Bungie.net Community
This topic has moved here: Subject: Threads locked by creator's request...
  • Subject: Threads locked by creator's request...
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • of 2
Subject: Threads locked by creator's request...
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Only the paranoid will survive!

Oh. Alright then. Thanks.

  • 12.05.2005 6:39 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Exalted Mythic Member
  • gamertag: Mabian
  • user homepage:

"Whatever exists, whatever in creation exists without my knowledge exists without my consent. These anonymous creatures may seem little or nothing in the world. Yet the smallest crumb can devour us. Any smallest thing beneath yon rock out of men's knowing. Only nature can enslave man and only when the existence of each last entity is routed out and made to stand naked before him will he be properly suzerain of the earth."

Posted by: Pimp at Sea
No, it should not be locked. If it gets off topic it can be locked. If it breaks a rule it can be locked. Not because one member decided nobody gets to reply anymore because he has deemed it 'dead'. If the idea changes then why not keep the same thread? That way all the info and the evolution of the project is right there at your fingertips.


But isn't anything not pertaining to the actual discussion off-topic?

What is the point of a thread that is asking a question (like mine) if the question is answered? Why would people feel the need to put in their own views if they have the official answer staring them in the face?

Or take a thread like Nakki's. The thread was not the only thing deemed dead. He deemed his campaign dead as well. He took up a new one. He said that he was going to work on it somewhere else, and as he said, no one was reading what he had said. He said the campaign was over (before it even began), yet people still came saying they would try to help, or pointing out flaws, or saying it was against the rules. If the thread no longer serves any purpose to anyone, other than a place for off-topic discussion, then the thread should by all means be locked.

If people want to discuss said off-topic ideas, the Flood is not far away.

  • 12.05.2005 6:43 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Only the paranoid will survive!

A thread asking a question? If it gets off topic then lock it. Don't do any 'preemptive' locks. What if someone has a question about the answer given? What if I don't understand it?
And about Nakki's thread- that should definantly not be locked. Just let it sink to the bottom! It isn't his say, or the mods. Show me the rules that thread was violating prior to its locking. Any! It wasn't breaking any rules that would get another topic locked. Once it turns into a spam fest or flame fest- theny ou can lock it. But not a second before.

  • 12.05.2005 6:51 PM PDT

It is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us freedom of the press. It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech. It is the soldier, not the campus organizer, who has given us the freedom to demonstrate. It is the soldier, not the lawyer, who has given us the right to a fair trial. And it is the soldier who salutes the flag, who serves the flag, whose coffin is draped in the flag that allows the protester to burn the flag.Father Dennis Edward O'Brien, USMC

It was his thread and he wanted it locked.

Are we gonna go light tortches and get pitchforks for it?

The thread lived oput its use and at the request of the creator locked.

If only members could lock there own threads.

  • 12.05.2005 7:10 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Exalted Mythic Member
  • gamertag: Mabian
  • user homepage:

"Whatever exists, whatever in creation exists without my knowledge exists without my consent. These anonymous creatures may seem little or nothing in the world. Yet the smallest crumb can devour us. Any smallest thing beneath yon rock out of men's knowing. Only nature can enslave man and only when the existence of each last entity is routed out and made to stand naked before him will he be properly suzerain of the earth."

Perhaps a bit much. I don't think there is any reason members should have that much power.

Anyways, I understand that some people may not fully understand what the answer to the question is. However, couldn't they ask someone via a PM about that?

And as to Nakki's thread, why should it simply sink to the bottom and waste space on the front page, as well as waste the time of other members? Being locked, people can read it, get all of the information they need from it, and find out why it was locked in the first place. In the case of the campaign, it was killed off, so there was no need for anyone to criticize or support it any further. Besides, Nakki made a post about his new idea, and told people to PM him if they were interested, so they had another place to go about the other campaign, that was started in the same thread.

If people started going onto the topic about the new campaign, then what they would be doing would be off-topic, as it would not have anything to do with the original topic, and the original topic was not diverted onto something else.

  • 12.05.2005 7:17 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Only the paranoid will survive!

Posted by: EAGLES5
It was his thread and he wanted it locked.

Are we gonna go light tortches and get pitchforks for it?

The thread lived oput its use and at the request of the creator locked.

If only members could lock there own threads.


The day memebrs can lock their own posts is the day I stop going to B.net.

No thread out-lives its use. It outlived your use for it- other may have still wanted to post there. And I don't really appreciate the insult/sarcasm there. I'm trying to show restraint from insulting you, and a little restraint in return would be appreciated. And it is not his thread! It's the communities' thread!

EDIT: No, it wouldn't be going off-topic. It would be an evolution in the project. For instance- if he changed his idea from saing the underground by ba mass of organized topics to slowly introducing more topics little by litte isn't that the same idea of "Saving the Underground"? He's going about it in a different way, but it's still the same base idea. If it went from "Saving the Underground" to "Saving Zanzibar" though I could see what you mean.

[Edited on 12/5/2005]

  • 12.05.2005 7:19 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Exalted Mythic Member
  • gamertag: Mabian
  • user homepage:

"Whatever exists, whatever in creation exists without my knowledge exists without my consent. These anonymous creatures may seem little or nothing in the world. Yet the smallest crumb can devour us. Any smallest thing beneath yon rock out of men's knowing. Only nature can enslave man and only when the existence of each last entity is routed out and made to stand naked before him will he be properly suzerain of the earth."

I will agree with you on a point like that, but in the case of Nakki's thread, I still disagree.

His campaign had not evolved. It had diverted. It was no longer about "Saving the Underground." It was about creating a holiday over Bungie.net. Had he chosen to edit his original post, he could have kept the discussion going in the same thread. But instead he asked for his thread to be locked. Since the topic was diverted, and the original topic no longer had any need to be discussed, the locking of it was justified.

  • 12.05.2005 7:52 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: Nakki Kedem
Ok, lets say this:

I am the creator of a thread. I figure its no good anymore, or its pointless, or SOEMTHING. And I decide I dont want it anymore.

Would you rather that thread be locked? OR would you rather I edit ALL my posts in it saying nevermind. So the new people have no idea what it is about, and hardly anything makes sense?


The point is that it isn't only your decision whether or not a post is worthless. If you were going to edit all of your posts just out of spite because you believe that you are the final say on what is a worthwhile post or not then it is your choice. Don't you think that would be kind of selfish? If it ever became a widespread problem, then I wouldn't have a problem with it becoming a rule that you can not edit all of your posts just to hurt a topic. If you don't like the subject anymore then just don't post in it. It doesn't hurt anything to let others discuss it while you are not interested in it anymore. It is a bad feeling when you come back to a post interested in the conversation with the community(not just the thread starter) to find that the thread has been locked because the thread creator decided to use their position to end the thread.

  • 12.05.2005 9:38 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Exalted Mythic Member
  • gamertag: Mabian
  • user homepage:

"Whatever exists, whatever in creation exists without my knowledge exists without my consent. These anonymous creatures may seem little or nothing in the world. Yet the smallest crumb can devour us. Any smallest thing beneath yon rock out of men's knowing. Only nature can enslave man and only when the existence of each last entity is routed out and made to stand naked before him will he be properly suzerain of the earth."

What position? Their is a request and a justification. A mod would never lock a thread that the creator didn't like simply because the creator asked the mod to. Otherwise people would pose arguments and then ask for the thread to be locked if they were losing.

  • 12.05.2005 10:16 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Their position as creator of the thread. If another participant asked for a thread to be locked it would be less likely to be locked. So as creator of the thread he has more power. I don't think it should be like this. I also think that a thread should be treated as "property" of the community rather than something destroyed at the wish of the thread starter.

I think that just by having this discussion mods will be more aware of how locking threads at the request of creator affects others. I still think back to the describe the user above you in 3 words post. That thread had taken on a personality completely seperate of the creator. Still it was locked.

  • 12.06.2005 2:26 AM PDT

http://www.bungie.net/fanclub/atticus/Group/GroupHome.aspx

OMG!!! For Crying out loud Pimp!!! Drop the subject.

I think any thread asking a question that no longer needs answered should be ALLOWED to be deleted or locked. You kno wwhy? Peopl eon this forum seem to think they alone have the answer, and even if someone else said it above them, they feel urged to post the exact same thing repeatedly. Then change it a bit andpost again. IT HAPPENS LIKE THAT ALL THE TIME!

I wanted my post locked because I was tired of all the PM's and posts and people on IRC telling me they either were gonna help, thought it was breaking the rules *cough*YOU*cough* or telling me what to do to change it. I was tired of getting all the "spam" from the members about it. And I had already decided that what I wrote in my first post was no longer going to happen. The only discussion IN MY thread was about the first post or nothing at all. I told everyone I wasnt doing it anymore and I asked a moderator to please lock it. Here is teh kicker: The mod asked why. He asked what was wrong with it first, and only procedded to lock it once I had presented my case and been seen correct. He did not just go "alrighty!!! LOCKAGE!" he asked and made sure the reasons, then he locked it because he wanted to. He wouldnt have otherwise.

All you are doing right now is saying hte mods arent doing thier jobs right. THats all this thread is. You are going against the moderators judgement, and as i recall, thats not a good thing here. The mods are right in what they do, and if you have a problem, its been nice knowing you. They can lock or delete whatever they want. I dont see you complaining when a neat post in The Flood gets deleted or locked just because 1 guy decided to flame.

So drop this, your not making your point obviously, this is just turning into a war. Why dont you go test this amazing moderator controlling power and make one lock your thread. Im sure you could find one that is more than willing to lock it just becaused you asked.... [/sarcasm]

Just Drop it.

  • 12.06.2005 6:08 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: Pimp at Sea
A thread asking a question? If it gets off topic then lock it. Don't do any 'preemptive' locks. What if someone has a question about the answer given? What if I don't understand it?
.... Once it turns into a spam fest or flame fest- then you can lock it. But not a second before.


I've been noticing a lot of locking per request or for the reason that the "question was already answered" lately too.

I think there are a couple of reasons why it would be best to let the threads run thier course.

1. Locked threads clutter up the forums.

2. There may be a secondary question or additional comment that someone could contribute to the thread that you haven't thought of.

3. Leaves open the possibility of squeltching a duplicate thread.

4. Sends a mixed signal... I was browsing the thread linked above to find out why it was locked, I could draw a number of logical conclusions of why it was locked and it turns out it may have been locked just because the question was deemed "answered".

This thread itself illistrates a few of these points. The question itself has really been answered. A moderator said this was the policy they are following (though it is still unclear to me which of the two policies that were being discussed are now semi-official) but the thread is still open. It being open allows me to say, "hey I like threads not to be locked for these reasons too." It also prevented me from creating an almost duplicate thread to discuss a very similar topic.

Well, all this is no big deal, the forums will function either way, but if you want my two cents that is it. If you don't want my two cents then you probably aren't reading this anyway.

  • 12.06.2005 6:11 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Nakki this thread isn't limited to application to your thread. This topic applies to all threads that are locked after the creator suggested it be locked. This applies to whether or not we consider threads to be "owned" the creators or the communities.
Posted by: Nakki Kedem
All you are doing right now is saying hte mods arent doing thier jobs right. THats all this thread is.


What the mod has done in that thread is pretty much final. What we are discussing is how we would like the mods to treat similar requests in the future. It is constructive feeback to the mods. I'm sure they are watching this and are interested.

As a whole I think your post's tone seems angry. Maybe I'm reading it wrong. If I'm not then I would suggest calming down. We aren't trying to turn this into a war. We are discussing how we would like the community to be run. It is our community after all. We do have some say in it. There is nothing to be angry about.

  • 12.06.2005 9:50 AM PDT

http://www.bungie.net/fanclub/atticus/Group/GroupHome.aspx

Dude, I said that because of how much my thread has been brought up here. It is a PERFECT example and one everyone can relate to almost. And Pimp started this because of my thread. As this came about shortly after mine was locked. I was more talking to him than everyone.

And yes, it was angry-ish...

  • 12.06.2005 1:27 PM PDT

It is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us freedom of the press. It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech. It is the soldier, not the campus organizer, who has given us the freedom to demonstrate. It is the soldier, not the lawyer, who has given us the right to a fair trial. And it is the soldier who salutes the flag, who serves the flag, whose coffin is draped in the flag that allows the protester to burn the flag.Father Dennis Edward O'Brien, USMC

Pimp sorry you think i was insulting you, my apologys

You keep asking about the people who may of wanted to posted.

I ask you this

If they saw the thread while it was up they either posted or they didnt. If they didnt post then they didnt care. If they are complaining now then they have no right to. So why care for them?

If the person didnt see it and it was deleted then whats the harm there if they didnt know it existed?

And why persecute the mods and members who requested the mods help?

Its just making something out of nothing. Im sorry if it sounds mean.
Maybe its just cuz im simple.

I thank Great Pretender for his speedy reply.

Also the mods shurley read threads before locking them. The ddecide if its good or bad. Its not lock on demand.

[Edited on 12/6/2005]

  • 12.06.2005 1:41 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Only the paranoid will survive!

Nakki, get -blam!- real. Stop being so egotistical and you would notice that I made an effort not to make it sound like I'm mad at any mods. This isn't about you. At all. Even remotely. And I won't drop this just because you feel like being an ass, so if you're just gouing to throw around groundless insults I will kindly ask you to not post in this thread again.

And Nakki- I wasn't questioning your motives behind asking for it to be locked. I'm just saying it isn't your place to ask that. You don't own a thread. The community does. If someone wants to reply they shou;d be able to, even if you consider the topic "dead".

And just for kicks I counted how many times I mentioned your thread and how many times you did. I did twice, once anonymously. You did it twice, but made sure to let people know it was your thread. You were the first ot mention your thread, actually. So don't act like people are picking on you.
____________________________________
If they saw the thread while it was up they either posted or they didnt. If they didnt post then they didnt care. If they are complaining now then they have no right to. So why care for them?
No, if they didn't post they could have just not noticed it. Many times I see a title on the front page that doesn't look that appealing so I wait a few days to look at it. Once I finally look at it though I see that I would want to reply, and do so. It's not always that they didn't care, it's that they never even saw it.

If the person didnt see it and it was deleted then whats the harm there if they didnt know it existed?
That's like saying "What they don't know won't hurt them." They should still be given the chance to read it.

And why persecute the mods and members who requested the mods help?

Its just making something out of nothing. Im sorry if it sounds mean.
Maybe its just cuz im simple.

I have gone out of my way to NOT presecute any mods or members (except for Nakki right now, which I won't regret at all). It doesn't sound mean, everyone should be able to express their own opinion.

Also the mods shurley read threads before locking them. The ddecide if its good or bad. Its not lock on demand.
True, but I'm just asking that they think a bit more before locking. There are topics that may seem dead to them but I still want to post in.



[Edited on 12/6/2005]

  • 12.06.2005 1:51 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

If they saw the thread while it was up they either posted or they didnt. If they didnt post then they didnt care. If they are complaining now then they have no right to. So why care for them?
No, if they didn't post they could have just not noticed it. Many times I see a title on the front page that doesn't look that appealing so I wait a few days to look at it. Once I finally look at it though I see that I would want to reply, and do so. It's not always that they didn't care, it's that they never even saw it.


But really, users have reasons for wanting their own threads locked. It's not like anybody asks for any worthwhile, or, moreover, valid threads to be locked; and if they did, I'm sure the mods would deny them (because, at the end of the day, it's the mods' jurisdiction around these here parts). And that, in my view, is what asking for threads to be locked is - a pointer to the moderators, who can then take the action they feel appropriate, possibly biased by the thread creator's request if there is enough justification.

If the person didnt see it and it was deleted then whats the harm there if they didnt know it existed?
That's like saying "What they don't know won't hurt them." They should still be given the chance to read it.


Indeed, but if I use Nakki's thread as an example (and please don't take my use of this model in offence, anybody), it really had become quite invalid by the time it was locked. Do people have a need to know about it? Nope. Do they have a right to read it's contents? Arguably, but the former point over-rules this. Deleting it would serve more or less the same purpose, but it was left to show the people who'd already participated it's fate. It simply was not necessary for new contributions to be added.

Also the mods shurley read threads before locking them. The ddecide if its good or bad. Its not lock on demand.
True, but I'm just asking that they think a bit more before locking. There are topics that may seem dead to them but I still want to post in.


Bringing me to my concluding point; the ninjas moderate, nobody else. I happen to think they deal with lock requests well. Although the thread creators may request certain ninja action, they cannot demand it and they can but suggest. Often asking for one's thread to be locked/deleted is little more than reporting spam; sometimes it goes deeper, but logic tends to prevail. You may well have wanted to participate in a number of threads, but in most cases it would be adding a valid (I hope!) opinion to something which is invalid.

I cannot see why users should not have input, if necessary, in their own threads. It's not that they have control over whatever they post and the replies; just that they sometimes have different perspectives on where a thread is heading, and where it should be.

This whole topiv seems like something out of nothing, I don't see anybody pulling their hair out over somebody having a death wish for their own creation granted (though I'm sure somebody out there will prove me wrong).

[Edited on 12/6/2005]

  • 12.06.2005 2:21 PM PDT

*sigh*

I'll say my piece.

The mentioned threads were either going to die or be locked in the first place, seeing as they had been eloquently answered BOTH times. I don't see where you're getting this whole "I want to discuss it further after it has been answered!" from. Doing so would result in the thread going off topic, or presenting the same answer twice and wasting everyone's time. You have to understand, both threads you speak of would have been (effectively) locked anyway, as they would have presented absolutely no worthwhile information on the thread creators subject. Asking to have it locked merely prevented any useless discussion that might have followed. If someone wanted to discuss an offshoot of that topic (something that would have taken the original topic in a new direction) simply make another thread discussing this new topic (Pimp, I direct this last statement in your general direction).

And another thing, calm down, all of you. This isn't something you should be getting up in arms about. It's fine to have different opionins, no matter how wrong the other guy is. :P

  • 12.06.2005 2:26 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Only the paranoid will survive!

Posted by: Psyched
If they saw the thread while it was up they either posted or they didnt. If they didnt post then they didnt care. If they are complaining now then they have no right to. So why care for them?
No, if they didn't post they could have just not noticed it. Many times I see a title on the front page that doesn't look that appealing so I wait a few days to look at it. Once I finally look at it though I see that I would want to reply, and do so. It's not always that they didn't care, it's that they never even saw it.


But really, users have reasons for wanting their own threads locked. It's not like anybody asks for any worthwhile, or, moreover, valid threads to be locked; and if they did, I'm sure the mods would deny them (because, at the end of the day, it's the mods' jurisdiction around these here parts). And that, in my view, is what asking for threads to be locked is - a pointer to the moderators, who can then take the action they feel appropriate, possibly biased by the thread creator's request if there is enough justification.

If the person didnt see it and it was deleted then whats the harm there if they didnt know it existed?
That's like saying "What they don't know won't hurt them." They should still be given the chance to read it.


Indeed, but if I use Nakki's thread as an example (and please don't take my use of this model in offence, anybody), it really had become quite invalid by the time it was locked. Do people have a need to know about it? Nope. Do they have a right to read it's contents? Arguably, but the former point over-rules this. Deleting it would serve more or less the same purpose, but it was left to show the people who'd already participated it's fate. It simply was not necessary for new contributions to be added.

Also the mods shurley read threads before locking them. The ddecide if its good or bad. Its not lock on demand.
True, but I'm just asking that they think a bit more before locking. There are topics that may seem dead to them but I still want to post in.


Bringing me to my concluding point; the ninjas moderate, nobody else. I happen to think they deal with lock requests well. Although the thread creators may request certain ninja action, they cannot demand it and they can but suggest. Often asking for one's thread to be locked/deleted is little more than reporting spam; sometimes it goes deeper, but logic tends to prevail. You may well have wanted to participate in a number of threads, but in most cases it would be adding a valid (I hope!) opinion to something which is invalid.

I cannot see why users should not have input, if necessary, in their own threads. It's not that they have control over whatever they post and the replies; just that they sometimes have different perspectives on where a thread is heading, and where it should be.

This whole topiv seems like something out of nothing, I don't see anybody pulling their hair out over somebody having a death wish for their own creation granted (though I'm sure somebody out there will prove me wrong).


I agree with everything except the bit about a post requested by the creator to be locked and the mods granted that request, created by a member whos name will remain anonymous. You feel it outserved its purpose- what if someone wanted to show their own opinion though? You may not care, but what if I do? What if I want to read what they write? I can't, because that thread is locked.

All in all, it's up to the mods whether or not they want to lock it. Completely. I'm just asking that they try to take this into account when locking threads. Someone, somewhere may want to reply.

[Edited on 12/6/2005]

  • 12.06.2005 2:30 PM PDT

All in all, it's up to the mods whether or not they want to lock it. Completely. I'm just asking that they try to take this into account when locking threads. Someone, somewhere may want to reply.
We lock a thread based on our judgement and no-one else's.

As I already said.

This discussion is obviously just going around in circles, so I'm locking it now.

  • 12.06.2005 2:37 PM PDT

http://www.bungie.net/fanclub/atticus/Group/GroupHome.aspx

Posted by: Pimp at Sea
And I won't drop this just because you feel like being an ass, so if you're just gouing to throw around groundless insults I will kindly ask you to not post in this thread again.


Hmm, this sounds almost the opposite of:
And Nakki- I wasn't questioning your motives behind asking for it to be locked. I'm just saying it isn't your place to ask that. You don't own a thread. The community does.

So basically, your going agaisnt what you said here, claiming the threads ARE the creators. Telling me to get out of it, when its not yours. Thats like asking me to leave the park because I made you angry..


Posted by: Pimp at Sea
Nakki, get -blam!- real. This isn't about you. At all. Even remotely.


I may have brought it up, but it was the thread I made that started this whole issue, You didnt like what I had to say in it and didnt like how I had it locked. Then someone else did the same thing, Eagles. It was our threads that made you go into this rampage to squash out the rights we have as thread creators and members of this community.


Posted by: Pimp at Sea
And just for kicks I counted how many times I mentioned your thread and how many times you did. I did twice, once anonymously. You did it twice, but made sure to let people know it was your thread. You were the first ot mention your thread, actually. So don't act like people are picking on you.


Hmm, No duh I would make people know its my thread, IT IS MINE! Its not like I said OOO MY THREAD OMG!! MINE MIN MINE! I just stated I started it, and it was about my idea. Hats not making sure people know, its stating a fact. So we are equal in teh amounts its been said, so dont bring that into this.

Now, I dont even know what 'this' is, since I made the save the underground post, you seem to have been all over me for someting I havent even done, and was only contemplating. I dont understand why you said all that crap to me back in that thread and on aim. I didnt do anything to you.

Whatever you have against me, its NOT mutual, so dont assume it is. I dont know whats gotten into you, but you are startting to annoy me.


I disagree with this threads main idea. Post should be the intellectual property of the creator. As anything created is. So tehy should have the right to "REQUEST" its dismissal or removale.

  • 12.06.2005 2:37 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: Pimp at Sea
I agree with everything except the bit about a post requested by the creator to be locked and the mods granted that request, created by a member whos name will remain anonymous. You feel it outserved its purpose- what if someone wanted to show their own opinion though? You may not care, but what if I do? What if I want to read what they write? I can't, because that thread is locked.

All in all, it's up to the mods whether or not they want to lock it. Completely. I'm just asking that they try to take this into account when locking threads. Someone, somewhere may want to reply.


I don't support the locking of threads which still allow for the addition of worthwhile posts. That's not what I'm saying, at all. I agree somewhat in that it's not fair on other users if they can't reply; but I don't believe that it's up to them. True, these are public forums. Threads posted are open to replies from all users. But, if there is no longer a need for the thread, or means of adding to the thread, to remain in a ninja's eye, that's the word and the word is final. I think, or at the very least, would like to think, that everyone here is unanimous on this.

I would also like to think, and as of now have still had no reason to doubt, that ninjas do take the opinions of the whole spectrum of forum users into account, and try their best to come to a balanced decision on which actions they should take with regards to each thread. And I'm sure they wouldn't mind, if indeed anyone strongly felt that their judgment had been harsh, if an enquiry and/or a request to have the situation of the thread reviewed was PMed.

  • 12.06.2005 2:45 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Exalted Mythic Member
  • gamertag: Mabian
  • user homepage:

"Whatever exists, whatever in creation exists without my knowledge exists without my consent. These anonymous creatures may seem little or nothing in the world. Yet the smallest crumb can devour us. Any smallest thing beneath yon rock out of men's knowing. Only nature can enslave man and only when the existence of each last entity is routed out and made to stand naked before him will he be properly suzerain of the earth."

Then the only thing to ask yourself in this case is: Who is going to post next, and will his or her post be worth it?

After all, I could have not requested for my thread to be locked. Someone may have read it, and decided to quote Yoozel, then say "I agree with Yoozel." Considering that my first question was based off of the experience of the mods (whether or not they knew that a thread should be locked for the n-word), and my second based off of the rules as set by Bungie, saying "I agree" is simply a waste of space. There was also no need to discuss the answer because it was final. You don't question the mods unless what they do is questionable, as per the "n-word" discussion, and you don't question the rules as set by Bungie. If the answer is final, then why should a discussion need to occur?

Sorry Nakki, but I have to bring it up again.

In Nakki's thread, what would have occured had the thread been left open? Members who continued the discussion were continuing a discussion that was no longer being discussed. We can reach this conclusion because the original plan was ended. He told people to PM him if they were interested in his new plan. If they had read what he posted, then no one would have continued the discussion, because they would have PMed Nakki. So, the topic was no longer needed.

  • 12.06.2005 2:54 PM PDT

  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • of 2