- Kickimanjaro
- |
- Intrepid Mythic Member
“Oh, it’s a little bit of everything, it’s the mountains, it’s the fog, it’s the news at six o’clock, it’s the death of my first dog, it’s the angels up above me, it’s the song that they don’t sing, It’s a little bit of everything.”
- Dawes, A little bit of everything
Posted by: Adamal123
Posted by: evilcam
No, no and no.
The primary justification for not allowing users to moderate their topics is simply that they are not the OP's topics. Once you press submit on a public thread, it now belongs to the community. No one can truly claim ownership over any topic, because they don't own it.
No, you should not be able to get rid of "unwanted" replies, because as I said above the thread is not yours. Any user is free to reply with whatever they want provided said reply doesn't break the rules. The only thing that would come as a result of this is widespread abuse. People would only use it to delete replies they don't like or users they don't like.
No, you can't lock your own thread because again, its not actually your thread. This one also has a lot of potential for abuse. Leave it to the mods to dictate what should be locked and what should not. This would not stop spam, it would just give users the ability to be abusive, which I think we all can safely say they'd do more than often.
So no, users should not be able to moderate anything public. They can't be trusted do so, and they have no real need to, as they don't own anything.
I probably should've taken into account the abuse that could happen if this sort of power were given to the community.
In a recent post, which I agreed with, was the ability to ignore certain users, how does that sound?
Just a heads up here, there's currently a lengthy discussion on the ability to ignore certain users. You can read more here: Ignore feature