- 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]