Complaint
Posted: Thu Jul 03, 2014 8:46 pm
Hello! Insert a potentially controversial topic subject here.
I'm sorry, but since there is the possibility that this topic might result in a furious argument, we should better take a precaution against this possibility and punish the topic by locking it, instead of punishing the users that break the forum guidelines.
Let us disregard the fact that even something as innocent as a baby discussion topic has the potential to cause an uproar, because the possibility of that happening is not as big as of a religious debate. Let us disregard that interpersonal issues between members are not our problem, and use our moderator powers to censor them from arguing publicly. That is not necessary. Let us make use of a slippery slope fallacy: where A has happened, Z happened. Therefore, all future occurrences of A will result in Z. Although if Z does indeed happen, let us ignore the previous paragraph and punish the topic where the argument took place, not who caused it.
Let us create a mindset where an argument is never necessary. It can be done via a PM, as well as everything posted in this forum, as it is not necessary and it could all have been sent in a PM.
Let us forget that there is a punishment for misbehaving, one that is not originated from a moderator's action, called aversion. Let us forget that if an user says something that is completely controversial, they will pay for that without any moderator interference, through the aversion.
We shall lock every forum support topic after responding to it, under the assumption that what I've said in response to the author is the answer they expected to their question and that they will have nothing else to add; not even a simple 'thank you'.
Let us lock any topic that does not seem interesting enough to make a debate out of, which we assume will obviously not get any responses and therefore is not worthy of its own topic and should be locked, even though someone is actually willing to debate said subject we deem unworthy.
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.
I'm sorry, but since there is the possibility that this topic might result in a furious argument, we should better take a precaution against this possibility and punish the topic by locking it, instead of punishing the users that break the forum guidelines.
Let us disregard the fact that even something as innocent as a baby discussion topic has the potential to cause an uproar, because the possibility of that happening is not as big as of a religious debate. Let us disregard that interpersonal issues between members are not our problem, and use our moderator powers to censor them from arguing publicly. That is not necessary. Let us make use of a slippery slope fallacy: where A has happened, Z happened. Therefore, all future occurrences of A will result in Z. Although if Z does indeed happen, let us ignore the previous paragraph and punish the topic where the argument took place, not who caused it.
Let us create a mindset where an argument is never necessary. It can be done via a PM, as well as everything posted in this forum, as it is not necessary and it could all have been sent in a PM.
Let us forget that there is a punishment for misbehaving, one that is not originated from a moderator's action, called aversion. Let us forget that if an user says something that is completely controversial, they will pay for that without any moderator interference, through the aversion.
We shall lock every forum support topic after responding to it, under the assumption that what I've said in response to the author is the answer they expected to their question and that they will have nothing else to add; not even a simple 'thank you'.
Let us lock any topic that does not seem interesting enough to make a debate out of, which we assume will obviously not get any responses and therefore is not worthy of its own topic and should be locked, even though someone is actually willing to debate said subject we deem unworthy.
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?
8bitmushroom wrote: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?>Not all threads would have the basis to start arguments.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.
>Locks "The Compliment and Criticism Thread" because Valtteri assumed it would lead to furious arguments.
Nice contradiction.
Q.A8bitmushroom wrote: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.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.
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.
No. There is no need for staff intervention in order to stop an argument.GhostHawk wrote: Would you rather just have arguments run rampant instead of staff stepping in? Are you really proposing that?
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 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. In any good forum, that's everyone else's problems, not yours as a staffer.GhostHawk wrote: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.