Are we now at the mercy of a few individuals when it comes to our threads being closed? Looks to me like when enough people get together and they don't like a thread they can derail it enough to have it closed. Instead of taking care of the few that try and derail the thread, the mods just become lazy and lock the whole thread. Do you think this is fair?
Do you think this is fair?
Yes.
they viewd it, they thought it should be locked. This is wizards property and right or wrong they can lock or delete threads any time they want to for whatever reason
Are we now at the mercy of a few individuals when it comes to our threads being closed? Looks to me like when enough people get together and they don't like a thread they can derail it enough to have it closed. Instead of taking care of the few that try and derail the thread, the mods just become lazy and lock the whole thread. Do you think this is fair?
No, I do not not think that the way you look at things in this forum is fair. Thanks for asking.
Do you think this is fair?
Yes.
Please explain why you think this is fair.
*Generic 'you'.
-SYB
Private property, they're in charge, what they say goes. You're not forced to be here; if you don't like the way the mods moderate, you're free to leave.
*Generic 'you'.
I honestly hope you don't run a business. Wait what am I saying?- this is the internet of course you probably own a business.
Raise your limbs if you think it is fair?
All the cat puns and pics are getting kind of creepy.
Raise your limbs if you think it is fair?
All the cat puns and pics are getting kind of creepy.
Your words. They make kittens sad.
So sad.
Mischaracterizing a situation to make it more favorable to your point of view doesn't actually, in reality, change that situation. The thread you are talking about literally had no content and was pure spam from post 1. Of course it was closed.
In your opinion.
Mine and everyone elses except yours apparently.
Mine and everyone elses except yours apparently.
So you are now the voice for the community?
Mine and everyone elses except yours apparently.
So you are now the voice for the community?
He is when not a single person agrees with you.
So you are now the voice for the community?
I doubt it. But that's a nice attempt to deflect.
Mine and everyone elses except yours apparently.
So you are now the voice for the community?
He is when not a single person agrees with you.
So the few that have posted here make up the majority of the opinions of those of the whole community?
Mine and everyone elses except yours apparently.
So you are now the voice for the community?
He is when not a single person agrees with you.
So the few that have posted here make up the majority of the opinions of those of the whole community?
Yes. Yes they are.
Mine and everyone elses except yours apparently.
So you are now the voice for the community?
He is when not a single person agrees with you.
Someone agree with Xun, the question is how much of the comunity agrees?
Mine and everyone elses except yours apparently.
So you are now the voice for the community?
No, he is not the voice of the community. The mods and VCLs are the voice of the community. Those same voices of the community locked your previous thread (and will probably lock this one). So, the voice of the community has decided that your previous thread was inappropriate and deserved to be locked.
Does that answer your question?
-SYB
Where the voice of the people.........is silenced.
Where truth.......is shackled.
One man.
Will defy the law.
Challenge the oppressors.
And troll.
Where no man has trolled before.
Action! Suspense! Romance! Thrills!
XunValDorl stars as Glitter Boy in...
The Complainer.
This Summer.
You will Believe.
Mine and everyone elses except yours apparently.
So you are now the voice for the community?
He is when not a single person agrees with you.
So the few that have posted here make up the majority of the opinions of those of the whole community?
Everyone else that has posted in this thread so far has shared the opinion that you are wrong. If you look more small scale, AKA, everyone else who's involved in the thread, his statement was factual. You are the one who equated "everyone else" to mean the entire community, an exageration of what was said to make it sound unreasonable, because the truth hurt. if you had even a single person who agreed with you, then he would be wrong.
And how many "Mods are tyrrant's" threads do you start per month? this has to be the third, at least, for March.
1) They are not "our" threads. This is a WotC owned, WotC operated forum site in which WotC sets the rules. Every thread on these forums are WotC's...not ours.
2) Yes, they are in control. They locked the last whiny thread. Looks like control to me.
While I don't always agree with the mods, there's nothing I can do about it if I still want to talk with the rest of the community. I have to accept their rules and follow them, or risk having my thread locked or myself being banned. Do they always choose correctly? Nope. They are people, too. Hell, I got banned for 24 hours once for warning someone that their thread would instigate an edition war. -shrug-
Whatcha gonna do?
I'm sorry but if you feel the need to complain about the moderation of a forum, ANY forum then you did something wrong.
NEVER whine about mods and admins. You'll just lose while looking like an idiot. Have some dignity man!
EDIT: and THAT was my 1000th post.
In other news, WOTC is clearly not some sort of insane dictatorship, if they were, they would have permabanhammered Xun's IP years ago.
How is this not locked yet?
In other news, WOTC is clearly not some sort of insane dictatorship, if they were, they would have permabanhammered Xun's IP years ago.
They're certainly far more patient with him than plenty of us :p
I just have to figure out a way to get the 2 biggest trolls on these boards over there.
[Some personal insight....]
Xun, I guarantee they are not trying to victimize you. If I were a mod you'd be on my watch list, but probably not banned. Devil's advocates can be good, but if what they're advocating is against the general purpose of the forums (anti-4E threads on a 4E forum, as an example) then you have to make a choice regarding that person or lose your integrity as a moderator. At the forum I used to moderate, this is exactly what happened. The admins told me to let the troublemakers thrive to try and silence the claims of "tyranny" when something rather world shattering was included in a patch that many hated. Troll threads popped up everywhere. I'd lock one, and an admin would come along overriding my decision and making me look like an ass in the process.
Soon, many could not take the negativity of many posters (new and old) and I wasn't even allowed to ban duplicate accounts (something I'd been trained to hunt and ban from day 1) that were posting more threads of the same ilk. Traffic dropped drastically as members left, forum died and the multiplayer community for that game along with it.
Thanks for reading
P.S. I can't give you those minutes back, sorry
Please explain why you think this is fair.
Their Boards. Their Mods. Their Rules.
Fair.
Please explain why you think this is fair.
Their Boards. Their Mods. Their Rules.
Fair.
Thats not an explanation.
Mine and everyone elses except yours apparently.
So you are now the voice for the community?
He adequately expressed my opinion on the matter.
I honestly think most of you are missing the point. Lets say you put a thread out there and you want it to stay legit. Well all it takes is a few people that don't agree with you to start derailing the thread on purpose in order to get it locked. If there are enough people derailing the thread the mods will instead just lock the thread out. In other words the mods are not in control and the derailers are. Yes the mods have the means to hit the button to lock it down, but it's the derailers that pull the strings.
Nobody derailed that thread.
You asked for opinions.
Opinions were given.
The general concensus was good riddance to you.
So the few that have posted here make up the majority of the opinions of those of the whole community?
Nope. The few that have posted here make up the majority of those who posted here.
Please explain why you think this is fair.
Their Boards. Their Mods. Their Rules.
Fair.
Thats not an explanation.
acutally it pretty much is. Right or wrong it is there decision what to keep or not
Please explain why you think this is fair.
Their Boards. Their Mods. Their Rules.
Fair.
Let me run this by you. The way you answer I will know if you are lying or not. Lets say you get a thread going that you really believe in and you want to discuss something. Lets say I disagree with you so much that I get a lot of my friends together and we start derailing your thread with crap like "I like cake" etc.... Now the mods look at how many people have come in and derailed your thread and they come to the conclusion that it's easier to just lock down your thread instead of going through and removing a response here and a response there. Is that fair to you that I have the power to have your thread locked down because I don't agree with what you posted?
So the few that have posted here make up the majority of the opinions of those of the whole community?
Nope. The few that have posted here make up the majority of those who posted here.
LOL!!! Damn you are so out of the loop apparently.
Please explain why you think this is fair.
Their Boards. Their Mods. Their Rules.
Fair.
Let me run this by you. The way you answer I will know if you are lying or not. Lets say you get a thread going that you really believe in and you want to discuss something. Lets say I disagree with you so much that I get a lot of my friends together and we start derailing your thread with crap like "I like cake" etc.... Now the mods look at how many people have come in and derailed your thread and they come to the conclusion that it's easier to just lock down your thread instead of going through and removing a response here and a response there. Is that fair to you that I have the power to have your thread locked down because I don't agree with what you posted?
Except it wasn't a coordinated derailment or conspiracy against you. It was popular opinion.
And regardless of your intentions the thread had no need to exist.
And you still haven't learned your lesson because this one shouldn't be in community business, if at all.
Thats not an explanation.
I firmly and confidently believe you feel that way.
Lets say I disagree with you so much that I get a lot of my friends together
Except that isn't what happened at all. No one rounded up a posse to take down some perfectly reasonable thread. You trolled and trolled hard, and everyone knew it. If anything, the mods were too slow in locking the thread down.
Is that fair to you that I have the power to have your thread locked down because I don't agree with what you posted?
Close. I think it is fair that I and others on these forums have the power to spam your spam threads enough to get them locked. We don't even have to coordinate. We don't even have to try hard.
Xun, your posts are a cancer. Sometimes humorous, and sometimes entertaining, but a cancer nonetheless. As the majority of your threads are flame disguised as spam, you are not likely to gain much sympathy from anyone that enjoys the game that these forums exist for.
I am generally surprised that you still have an account, but I am not a Mod. That you still have an account is a testament to the patience of the Mods. And to them, I give a
I honestly think most of you are missing the point. Lets say you put a thread out there and you want it to stay legit. Well all it takes is a few people that don't agree with you to start derailing the thread on purpose in order to get it locked. If there are enough people derailing the thread the mods will instead just lock the thread out. In other words the mods are not in control and the derailers are. Yes the mods have the means to hit the button to lock it down, but it's the derailers that pull the strings.
I see plenty of threads where the mods edit or delete content that goes against the rules. Only in extreme circumstances do they lock threads.
Which happens, sadly, far too often.
Lets say I disagree with you so much that I get a lot of my friends together
Alright, let's stop right here. This hypothetical is just too preposterous to function. Even if I am willing to assume that you might disagree with me, there's absolutely no way I'm going to allow you to presume that you have friends to get together. We might as well start a hypothetical off with "Let's say the sky is made of rock."
;)
Alternatively:
Lets say I disagree with you so much that I get a lot of my friends together
Oh crap guys, he's on to us! Everyone, quick - throw your smoke-grenades! I'll meet you back at the hideout!
Except you, Seeker - you're too slow. Take the cyanide pill, like we practiced! You will be remembered! We will live to gather together and derail Xun's threads again, some day.
;)
honestly think most of you are missing the point. Lets say you put a thread out there and you want it to stay legit. Well all it takes is a few people that don't agree with you to start derailing the thread on purpose in order to get it locked. If there are enough people derailing the thread the mods will instead just lock the thread out. In other words the mods are not in control and the derailers are. Yes the mods have the means to hit the button to lock it down, but it's the derailers that pull the strings.
I honestly think you are missing the point. The thread wasn't "legit" from post 1. It can't "stay" legit if it never was legit.
The derails actually made the thread better (yes, this is my personal opinion). It was still terrible, but it was better than the discussion you intended.
Dismissal isn't derailment.
The cakes-and-other-baked-goods thing is derailment. However, it only functions when the thread is so far gone already that no posters are attempting to keep it on track. If it's one or two posters doing it, and someone reports it, it gets removed. If it's the whole community, yeah, it usually dies.
But I wouldn't concern myself with that form of derailment. The kind that bothers me is when someone begins attempting to interject points-of-contention that are known to disrupt threads, into a functional discussion.
Greatfrito you are AWESOME!
*throws smokesbomb*
YEEEHAAAW! EN AVANT!! *rides off on a giant lobster*
you'll never stop us Xun! NEVAR!
I'm reasonably sure the mods didn't close your thread because it got derailed, Xun.
I honestly think most of you are missing the point. Lets say you put a thread out there and you want it to stay legit. Well all it takes is a few people that don't agree with you to start derailing the thread on purpose in order to get it locked. If there are enough people derailing the thread the mods will instead just lock the thread out. In other words the mods are not in control and the derailers are. Yes the mods have the means to hit the button to lock it down, but it's the derailers that pull the strings.
If the thread has an honest, erudite discussion, it should be self sustaining.
If a single individual derails it, it can be recreated. If the individual returns, rude behavior would probably warrant a ban.
For some reason, your threads never have their fallen banners taken up by other individuals. Does this reveal something interesting?
Here's a hint. It involves the price of cheese, three marmots, and the sound of three ducks clapping.
2 - If you disagree with the decision to close it (and it looks like it was a VCL decision to close it, as I don't think that it was breaking any CoC point), PM Webster (Dungeons and Dragons CA) and explain to him why you think it should be re-opened, and what type of discussion you wanted to get out of it. If you provide him with a good enough argument, he may decide to re-open it. May.
As soon as I trigger the grenade a thick layer of smoke will settle above earth and choke it to death!
*activates smoke grenade as told*
I'm starting to really hope the hideout is not on earth...
EDIT: Perhaps the real hideout was in our hearts all along.
EDIT: Perhaps the real hideout was in our hearts all along.
About that time, is it?
Except it wasn't a coordinated derailment or conspiracy against you. It was popular opinion.
And regardless of your intentions the thread had no need to exist.
And you still haven't learned your lesson because this one shouldn't be in community business, if at all.
He's talking hypothetical now. Not about a specific thread (in fact, while he may have had his goodbye 4E thread in mind, he hasn't actually brought it up in this one at all, others have (I can't believe I'm defending him :facepalm: )). At least acknowledge that much. I have had some experiences where I felt there was one or two individuals who were intentionally being difficult and unreasonable, but within the confines of the CoC, with the intention of frustrating people, making them angrey enough to skirt the CoC in their posts, then the instigator would report those people, with the eventual goal of getting the thread shut down.
@Xun... While I feel it is unfortunate that such people exist, and I feel the Mods should attempt to keep track of who does the reporting in addition to who's being reported (To see if there is in fact a trend from cetain instigators), I think there comes a point where the mods need to do something, where a thread has degenerated to a point that it needs to be stopped.
Although, while most threads closed suggest they may be reopened, I don't think I have seen any do so.
I should also mention, that as amusing as people find it to derail this thread to somewhere amusing, I would really appreciate it if you didn't. If you don't like the threads, either ignore them or report them.
Thanks.
I should also mention, that as amusing as people find it to derail this thread to somewhere amusing, I would really appreciate it if you didn't. If you don't like the threads, either ignore them or report them.
Thanks.
didn't
derail
Didn't. Derail.
.....
I understood every individual word you just said, but taken together in context, they just don't make sense....
I should also mention, that as amusing as people find it to derail this thread to somewhere amusing, I would really appreciate it if you didn't. If you don't like the threads, either ignore them or report them.
Thanks.
This is what I have said before. If you don't like the thread for suffernin jaysus sakes don't post on them!! If you are going to respond in a way that you know will cause trouble then you are the one at fault and should be dealt with.
Xun no matte what everyone else says....you a fave of mine. I enjoy your posts. You add some levity to these boards.
Thanks, I really appreciate that. I stick up for what I believe in no matter which people resort to insults to try and descredit what I say.
I should also mention, that as amusing as people find it to derail this thread to somewhere amusing, I would really appreciate it if you didn't. If you don't like the threads, either ignore them or report them.
Thanks.
This is what I have said before. If you don't like the thread for suffernin jaysus sakes don't post on them!! If you are going to respond in a way that you know will cause trouble then you are the one at fault and should be dealt with.
If people are posting with a deliberate attempt to derail your thread, that is considered disruption (threadcrapping) according to the CoC and their posts should be reported.
), then several other posters riff off of that, and we get something like 10 "off topic - but silly" posts.I think those are very different circumstances than "people intentionally derailing". We're a silly lot - we make silly comments.
But those 10 posts aren't going to get the thread closed. If you, as the OP (or any concerned party) actually report the posts, someone is going to look at it, and likely at the very least pop in to say "Stay on target topic, stay on target topic!" - and if it is just "silly people being silly", we're likely to stop (or to address the topic again, and deal with it on its own merits [or lack thereof] for a few pages, until we get distracted again). If the posts are really disruptive (and/or violating CoC), they'll probably get removed.
I think the major problem here, in this thread, is that everyone knew what thread's closing you were complaining about, and it's a terrible example of what you're actually discussing. There was no derailment in that thread - as I said, disagreement is not derailment. There are better examples in other, older threads - but at the same time, I think those threads were, typically, addressed and dealt with (and if closed, as explanation was given - usually along the lines of "we don't need any more edition war threads").
I don't know. I think this thread may be a great example of what often happens. Someone makes a silly response (that they think was funny, at the very least ), then several other posters riff off of that, and we get something like 10 "off topic - but silly" posts.
I think those are very different circumstances than "people intentionally derailing". We're a silly lot - we make silly comments.
But those 10 posts aren't going to get the thread closed. If you, as the OP (or any concerned party) actually report the posts, someone is going to look at it, and likely at the very least pop in to say "Stay on target topic, stay on target topic!" - and if it is just "silly people being silly", we're likely to stop (or to address the topic again, and deal with it on its own merits [or lack thereof] for a few pages, until we get distracted again). If the posts are really disruptive (and/or violating CoC), they'll probably get removed.
I think the major problem here, in this thread, is that everyone knew what thread's closing you were complaining about, and it's a terrible example of what you're actually discussing. There was no derailment in that thread - as I said, disagreement is not derailment. There are better examples in other, older threads - but at the same time, I think those threads were, typically, addressed and dealt with (and if closed, as explanation was given - usually along the lines of "we don't need any more edition war threads").
The problem with a select few individuals is they can't disagree without being insulting.
The problem with a select few individuals is they can't disagree without being insulting.
Please don't quote my full post, and then address something completely unrelated.
If you find a post "insulting" - report it (and explain the problems with it!). If it's actually problematic, it will be dealt with. I use it all the time. It works. Glory to the hypnotoad Moderators!
But, at the same time - some disagreement - even vehement disagreement - is not (objectively) insulting. There were problematic posts in your thread - they should have been reported. There were, however, a large majority of posts that were not insulting.
And heck, this doesn't have anything to do with derailment. You're off-topic in your own thread.
The problem with a select few individuals is they can't disagree without being insulting.
I think what you fail to really see is how often you are combative and how poorly you argue your points. It's that past behaviour of your own that creates a hostile attitude towards you.
The problem with a select few individuals is they can't disagree without being insulting.
I think what you fail to really see is how often you are combative and how poorly you argue your points. It's that past behaviour of your own that creates a hostile attitude towards you.
Hold it a moment. No matter how bad an argument is, there is never any reason for insults. My eyes are wide open. Unless I go around insulting people, nobody has the right to get hostile towards someone.
The problem with a select few individuals is they can't disagree without being insulting.
On this we are in agreement, although I suspect we are in disagreement on who is in that "select few individuals".
The problem with a select few individuals is they can't disagree without being insulting.
I think what you fail to really see is how often you are combative and how poorly you argue your points. It's that past behaviour of your own that creates a hostile attitude towards you.
Hold it a moment. No matter how bad an argument is, there is never any reason for insults. My eyes are wide open. Unless I go around insulting people, nobody has the right to get hostile towards someone.
That's like saying "I refused to respond to my wife's questions about where I was all night and refused to admit I was drunk but I didn't hit her so I did nothing wrong".
Do you have another explanation as to why you should engender a virtually simultaneously negative response from 90% of the community?
The definition of insanity is insisting that everyone else is wrong and you are right despite the evidence.
You've seen the evidence twice today.
Furthermore, you started a reasonable topic of discussion and it's being discussed reasonably, aside from a few light hearted pokes at you. You made an effort to be reasonable, the community responds in kind. Go back to making trolling, inflammatory remarks and see what response you get.
If you find a post "insulting" - report it (and explain the problems with it!). If it's actually problematic, it will be dealt with. I use it all the time. It works. Glory to the Moderators!
Emphasis mine.
The explaining is the important part. Keep in mind that moderators do not know the context1 of the thread when a post gets reported. The more detail that you give, the more context they have to determine whether something is against the CoC or not. Something in isolation may not be in violation, but once brought in context with the rest of the thread, it may very well be.
1 - That is not to say that ORCs don't look. However, they may not be as familiar with the thread as those participating in it.
If you find a post "insulting" - report it (and explain the problems with it!). If it's actually problematic, it will be dealt with. I use it all the time. It works. Glory to the Moderators!
Emphasis mine.
The explaining is the important part. Keep in mind that moderators do not know the context1 of the thread when a post gets reported. The more detail that you give, the more context they have to determine whether something is against the CoC or not. Something in isolation may not be in violation, but once brought in context with the rest of the thread, it may very well be.
1 - That is not to say that ORCs don't look. However, they may not be as familiar with the thread as those participating in it.
Mudbunny, maybe someone could suggest that some kind of text/explanation must be included with each report? Instead of having that section option, make it required that something be typed there?
It might not help much (if any), but... yeah. This gets brought up so often, and yet I don't think many folks who haven't participated in past threads regarding how to effectively invoke the moderation understand how to "do it right".
If you find a post "insulting" - report it (and explain the problems with it!). If it's actually problematic, it will be dealt with. I use it all the time. It works. Glory to the Moderators!
Emphasis mine.
The explaining is the important part. Keep in mind that moderators do not know the context1 of the thread when a post gets reported. The more detail that you give, the more context they have to determine whether something is against the CoC or not. Something in isolation may not be in violation, but once brought in context with the rest of the thread, it may very well be.
1 - That is not to say that ORCs don't look. However, they may not be as familiar with the thread as those participating in it.
Mudbunny, maybe someone could suggest that some kind of text/explanation must be included with each report? Instead of having that section option, make it required that something be typed there?
It might not help much (if any), but... yeah. This gets brought up so often, and yet I don't think many folks who haven't participated in past threads regarding how to effectively invoke the moderation understand how to "do it right".
I will poke the head of CS with that suggestion. Maybe not require people to type something, as I fear that might turn some people off of reporting (Too much work, not gonna bother), but maybe rewording it to indicate that some context/explanation would be helpful.
I will poke the head of CS with that suggestion. Maybe not require people to type something, as I fear that might turn some people off of reporting (Too much work, not gonna bother), but maybe rewording it to indicate that some context/explanation would be helpful.
Awesome. Then you'd have to just get people to actually use reporting.
Why does that one always seem to be a losing battle?*
*: Rhetorical question (though I have my own theories - some of the SWMinis forums informed them greatly).
Person 1: A=B
Person 2: No it doesn't, A=/= B, because yz
Person 1: A does equal B.
Person 2: No, it doesn't, because WXYZ.
Person 1: A=B
Person 2: How do you figure?
Person 1: Because C=D
Person 2: C and D have nothing to do with A or B, so how do you figure A=B
Person 1: That's what I've been saying, A=B
Person 2: But WHY do you feel A=B?
Person 1: You just agreed with me that A=B, I shouldn't have to explain it.
Person 2: WHAT? I never agreed with you, I asked why does A=B?
Person 1: Exactly.
Person 2: Exactly what? I asked a question
Person 1: and I answered it.
Person 2: no, you didn't
Person 1: Yes I did, with C=D.
Person 2: That wasn't an answer, C and D are completely unrelated. Why does A=B?
Person 1: Because C=D, I told you already.
Person 2: Forget it, your clearly not interested in discussing this reasonably
Person 1: *Report post for being insulting*
Person 3: Atually, B and D may not be as unrelated as you thought.
Person 2: Really, how do you figure?
Person 1: I told you already
Person 2: I was asking what person 3 meant, not you
Person 1: *Report post for being insulting*
Person 3: Well, I think that via LMN, you have a relation to between B and D
Person 1: See, I'm right! A=B
Person 2: I'm not sure about MN, though you have a point about L. But I still don't think this relation to B and D is any evidance that A=B or that C=D is proof.
Person 1: OH, but it is.
Person 3: But there is a relation between B and D.
Person 2: A minor one, but not enough to justify claiming C=D to be proof of A=B
Person 1: But it does!
Person 2: No, it doesn't
Person 1: Person 3 just proved it does.
Person 2: no he didn't, he just proved there was a relation, not what that relation was or how it relates to A=B.
Person 3: Actually, I explained exactly what the relation was.
Person 2: more like how it can be related, but it's still not proof that A=B
Person 3: Nobody claimed that a relation between B and D was proof of anything
Person 2: Person 1 Said A=B because C=D. He's trying to equate some kind of relation btween them as evidance that A=B. And your trying to prove there is a relation between them, your arguing for his proof.
Person 1: *Report post for being insulting*
Person 1: And there is a relation, A=B, you can't prove I'm wrong.
Person 3: Never claimed it was proof, you just said there was no relation.
Person 2: Ah, Well, Person 1 Keeps saying A=B because C=D, which makes no sense, even if there is some minor relation between B and D.
Person 1: *report post for being insulting*
Person 1: A does =B, and I've already shown you why, and so has person 3.
Person 2: Person 3 never proved your point, they only corrected my statement that B and D weren't related, but the relation is marginal enough to make no difference, C=D proves nothing about A and B. I have no clue how you can even put the two together.
Person 1: *report post for being insulting*
Person 1: A=B is my opinion, therefor it can't be wrong, so I'm right.
Person 2: : banghead :
Person1: *Report post for being insulting*
Mod 1: Close thread due to too many complaints
The above has two examples of people who frustrate me, person 1 obviously, but also person 3. In this case, person 3 has opted to challenge person 2's claims. He doesn't agree with person 1, but never feels the need to challenge, or even acknowledge they're not arguing person 1's argument. Person 3, in an effort to act smart, has mudied the waters. there was no way for person 2 to realize person 3 wasn't trying to defend person 1's argument, let alone that he actually disagreed with person 1.
Both these examples, both person 1 and person 3, can cause a great deal of frustration in a thread, and frustration leads to increased hostility.
Now, I know from personal experience that a single poster can get a thread locked if they try. I've seen quite a bit of this from the haters during the Edition WarsTM and one even went to the previous edition board and did the same thing there for kicks.
I cannot say that is what is happening here, but here is a previous thread on the subject, Posting With Intent to Shut Down Threads and if you come across someone doing this, I put together a guide that is stickied on the top of the forum to help deal with this.
[edit]
@ XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek: I've now read through the thread in question and I think I know why it was shut down. It would do you well to be more careful to whom you reply and the tone of those replies.
Well I do not yet know of the moderation that lead to this thread being started. If you disagree with the actions of an ORC you should e-mail Customer Service.
Now, I know from personal experience that a single poster can get a thread locked if they try. I've seen quite a bit of this from the haters during the Edition WarsTM and one even went to the previous edition board and did the same thing there for kicks.
I cannot say that is what is happening here, but here is a previous thread on the subject, Posting With Intent to Shut Down Threads and if you come across someone doing this, I put together a guide that is stickied on the top of the forum to help deal with this.
[edit]
@ XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek: I've now read through the thread in question and I think I know why it was shut down. It would do you well to be more careful to whom you reply and the tone of those replies.
I'm sorry, I realize Xun has a reputation (justifiably), but I think that reputation is clouding peoples arguments here. Xun hasn't actually referenced any thread in this discussion, he hasn't even mentioned there was a thread in question (even after others made the connection, he's not referrenced the other thread). others have made that assumption/connection. And that thread is just one of many threads that have been closed (both of his, and that he has participated in), so it could simply have been "the last straw".
With that said, I feel a few people in this thread have attempted to use that thread to dismiss his argument, in part or entirely (your edit appears to be doing just that, hence the quote), even though many people have actually acknowledged the very problem he is referencing (again, you mention it in your second paragraph, and you link to a 10 page thread on the very same topic).
This time he has a valid argument (given the numerous people in this thread, and the 10 pages you linked to, all seem to agree it exists) even if it took him till post 39 to make it. At that point, people turned his comment into some kind of persecution complex and attacked accordinly, even though his comment was actually a valid one this time, and AGAIN, he has made no comment that even resembled him talking about another thread (others made that connection, and have turned it into an assumption that is exactly and exclusively what he was talking about, to the point they didn't acknowledge his comment without assuming that he was talking about the thread). Even if the example that you all have attributed to why he started the discussion is a bad example, the discussion is still valid.
Even this very thread shows signs of the pattern. It isn't really an organized effort the way that XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek suggests.
I'd prefer that threads be cleaned and posters be banned when they insult/derail.
Are we now at the mercy of a few individuals when it comes to our threads being closed? Looks to me like when enough people get together and they don't like a thread they can derail it enough to have it closed. Instead of taking care of the few that try and derail the thread, the mods just become lazy and lock the whole thread. Do you think this is fair?
Xun, get with it. The mods here are far too generous to you. Many sites would have banned you ages ago for making your silly little whining criticism threads ad nauseum.