It seems to me like administrators and moderators are starting to get a bit too used to their powers, constantly closing threads even in Flood that don't violate any rules whatsoever, with civilized discussion, and not arguments, simply because they want to make sure their own opinion on the subject is the last thing to be said.
I know you're the ultimate powers and reserve your right to do whatever you want, but come on, what's wrong with letting people have their own discussions that aren't hurting anyone? You might think your opinion is the most important, but that doesn't mean other people shouldn't be allowed to talk about what they want, especially when they're in Flood.
Flood's description is: "COMPLETE AND TOTAL ANARCHY (within the scope of the rules, of course) ". So, if it's within the scope of the rules, what's the problem? Sure, you might have a different opinion, just post it, no need to close the thread. Or you might not be interested in the thread and think it doesn't deserve discussion. Then don't post in it, if nobody is interested in it then it will just drift through the pages and disappear, but why immediately close it just because it doesn't interest you? It might interest somebody else.
I haven't had a problem with my own threads being closed; the only time my threads are closed is when they have already served their purpose. But I do have a problem with many threads I'm interested in being closed.
Come on, guys, please stop with this. If a thread violates the rules and/or is causing a disturbance, sure, go ahead, but you need to stop closing threads all the time just to make sure your opinion is final. It's flood. If one person likes blue, and you like yellow, who the hell cares? Let the people talk about their opinions, whether they be different from yours or not.
I assume that you, the administrators and moderators, are all adults, so you should know how to accept that others have different opinions by now.
As far as I am aware, we only lock flood threads if they have been deemed to have served no purpose in the first place. So, whining that gets incredibly vocal, posts intended for a less anarchic subforum, etc.
(10-20-2013, 08:40 PM)Kazinsal Wrote: As far as I am aware, we only lock flood threads if they have been deemed to have served no purpose in the first place. So, whining that gets incredibly vocal, posts intended for a less anarchic subforum, etc.
It's flood. Since when are threads in flood supposed to serve a higher purpose?
(10-20-2013, 08:49 PM)Kazinsal Wrote: By which I mean blatant flamewars.
EDIT: See "Within the scope of the rules".
That's my point: Threads that aren't violating any rules, with no flame wars or anything like that, are being locked, with the reasoning being "I am not interested in this" or "There's nothing more to say about this" or "This is what I think about this", as if it doesn't matter what anybody else thinks.
Keep in mind, we also get PM's from the original posters to close down threads. Not everything is transparent.
EDIT: So if you can, as Kaz said, please provide an example of a thread that was closed with an Admin or Mod saying something to the effect of "This is how I feel, and thats that."
Sure, some people had different opinions, but no rules were being violated, there was no excessive anger such as screaming, yelling insulting, personal attacks, etc, just people amusing themselves.
This is just the first example I could find, but during the time I've spent since I joined these forums a while back, I've seen a fair share of threads that looked entertaining that were closed for reasons that didn't seem justified to me.
It's flood. It doesn't matter if the idea of the thread is constructive or relevant, and it doesn't matter if the point the person tries to make is correct or not, it's just something somebody wanted to talk about.
Now, guys, there's no "trial" here, I'm just some random member and there's nothing I could do about this in the first place. Don't go into the "prove it or we ignore you" state of mind. This isn't an accusation, it's merely a request that, in the future, before you lock a thread, consider your reasoning behind it and try to avoid closing threads unless they are actually violating the rules and/or causing a disturbance (this is for flood, not the other parts of the forums where it would be appropriate to close an outdated thread presenting a concept, etc, something that is no longer relevant and/or hasn't been posted in for an excessive amount of time and/or has already been solved, such as a question about developing, a roleplay agreement, trading ships, etc).
Even in flood, QQ threads and trial by forum is a no-go. The very first post of the thread you linked was one, so the thread got locked.
Still, if you think a thread (be it in flood or not) was unjustly locked, feel free to hit the report button on the original post of the thread, including your reasons for it in the description, and it'll be reviewed by the whole team. If the locking is considered too extreme after the review, it'll be unlocked. That's how it's always worked. The example you provided in this thread doesn't really support your argument though, as the original poster was specifically calling out a few LNS players to be "gankers" and whatnot.
I don't see why it is prohibited to mention anyone "ganking". It's not like he was making an unjust accusation.
They were indeed gankers, there is no denying that. In the end it comes down to people's opinion of ganking. Some people are offended by ganking, while others undestand that it is entirely within roleplay to send any forces available to deal with a threat.
When you lock those kinds of threads, you indirectly give people the idea that you believe "ganking" to be a crime. If accusing someone of "ganking" is considered "trial by forum", that implies that "ganking" is some sort of crime in this community. There is nothing in the rules about ganking, people can gank whenever they want, and there's nothing wrong with that. As such I don't see why there's anything wrong with somebody talking about other people ganking.
If he was accusing them of violating rules, then yes, that would be inappropriate for a public thread and would need to be closed, but he wasn't, he was simply showing amusing screenshots of people ganking him. There was no flaming, no crying, etc, as I looked through the posts in that thread I saw only amusement both for those who support and those who oppose "ganking".
![[Image: drrobe.gif]](http://sig.grumpybumpers.com/host/drrobe.gif)
