Super Mario Bros. X Forums

GhostHawk wrote: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.

Ignoritus wrote: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.

Pixels wrote:

GhostHawk wrote: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."

Ignoritus wrote: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.

GhostHawk wrote: 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.

GhostHawk wrote: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.

Pixels wrote:

GhostHawk wrote: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?

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.

GhostHawk wrote: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?

GhostHawk wrote: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.

8bitmushroom wrote: >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.

GhostHawk wrote: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)

sleepy wrote:

GhostHawk wrote: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

GhostHawk wrote: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.

8bitmushroom wrote:

GhostHawk wrote: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.

I see your point about my assumptions and Valtteri's however I still believe not much good would come from that thread. I'll unlock it anyway though since you're right that it didn't survive long enough for an informed decision to be made.

GhostHawk wrote:I see your point about my assumptions and Valtteri's however I still believe not much good would come from that thread. I'll unlock it anyway though since you're right that it didn't survive long enough for an informed decision to be made.

Although it doesn't seem like a good idea to have, the thread wasn't fleshed out enough because nobody in that thread decided to throw in anything pertaining to the topic. You could have left it locked, as I was just saying what I said as a reminder not to go off and lock threads that don't have any real base to them. If it can't get past a page or two without any bullshit, it should be locked, or the ones that started the bullshit should be warned for their actions.

Warnings, at least in my opinion, are being handed out way too lightly now. Somebody could insult me in a thread and get away with it because that thread got locked because of arguments. The persons at fault should get warned, you shouldn't shut an entire thread down because one person said something bad. Please take into consideration of punishing people that go out of their way to start a flamewar/furious argument.

The staff should also inform users to use the Report feature if they find something offensive. I still have to argue that the backseat moderator rule is stupid, but this is not the thread to discuss such a thing.

This complaint involves all staffers; not just GhostHawk.
Just a reminder that this needs to get to the other mods and admins.

michel wrote:This complaint involves all staffers; not just GhostHawk.
Just a reminder that this needs to get to the other mods and admins.

Topic locking has been somewhat discussed, I'll let the others know about this thread when they come back on tomorrow if they haven't seen it.

Why is it that Michel, Pixels, and 8bit are the only ones really arguing this?

Does this affect the validity of our argument at all. Is this even relevant?

Yes, it does.

Yes, it is.

Please elaborate?

You and Pixels aren't active here. I included 8bit because you're all friends and seem to share (take "share" literally) ideas.

Where are you getting with this?