Bungie.net Community
This topic has moved here: Poll [14 votes]: Do you think we should be given more control over our topics?
  • Poll [14 votes]: Do you think we should be given more control over our topics?
Subject: Do you think we should be given more control over our topics?

+1 for you good sir.

Poll: Do you think we should be given more control over our topics?  [closed]
Yes:  36%
(5 Votes)
No:  64%
(9 Votes)
Total Votes: 14

This discussion is no longer needed. Many of you explained how this could be heavily abused and I agree, also, there is already another topic based on something similar but more personal.

Please lock.

[Edited on 12.13.2011 7:32 PM PST]

  • 12.13.2011 7:18 PM PDT

Basically, I make the best topics ever.

Feedback!
Duardo: This thread is locked for being stupid.
cortana 5 : It's perpetually my time of the month and I'm just grouchy.
Foman: I see absolutely no reason, either theoretical or practical, that this is not a superb idea. Excellent work, my friend.

Censorship is a dangerous game my friend.

  • 12.13.2011 7:19 PM PDT

Yes.

  • 12.13.2011 7:19 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

I come to Bnet to distract myelf from homicidal and suicidal ideations.

Not sure.

[Edited on 12.13.2011 7:20 PM PST]

  • 12.13.2011 7:20 PM PDT

Mods have these abilities. I would enjoy the ability to lock my own thread, however; I feel that locking it for the wrong reasons should be ban-worthy, though.

  • 12.13.2011 7:20 PM PDT

+1 for you good sir.


Posted by: sharpace77
Censorship is a dangerous game my friend.

It's really more of a way of controlling unwanted links containing viruses.

I don't think its a a form on cencorship, since it's really up to what the OP wants in his/her thread. Kind of a filtering system.

  • 12.13.2011 7:21 PM PDT

To infinity, and beyond!
UNSC Leviathan

I think we have all that we need. We have moderators to handle the dirty work.

  • 12.13.2011 7:22 PM PDT

“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

I don't think that people should be able to delete or lock their own threads because then we'd have threads where the OP ends up locking/deleting it just because people start voicing a different view that the OP doesn't like.

I also do not think that one should have the power to delete "unwanted" posts from their own thread for the same reason. While I do believe that users should have the option to ignore users (there's been much discussion about this on several other topics), I do not believe that one person should be able to hide a user's post within their own thread because they don't want it. That's taking the "law" into their own "hands" and it's just not right. People should be able to choose whether or not they get to ignore a post (again, the option to ignore certain users).

Basically, I don't like these ideas because I think they place too much power in a single individual over many, and that they would negatively affect the discussion (which, after all, is what a forum is for).

  • 12.13.2011 7:22 PM PDT

+1 for you good sir.


Posted by: Stormkiller626
I think we have all that we need. We have moderators to handle the dirty work.

True, but I think this would lighten the load, seeing that they cannot be here 24/7.


Posted by: Kickimanjaro
I don't think that people should be able to delete or lock their own threads because then we'd have threads where the OP ends up locking/deleting it just because people start voicing a different view that the OP doesn't like.

I also do not think that one should have the power to delete "unwanted" posts from their own thread for the same reason. While I do believe that users should have the option to ignore users (there's been much discussion about this on several other topics), I do not believe that one person should be able to hide a user's post within their own thread because they don't want it. That's taking the "law" into their own "hands" and it's just not right. People should be able to choose whether or not they get to ignore a post (again, the option to ignore certain users).

Basically, I don't like these ideas because I think they place too much power in a single individual over many, and that they would negatively affect the discussion (which, after all, is what a forum is for).

The individualism is probably the way to go, I agree with what you say, too much power to a single individual is a big no-no.

I like what you said about the individual being given the option to ignore other users. This would help more seeing as rude and spam posts aren't "hidden" until it's reported enough.

[Edited on 12.13.2011 7:27 PM PST]

  • 12.13.2011 7:23 PM PDT

“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: Stormkiller626
I think we have all that we need. We have moderators to handle the dirty work.

True, but I think this would lighten the load, seeing that they cannot be here 24/7.

Yes, the moderators are not online 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. And yes, sometimes "people" post obscene links to shock sites. But no, we do not need to give the OP of a thread the power to remove such links/posts as we all (not just the OP) have the ability to report them. If enough people report them, as should happen, then the post gets collapsed and no one else has to see it.

tl;dr we have what we need

  • 12.13.2011 7:25 PM PDT
  • gamertag: iBIind
  • user homepage:

Whoo.

- Opposing opinion? LOL DELETED.
- Posts inflamatory thread, deletes before a moderator catches on.
- Moderators already have these abilities.

  • 12.13.2011 7:26 PM PDT

To infinity, and beyond!
UNSC Leviathan


Posted by: Adamal123

Posted by: Stormkiller626
I think we have all that we need. We have moderators to handle the dirty work.

True, but I think this would lighten the load, seeing that they cannot be here 24/7.


Maybe being able to simply hide posts. Like when a post gets reported enough, but it would only be hidden to the people that chose to hide it.

  • 12.13.2011 7:26 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

SPOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOON!

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.

  • 12.13.2011 7:26 PM PDT

+1 for you good sir.


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?

  • 12.13.2011 7:30 PM PDT

“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

  • 12.13.2011 7:32 PM PDT

@spawn031

"So much of what we do is ephemeral and quickly forgotten, even by ourselves, so it's gratifying to have something you have done linger in people's memories." John Williams

Absolutely not. Anytime you give users tools to tinker with, it's bound for abuse. It doesn't matter what it is.

Giving users a function to delete individual posts within their own thread is basically selective posting. Everyone that registers on bnet has an opinion, and they should be allowed to post it. Leaving it up to someone to delete their post entirely is counter productive and shouldn't be integrated.

People locking their own threads also just screams for abuse. Some may see it as a great tool, but people would just spam different topic and lock it before a moderator could get to it. If would get very annoying, not to mention if that is used in combination with your first idea.

  • 12.13.2011 7:33 PM PDT

+1 for you good sir.


Posted by: Kickimanjaro
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

Thank you, I just saw it as some of you were pointing out. I'll head on over.

  • 12.13.2011 7:33 PM PDT