether they should lock something, and then we have online/offline delays, time zone constraints, and the potential for a thread that indeed should be locked, continue on an undesirable tangent. Instructing members to get back on topic used to be common practice, too. Great idea. Overall, I think a moderator's discretion should be respected, but that they be more transparent in their decision making. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Not-so-Radiant Arin Posted April 17, 2014 Report Share Posted April 17, 2014 I thought this was brought up before? There was a rule in place that the mods check a thread and always give a reason for locking a thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Urayne Posted April 17, 2014 Report Share Posted April 17, 2014 Only works when there is more than 1 mod actually on. You do realise that means spambot topics would need to be double checked before lock if I'm taking literally (which I do to annoy people). mabye you could add in an option that allows you to close the topic immedietly if its a spam bot thread? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trebuchet MS Posted April 17, 2014 Report Share Posted April 17, 2014 mabye you could add in an option that allows you to close the topic immedietly if its a spam bot thread? The problem is that this forum can't automatically detect whether a thread is a spam thread or not. Even if it did, the bots would wise up and find another loophole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Urayne Posted April 17, 2014 Report Share Posted April 17, 2014 The problem is that this forum can't automatically detect whether a thread is a spam thread or not. Even if it did, the bots would wise up and find another loophole. true.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cin Posted April 17, 2014 Report Share Posted April 17, 2014 Whilst this has maybe a good idea. 1) Cannot lock spambot topics quickly. (They made exemptions) 2). Can just convo with a mod sympathetic with your views. Quite often there isn't even another mod on. 3) Necro prevention is impossible. 4) Mods do have a life outside YCM, but I suppose since so few topics need locking it's not a massive issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Urayne Posted April 17, 2014 Report Share Posted April 17, 2014 i have to agree with yin! those loopholes make sense Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tourmaline Posted April 17, 2014 Report Share Posted April 17, 2014 Spambots, if clearly so, are to be eliminated on sight. A consensus need not be reached to find that a bot is not an actual member of the community. You have the idea that another moderator being on rarely is a major flaw of the concept until one realizes that not only are moderators on very often, not even making the wait long, but that there is a false urgency to immediately lock topics where there really is none. If you can speak to a sympathetic moderator to pursue your personal intentions, disregarding the quality of the forum, it is not a flaw with a bearing on the quality of the concept but on you as a moderator, or anybody else who attempts to do so. A sole, biased, emotional arbiter is a horrid system to allow because that arbiter has the ability to revel in caprice without any requirement to show reasoning, or even identity, in this case, causing a delusion that your input is ANY more valid than that of anybody else by virtue of your position when that is the same corruption that results in a dysfunctional community. Perhaps not outwardly, but it is infuriating that an intelligent, immersive discussion can be cut by what is nothing more than narrow-mindedness. If you do not offer discussion as to a possibility to resume the discussion, that is even worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goddamnit names are a pain Posted April 17, 2014 Author Report Share Posted April 17, 2014 You see this is going to be for General and no other section. There are hardly, if any, necro bumps at all in general. General instead has those few spambots that come through. Yes, I understand mods have a life. But if they can take the time to lock random threads anyway they can put another 2 minutes into it to provide evidence why/another mod can put the same amount of time in before it is locked. The whole eval thing wouldn't take each person 5 minutes. I'm not saying this should be incorporated into the functions of the forum to where they literally can't lock it, I'm saying as a spoken rule mods shouldn't lock it without another mod's approval. Necros? Spam? Locked on sight, simple as that. If 2 seriously works the thread didn't need a lock. =\ And if there is only one mod on, I said you'll just have to wait on locking it. In fact, most often the spam will stop or said issue will resolve. If not, that one mod can, if they want to, give a verbal head's up. Some threads just aren't meant to be and I am ok with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cin Posted April 17, 2014 Report Share Posted April 17, 2014 Well then both topics I've locked today, both come under spam, so wouldn't have needed a 2nd mods approval. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goddamnit names are a pain Posted April 17, 2014 Author Report Share Posted April 17, 2014 I mean spambots, my bad. "Spam" is highly interpretative. I saw little to no spam whatsoever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evilfusion Posted April 18, 2014 Report Share Posted April 18, 2014 The only rule already more or less in place is that mods have to make some sort of post announcing they're locking the topic, so as to designate themselves the target of hate-PMs respectful requests to reconsider. Of course, some threads are inherently obvious (spambot/horrible, horrible things/requests by OP) and don't need that. I have no problem with the 2 mod thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aix Posted April 18, 2014 Report Share Posted April 18, 2014 Really not a big deal. If you really think it's not spam you can talk it up with the mods to unlock it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goddamnit names are a pain Posted April 18, 2014 Author Report Share Posted April 18, 2014 Really not a big deal. If you really think it's not spam you can talk it up with the mods to unlock it. I really don't think this works. Typically you go to the one locking it and well....one of the mods locking stuff is rather adamant. It's like once someone here provides their two cents their minds can't be changed. I can understand that, I can. I'm not asking them to change their mind if it's just a waste of breath and that's one of the reasons I feel two mods avoid clouded judgement. I mean if I really wanted I could go to one of the mods in the conversation and have him/her unlock it but typically you don't want authority figures contradicting each other once an action has been made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt. Colonel Remo Posted April 18, 2014 Report Share Posted April 18, 2014 I don't really see a need to support having two mods per say but..... but that they be more transparent in their decision making. This should be paramount. If a mod cannot give a good enough reason a second mod should obviously give the second opinion. Otherwise I don't really have an issue with how the site is being run as is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cr47t Posted April 20, 2014 Report Share Posted April 20, 2014 I have a question about this, would this rule apply in the subsections in the General sections? (im talking about Games and Polls) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goddamnit names are a pain Posted April 20, 2014 Author Report Share Posted April 20, 2014 I don't think it would be necessary, but that's a good question. I'm probably just going to keep it only in General as Games and Polls don't really need it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aix Posted April 20, 2014 Report Share Posted April 20, 2014 I don't support this. Let's have a community vote every time before locking a topic why don't we? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goddamnit names are a pain Posted April 20, 2014 Author Report Share Posted April 20, 2014 I don't support this. Let's have a community vote every time before locking a topic why don't we? Can you explain in a bit more detail? Also It's been a while let me read the OP again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aix Posted April 20, 2014 Report Share Posted April 20, 2014 It's just slow and inefficient because there's countless times when there is only 1 active mod online while the others are offline or afk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.