Complaint

[aero]

That wasn't to censor an argument

not up for debate

At least be consistent. A debate is an argument, just not a heated one.

Thanks for pointing out the difference...? Anyway, I have not once locked a topic because of debate, it's only when arguments start popping up and needless posts are made (or if the topic itself is unnecessary) when I lock topics.

[michel]

That wasn't to censor an argument

not up for debate

At least be consistent. A debate is an argument, just not a heated one.

Thanks for pointing out the difference...? Anyway, I have not once locked a topic because of debate, it's only when arguments start popping up and needless posts are made (or if the topic itself is unnecessary) when I lock topics.

Refer to paragraph 2.

[aero]

Refer to paragraph 2.

Would you rather just have arguments run rampant instead of staff stepping in? Are you really proposing that?

The whole pint of administration is to keep the forums orderly, and constructive, not to entertain some notion that not letting people argue is a slippery slope fallacy.

[sleepy]

I've seen so much of this in this forum that it's gotten to the point that it's frankly pissed me off.

For example, I saw a thread that was closed because it might cause arguments. Since when is that a valid reason? IMO, topics shouldn't be closed for such a reason. "This isn't needed" shouldn't be a reason, either.
Why on earth should the thread be closed for something like that? Every thread has potential discussion, unless it's obviously spam. In this case, said threads I saw closed for such reasons were not spam threads.
The only reason threads should ever be closed IMO is if the discussion is circling or the discussion has just gotten out of hand (ie. bashing a user).

[Pixels]

Refer to paragraph 2.

Would you rather just have arguments run rampant instead of staff stepping in? Are you really proposing that?

The whole pint of administration is to keep the forums orderly, and constructive, not to entertain some notion that not letting people argue is a slippery slope fallacy.

You're ushering an entire discussion out because someone raised their voice slightly is the problem. We need them stopped when they actually are happening and show no signs of stopping, then you can stop the users from arguing, and let discussion on the topic continue.

[michel]

Would you rather just have arguments run rampant instead of staff stepping in? Are you really proposing that?

No. There is no need for staff intervention in order to stop an argument.
You abuse your moderator powers to lock topics where arguments occur, usually with a last statement followed by a lock; a true display of cowardice and lack of consideration, which automatically conveys the message that you already know whatever someone else has to say is not worth looking at and therefore pitying their intelligence; which I find insulting, specially for someone who is a global moderator, who's supposed to know better than this.

The whole pint of administration is to keep the forums orderly, and constructive, not to entertain some notion that not letting people argue is a slippery slope fallacy.

The only job of any good forum's staff is to keep spammers away and making sure the forums are up and running. Guaranteeing the users are in good terms with each other is not your job and you shouldn't be doing it; that's everyone else's problems, not yours as a staffer.

[aero]

Refer to paragraph 2.

Would you rather just have arguments run rampant instead of staff stepping in? Are you really proposing that?

The whole pint of administration is to keep the forums orderly, and constructive, not to entertain some notion that not letting people argue is a slippery slope fallacy.

You're ushering an entire discussion out because someone raised their voice slightly is the problem. We need them stopped when they actually are happening and show no signs of stopping, then you can stop the users from arguing, and let discussion on the topic continue.

That's what I've been doing. It's not like I lock topics because two or more users go over the line when having an argument, or start breaking the rules for that matter. You can take the evolution topic as an example, since I unlocked it for this very reason.

[Pixels]

Frankly, either way, as michel said, having your word be the end all statement all the time in threads that just want to discuss certain subjects like is annoying and it reflects poorly on you.

[aero]

Frankly, either way, as michel said, having your word be the end all statement all the time in threads that just want to discuss certain subjects like is annoying and it reflects poorly on you.

It wouldn't make sense not to do that sometimes. I believe users have a right to know why exactly a thread is locked. Also, I think it's worth pointing out that just because a staff member was the last to post in a thread, doesn't mean they locked it.

[Ignoritus]

I'm going to say that this is one of the biggest issues SMBX forums have had in general. A topic should never never NEVER be locked because of arguments, and very rarely is one "not needed".

For one, if there are arguments then punish the individual users, not the topic itself.

For two, arguments are NOT by nature a bad thing. Some moderators don't seem to realize this. Arguments are a medium through which new viewpoints are formed and problems are solved. Unless an argument has degraded into aggressiveness and/or flaming, it is often a productive thing and should not be stopped just because "arguments are bad!".

For three, who are the moderators to decide that a discussion isn't necessary to be had? If someone posted it than at the very least one person decided they wanted to have that discussion. How is it hurting anyone to hold that discussion?

[Pixels]

I believe users have a right to know why exactly a thread is locked.

Then what was the reason for locking those topics I posted? You and the others don't say why.

[michel]

I'm going to say that this is one of the biggest issues SMBX forums have had in general. A topic should never never NEVER be locked because of arguments, and very rarely is one "not needed".

For one, if there are arguments then punish the individual users, not the topic itself.

For two, arguments are NOT by nature a bad thing. Some moderators don't seem to realize this. Arguments are a medium through which new viewpoints are formed and problems are solved. Unless an argument has degraded into aggressiveness and/or flaming, it is often a productive thing and should not be stopped just because "arguments are bad!".

For three, who are the moderators to decide that a discussion isn't necessary to be had? If someone posted it than at the very least one person decided they wanted to have that discussion. How is it hurting anyone to hold that discussion?

You are truly a smart person. I respect you.

I'm sorry GhostHawk, but I think you should just trust us with this one.

[aero]

I believe users have a right to know why exactly a thread is locked.

Then what was the reason for locking those topics I posted? You and the others don't say why.

I didn't lock either of those topics, and the way other staff members administrate is their business, hence why I said "I believe."

I'm going to say that this is one of the biggest issues SMBX forums have had in general. A topic should never never NEVER be locked because of arguments, and very rarely is one "not needed".

For one, if there are arguments then punish the individual users, not the topic itself.

For two, arguments are NOT by nature a bad thing. Some moderators don't seem to realize this. Arguments are a medium through which new viewpoints are formed and problems are solved. Unless an argument has degraded into aggressiveness and/or flaming, it is often a productive thing and should not be stopped just because "arguments are bad!".

For three, who are the moderators to decide that a discussion isn't necessary to be had? If someone posted it than at the very least one person decided they wanted to have that discussion. How is it hurting anyone to hold that discussion?

1. Fair enough.

2. Fair enough, however the flaming and spam does derail the thread so this is where you guys lose me in not locking threads because of these arguments.

3. Take "The Compliment and Criticism Thread," threads like that wouldn't be needed because the reputation mod can be used for that for starters, and as Valterri said would lead to furious arguments which would stem from the point of the thread in the first place.

[Pixels]

I didn't lock either of those topics, and the way other staff members administrate is their business, hence why I said "I believe."

Then maybe Joey or such should tell staff members to give reasons for locking threads, and any thread locked without a reason should be unlocked.

and as Valterri said would lead to furious arguments which would stem from the point of the thread in the first place.

There's a chance every thread might lead to furious arguments, so we should lock them all.

[aero]

and as Valterri said would lead to furious arguments which would stem from the point of the thread in the first place.

There's a chance every thread might lead to furious arguments, so we should lock them all.

No, since not all threads would have the basis to start arguments. I think a thread dedicated to criticizing users or complimenting them would lead to more controversy more often than a graphic thread for example. This is also based on the community's history with arguments, hell the word "bias" has lost its meaning from opinions on other users, so what value would there be in that thread?

[Danny]

In my opinion, and to be quite honest with you, most, if not all of the staff that have been promoted across Knux's, NSMBX, and Joey's forums have been incompetent in one way or another. I could only pick out a few good staff members, but I'm not naming names. Sometimes there are staff members that don't do anything at all, and I question why they still have their positions. See: Quill, Kley, FallingSnow, and Uncle Sam.
A lot of the times the staff here are very quick to react to things that deal with arguments/debates/whatever they feel they want to lock, and most of the time they don't have a very good reason as to why something should get locked.

No, since not all threads would have the basis to start arguments. I think a thread dedicated to criticizing users or complimenting them would lead to more controversy more often than a graphic thread for example. This is also based on the community's history with arguments, hell the word "bias" has lost its meaning from opinions on other users, so what value would there be in that thread?

3. Take "The Compliment and Criticism Thread," threads like that wouldn't be needed because the reputation mod can be used for that for starters, and as Valterri said would lead to furious arguments which would stem from the point of the thread in the first place.

>Not all threads would have the basis to start arguments.
>Locks "The Compliment and Criticism Thread" because Valtteri assumed it would lead to furious arguments.

Nice contradiction.

[aero]

>Not all threads would have the basis to start arguments.
>Locks "The Compliment and Criticism Thread" because Valtteri assumed it would lead to furious arguments.
Nice contradiction.

I don't understand how that's a contradiction. I said "Not all threads," which you pointed out, so that would mean that some threads such as "The Compliment and Criticism Thread" would fall into the other category of having a basis to start arguments.

[sleepy]

so that would mean that some threads such as "The Compliment and Criticism Thread" would fall into the other category of having a basis to start arguments.

I'm quite sure that thread's intention wasn't arguments, which I think is what you're getting at.
(correct me if I'm wrong)

[aero]

so that would mean that some threads such as "The Compliment and Criticism Thread" would fall into the other category of having a basis to start arguments.

I'm quite sure that thread's intention wasn't arguments, which I think is what you're getting at.
(correct me if I'm wrong)

I meant the subject at hand of the thread, not the intention. :p

[Danny]

I don't understand how that's a contradiction. I said "Not all threads," which you pointed out, so that would mean that some threads such as "The Compliment and Criticism Thread" would fall into the other category of having a basis to start arguments.

Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't know you were suggesting that there are some threads that would fall into the category of having a basis to start arguments. Last I checked though, that's called assuming, and the definition of making an assumption is suppose to be the case without proof, which is what you pretty much what you did just now. You have no proof that the thread in question would have caused a furious argument, because nothing actually happened in that thread, it just didn't survive long enough for you to point any fingers.

Besides, the point of this thread is to complain about the threads that have arguments in them getting locked if there were no real problems. The only time you should lock an argument thread is if it turns into a flamewar, which means users are calling other users names and whatnot. "The Compliment and Criticism Thread" had nothing like that happen because you didn't let it survive long enough. Valtteri locked it through assumptions, and that's a very stupid reason to have a thread locked.