Why so much conversation about locking topics?

Lootr2Core

Lootr2Core

CAGiversary!
Is it just me or is there this weird 'please lock this' thing going on. It seems that I've noticed alot of talk about locking threads. both from Mods (seems to me that dphatty locked or threatened to lock lots of threads after he became a mod) and others (too many to count) Why is there this demand for locking threads?
 
[quote name='doraemonkerpal']"LOCK THIS THREAD!"


haha, j/k.[/quote]

dang must have started a flame war, no doubt this thread will be locked for the safety of all.
 
[quote name='Mustang O-Line 75']YOUR ALWYS TRING TO START STUF WITH CAG's AT TEH CAG WEBSITE

LIKE WHY?

hopefully he gets this joke the second time around[/quote]


cus I haat to sea dum peopl tri to tipe fast and good. I don't want to start stuff I want to end stuf, at teh cager nanner website
 
You know I wanted to start a thread like this because i feel the same way. No offence to Phatty but it seems ever since he's become a moderator, he's constantly on top of every debate threatening to shut it down. Well maybe not everyone but it seems like he's policing us a little too much.
 
I've been wondering the same thing since the "Hateful Ignorant People" thread got locked. That conversation wasn't out of hand. I've seen worse in discussions about how great/sucky Halo is. Sure it had the potential to be a nasty flame war but from what I've seen on here, every topic has that potential.

I guess it's the Bush Doctrine in web form - Pre-Emptive Locking.
 
[quote name='trustcompany1013']it does get kind of annoying...maybe its like cops, they have to meet quota before the end of the month...so they're cracking down because june is coming to an end[/quote]

Quota? What quota... :whistle2:$

To be honest, Cheapy told us Mods to keep an extra eye out for things coming up because he'll be MIA for his wedding this weekend.

Even then, I dont see a problem with locking topics. Mind showing me what you're talking about?
 
[quote name='Lootr2Core'][quote name='Mustang O-Line 75']YOUR ALWYS TRING TO START STUF WITH CAG's AT TEH CAG WEBSITE

LIKE WHY?

hopefully he gets this joke the second time around[/quote]


cus I haat to sea dum peopl tri to tipe fast and good. I don't want to start stuff I want to end stuf, at teh cager nanner website[/quote]

Zing!
 
I dont think that topic was too out of hand at the moment. Im not saying that you're not allowed to discuss that subject, but the name of the topic was "Hateful Ignorant People" and was requesting an appology. Maybe in a few days if you feel the need to discuss it further, you could make a topic for discussion about it as long as you do it maturly as possible.
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']I've been wondering the same thing since the "Hateful Ignorant People" thread got locked. That conversation wasn't out of hand. I've seen worse in discussions about how great/sucky Halo is. Sure it had the potential to be a nasty flame war but from what I've seen on here, every topic has that potential.

I guess it's the Bush Doctrine in web form - Pre-Emptive Locking.[/quote]

So exactly why is preemtive locking of a thread a bad thing?
You have no guarentee or expecation of free expression on these forums.
It's a benevolent dictatorship and Cheapy D's the ....

um, head honcho. Yeah, that's it.
 
[quote name='JSweeney'][quote name='MrBadExample']I've been wondering the same thing since the "Hateful Ignorant People" thread got locked. That conversation wasn't out of hand. I've seen worse in discussions about how great/sucky Halo is. Sure it had the potential to be a nasty flame war but from what I've seen on here, every topic has that potential.

I guess it's the Bush Doctrine in web form - Pre-Emptive Locking.[/quote]

So exactly why is preemtive locking of a thread a bad thing?
You have no guarentee or expecation of free expression on these forums.
It's a benevolent dictatorship and Cheapy D's the ....

um, head honcho. Yeah, that's it.[/quote]

Actually I believe by naming the place that one posts deals/off topics etc FORUMS implies that free expression is 'granted'.

Definition of FORUM: 1. [n] a place of assembly for the people in ancient Greece
2. [n] a public facility to meet for open discussion
3. [n] a public meeting or assembly for open discussion

Last time I checked open discussion means--no thread locking nor censorship.

Would I want to stand before the supreme court and argue this based on a dictionary defintion of one word....ah no. But I offer it here just as discussion fodder.
 
Actually I believe by naming the place that one posts deals/off topics etc FORUMS implies that free expression is 'granted'.

Definition of FORUM: 1. [n] a place of assembly for the people in ancient Greece
2. [n] a public facility to meet for open discussion
3. [n] a public meeting or assembly for open discussion

Last time I checked open discussion means--no thread locking nor censorship.

Would I want to stand before the supreme court and argue this based on a dictionary defintion of one word....ah no. But I offer it here just as discussion fodder.

Most open forums will still have an expected level of decorum and a specific tolerance for decency. Sure, you could post whatever you want to.. but you have no right (expressed or implied) to have that statement actually stay on the message board, or for the thread to stay open.

CAG is a private organization, and so long as it doesn't violate the laws in the jursdiction in which it resides, the ownership and moderators hold total authority over all the goings on. To assume differently, and believe you have the right to say whatever you want and have it remain greatly overestimates the station one holds a member of this board.
 
[quote name='JSweeney']Actually I believe by naming the place that one posts deals/off topics etc FORUMS implies that free expression is 'granted'.

Definition of FORUM: 1. [n] a place of assembly for the people in ancient Greece
2. [n] a public facility to meet for open discussion
3. [n] a public meeting or assembly for open discussion

Last time I checked open discussion means--no thread locking nor censorship.

Would I want to stand before the supreme court and argue this based on a dictionary defintion of one word....ah no. But I offer it here just as discussion fodder.

Most open forums will still have an expected level of decorum and a specific tolerance for decency. Sure, you could post whatever you want to.. but you have no right (expressed or implied) to have that statement actually stay on the message board, or for the thread to stay open.

CAG is a private organization, and so long as it doesn't violate the laws in the jursdiction in which it resides, the ownership and moderators hold total authority over all the goings on. To assume differently, and believe you have the right to say whatever you want and have it remain greatly overestimates the station one holds a member of this board.[/quote]

I do not argue that cag is private and is not breaking any laws, what I argue is that by naming the posting place FORUM the spirit of free and open speech is implied.
 
Well, we've had threads where everyone has agreed that rampant flaming & insulting posts have gotten out of hand...and now we've got a thread complaining that the moderators are locking up threads willy nilly to prevent said flaming. That leaves....a handful of threads where good deals are shared & there's nothing to be heard but appreciation for bargains...and a whole bunch of harmless yet inane threads asking what people are wearing and what their favorite food/drink/band/color is. Yay.
 
I agree that there are certain rules of posting on this site and we should abide by them. But if nobody has gone over the line of these rules, why should a thread be locked? To say that this conversation Might get out of hand is rediculous. You cant tell how a conversation is going to go. If it does get out of hand then you edit the posts and lock the thread.
 
I seen this one post where the one guy was just trying to tell everyone that we should be nicer to each other, it seems like we are becoming meaner to each other. and the replies bashed him for saying so. I'll try to find it and edit it in.
 
I, for one, was pleasantly surprised that the discussions stayed civil and did not resort to name-calling.

I agree that it's Cheapy's forum and he can run it however he pleases. But when the FAQ just asks that we "try to get along" I don't see how that thread crossed that line any more than many of the unlocked threads.

If certain topics are going to be off-limits no matter how civil the conversation is, maybe those topics should be outlined for us. I'd rather be treated like responsible people though and those who cannot handle that responsibility be dealt with individually.
 
[quote name='Graystone']I seen this one post where the one guy was just trying to tell everyone that we should be nicer to each other, it seems like we are becoming meaner to each other. and the replies bashed him for saying so. I'll try to find it and edit it in.[/quote]

I've noticed this as well. It does seem that everyone has grown 'meaner' as of late. Not to say im innocent of this because i know ive snapped at a few newbies when posting repetative stuff. But ive tried to correct that.
 
[quote name='Ericnmel99']You know I wanted to start a thread like this because i feel the same way. No offence to Phatty but it seems ever since he's become a moderator, he's constantly on top of every debate threatening to shut it down. Well maybe not everyone but it seems like he's policing us a little too much.[/quote]

I agree
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']I've been wondering the same thing since the "Hateful Ignorant People" thread got locked. That conversation wasn't out of hand. I've seen worse in discussions about how great/sucky Halo is. Sure it had the potential to be a nasty flame war but from what I've seen on here, every topic has that potential.

I guess it's the Bush Doctrine in web form - Pre-Emptive Locking.[/quote]

I agree, daphatty prematurely locked that thread. I did not think it was justified. Actually I thought that thread was moving along rather maturely. I have seen much worse threads that were not locked.
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']I, for one, was pleasantly surprised that the discussions stayed civil and did not resort to name-calling.[/quote]

I agree. Noone was even close to pulling a MWL or anything like that. I thought it was some pretty intlligent conversation.
 
That thread seemed ok to me...people were unusually well behaved.
daphatty was probably just testing out the Moderation controls ;)
 
[quote name='CheapyD']That thread seemed ok to me...people were unusually well behaved.
daphatty was probably just testing out the Moderation controls ;)[/quote]

Seems to me that accidentally banning himself would have been a more effective and hilarious test.
 
seems to me that dphatty threatened to lock lots of threads after he became a mod

I noticed that too - very annoying. :puke:
 
Mods are human too.
All of them have certain tolerances for what they will and will not allow.
It's not really up to you to decide if a moderator is overzealous in locking threads or not.
That burden falls to CheapyD.

Trying to chastise Dphatty about this only makes you look petty.
 
[quote name='JSweeney']Mods are human too.
All of them have certain tolerances for what they will and will not allow.
It's not really up to you to decide if a moderator is overzealous in locking threads or not.
That burden falls to CheapyD.

Trying to chastise Dphatty about this only makes you look petty.[/quote]

If JS was a mod, I would bet %99 of store exploit threads would be locked. IF I was a mod, I would lock nothing, and Cheapy would probably get sued and CAG would die.
 
[quote name='JSweeney']Trying to chastise Dphatty about this only makes you look petty.[/quote]

That's a good thing, 'cause I feel very pretty.

Oh, PETTY. Nevermind then.
 
[quote name='CheapyD']That thread seemed ok to me...people were unusually well behaved.
daphatty was probably just testing out the Moderation controls ;)[/quote]

that is what I figured is that someone was displaying their mod powers (thinking they were playing city of Heros)
 
[quote name='PsyClerk'][quote name='JSweeney']Trying to chastise Dphatty about this only makes you look petty.[/quote]

That's a good thing, 'cause I feel very pretty.

Oh, PETTY. Nevermind then.[/quote]

What, no song? :(
 
[quote name='BigNick'][quote name='JSweeney']Mods are human too.
All of them have certain tolerances for what they will and will not allow.
It's not really up to you to decide if a moderator is overzealous in locking threads or not.
That burden falls to CheapyD.

Trying to chastise Dphatty about this only makes you look petty.[/quote]

If JS was a mod, I would bet %99 of store exploit threads would be locked. IF I was a mod, I would lock nothing, and Cheapy would probably get sued and CAG would die.[/quote]

I wouldn't say 99%... I'd allow people a little more latitude than that.. of course, that doesn't mean I still wouldn't be in those threads discussing it.
Of course, if the exploits were obviously and blatantly unethical, yeah, I'd have to lock them.

Of course, I can't just gloss over the fact than I do rile up some people because I take the fairly unpopular opinion on some of thier "deals", and play 'devil's advocate' with some frequency. Of course, I think it really bothers some people because they already know what they are doing is either unethical or has the appearence of being so ( "shady" deals, as someone put it, seems a good name for that), and me taking them to task on that seems to bother some people to no end.
 
[quote name='JSweeney'][quote name='BigNick'][quote name='JSweeney']Mods are human too.
All of them have certain tolerances for what they will and will not allow.
It's not really up to you to decide if a moderator is overzealous in locking threads or not.
That burden falls to CheapyD.

Trying to chastise Dphatty about this only makes you look petty.[/quote]

If JS was a mod, I would bet %99 of store exploit threads would be locked. IF I was a mod, I would lock nothing, and Cheapy would probably get sued and CAG would die.[/quote]

I wouldn't say 99%... I'd allow people a little more latitude than that.. of course, that doesn't mean I still wouldn't be in those threads discussing it.
Of course, if the exploits were obviously and blatantly unethical, yeah, I'd have to lock them.

Of course, I can't just gloss over the fact than I do rile up some people because I take the fairly unpopular opinion on some of thier "deals", and play 'devil's advocate' with some frequency. Of course, I think it really bothers some people because they already know what they are doing is either unethical or has the appearence of being so ( "shady" deals, as someone put it, seems a good name for that), and me taking them to task on that seems to bother some people to no end.[/quote]

So it's more like 98%?

In all seriousness, I'm surprised we still see topics/posts about things like ROMs and rip-offs. You'd think people would learn after a while.
 
[quote name='PsyClerk'][quote name='JSweeney'][quote name='BigNick'][quote name='JSweeney']Mods are human too.
All of them have certain tolerances for what they will and will not allow.
It's not really up to you to decide if a moderator is overzealous in locking threads or not.
That burden falls to CheapyD.

Trying to chastise Dphatty about this only makes you look petty.[/quote]

If JS was a mod, I would bet %99 of store exploit threads would be locked. IF I was a mod, I would lock nothing, and Cheapy would probably get sued and CAG would die.[/quote]

I wouldn't say 99%... I'd allow people a little more latitude than that.. of course, that doesn't mean I still wouldn't be in those threads discussing it.
Of course, if the exploits were obviously and blatantly unethical, yeah, I'd have to lock them.

Of course, I can't just gloss over the fact than I do rile up some people because I take the fairly unpopular opinion on some of thier "deals", and play 'devil's advocate' with some frequency. Of course, I think it really bothers some people because they already know what they are doing is either unethical or has the appearence of being so ( "shady" deals, as someone put it, seems a good name for that), and me taking them to task on that seems to bother some people to no end.[/quote]

So it's more like 98%?

In all seriousness, I'm surprised we still see topics/posts about things like ROMs and rip-offs. You'd think people would learn after a while.[/quote]

Hey, if they want to lead more lambs to the slaughter and provide some more cannon fodder, I'm more than happy to oblige them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top