Atlantic Roleplay Community Boards

[Arcana]

---

Not sure if this is the right place, but I had a question about what seems to be a standard practice here that I find rather puzzling. Perhaps someone can offer an explanation for why this is done:

Often, I notice that someone starts a thread for public discussion, but for one reason or another they decide they do not like the direction that the discussion has taken and request that the thread be locked, and it is.

It may just be me, but I find that kind of a head-in-the-sand way of ignoring any difference of opinion when it would probably be more constructive in the long run to go ahead and have the discussion so that you can at least understand and respect someone else's opinion even if you don't agree with it. Uncivil posts can and should be removed, but it has always seemed kind of weird to me to bail on an entire thread at the drop of a hat. Repeat offenders for nasty posting just need to be banned. It seems even more weird to me that you'd go back and say "oh wait, I don't want to talk about that after all" because things didn't go quite the way you'd planned... that is, after all, the nature of a discussion with other people.

[Mave Gerhart]

---

The original poster on a topic always has the choice to request that the topic that they started be locked. It is their topic, therefore it is their choice how far they want to let it go. However, there is no rule that the discussion cannot carry over into another thread started by someone who may have had a differing opinion. As long as the previous discussion was carried on in a civil manner and the thread was not locked because it was getting out of hand, the topic could be reopened in another thread.

In summary, as I understand it, when a poster requests his thread locked, that is it, it is only his thread that is locked. If you wish to continue the discussion, by all means start your own thread and continue.
_________________
Honor is the sword I wield...

"If you have to explain why it makes RP sense, then odds are it doesn't" -Leshok (or his DM)

[01:48] Deathwisp: well I always rub the fuzzy part before I pull it off
[01:48] Mave: ...what?
[01:49] Deathwisp: you know, the fuzzy... nvm

[Arcana]

---

So basically, the person who starts the thread essentially "owns" it? This is pretty different than other forums I've visited, and I don't remember it always being an official rule here. Was there anything in particular that precipitated it or was it just a gradual thing?

[Bailos]

---

It's always been practice here to let posters ask for their threads to be locked. I personally only lock threads if the objective has been met. That is to say the original intent has been fulfilled.

Also, of course, pending their request

[Teh Glouris Lrod Kujabis]

---

As you put it arcana, every overgrown turkey has the option to stick their head in the sand if the thread does not go the way they wish. And when do they ever?

This is why I copy/paste my rule bending posts (generally where I dare suggest that someone is in the wrong over something, which gets things locked and deleted the most), or simply continue threads that get locked here over on 'that other forum that shall not be named'. oh poo i swear i didn't hide a url in this post at all

[Arcana]

---

I appreciate the replies guys, but no one's really answered my question about why the practice exists and why its considered ok.

[Cal Hurst]

---

I think it exists so people don't get upset. And people get upset REALLY EASILY these days. So it happens more frequently.
_________________

[Mave Gerhart]

---

The practice exists basically because it has always existed as long as I can remember. Whether this is a good reason or not, there it is. There is no legitimate reason to discontinue this practice so it carries on. As far as why it is considered ok is because it does not break any board rules and really, in itself, does not hinder any discussion that may be going on.

As I said above, when a poster requests his/her thread locked, that is what is locked, his/her thread, not the topic as long as it has remained a calm, civil discussion. Anyone is free to continue the discussion in their own thread which they in turn may lock if they wish to.

Many times this comes into play when the discussion doesn't stay strictly on the topic that original poster intended. It may not have sidetracked enough to warrant moderator attention but it has changed enough to where the original poster feels his/her original question is not being answered. This gives the other people that may have swerved into another lane the chance to begin their own thread about the new topic.

Plain and simple, the act of allowing the starter of a thread the power to lock their own thread in no way hinders any civil discussion that may be taking place. At worst it forces someone else to click their mouse button a few more times to create a new thread.
_________________
Honor is the sword I wield...

"If you have to explain why it makes RP sense, then odds are it doesn't" -Leshok (or his DM)

[01:48] Deathwisp: well I always rub the fuzzy part before I pull it off
[01:48] Mave: ...what?
[01:49] Deathwisp: you know, the fuzzy... nvm

[Arcana]

---

I think it just contributes to the oversensitivity of most people in this community, personally. I also think these boards require a ridiculous amount of moderation to keep things civil.

But thanks, Mave, that's pretty much what I thought.

I swear I'm not trying to troll just to prompt hopefully a few people to perhaps take a more reflective view at what goes on around here.

[Teh Glouris Lrod Kujabis]

---

[Mave Gerhart]

---

Geez Kuja, I have now taken $52.34 from your stash for not understanding what I wrote down . Read it again. I said that civil discussions were not locked, only the thread which the author started. Yes, someone may request a thread locked for their own selfish, childish reasons. Be that as it may, it does not stop someone from continuing the discussion in their own thread. The only time you cannot continue a discussion by starting a new thread is when a mod locked it because it was getting out of control. Civil discussions remain open for further commentary whether the original thread is locked at originator request or not.

...have you been to sleep yet? hehe
_________________
Honor is the sword I wield...

"If you have to explain why it makes RP sense, then odds are it doesn't" -Leshok (or his DM)

[01:48] Deathwisp: well I always rub the fuzzy part before I pull it off
[01:48] Mave: ...what?
[01:49] Deathwisp: you know, the fuzzy... nvm

[Teh Glouris Lrod Kujabis]

---

I read out of context then I suppose, because my thought was "Uh, if a civil discussion is taking place in a thread and that thread is locked for childish reasons by the original poster, then of course it disrupts that discussion". The rest of my rant I stick by though, even though it is more a general rant then it is a reply to what you said since I misunderstood it.

So thats why I have no money? Jeez :<

And for your information, I woke up at a semi normal time. I have dailies to do, and I need to farm some more [Primal Water].

....Oh no, I'm linking items by accident! I'm infected!

(Now, how many of you nerds clicked the item link? Teehee.)

[Arcana]

---

Gah, I clicked your [primal water] thingie. God. I need a WoW intervention or something. Farm me some primal air while you're at it >.>

Anyway, Mave and Kuja you both did get at the gist of what I'm saying "... that thread is locked for childish reasons by the original poster, then of course it disrupts that discussion" - I think that right there is an actual problem because it just panders to certain people's fragile egos and endless whining, and it gives them an "official" blessing for their behavior. Locking a thread for their childish reason tells them and the rest of the community that acting like a child is ok.

[Ceinwyn ab'Arawn]

---

I swear if you people can't keep this civil, I'm going to request this post be locked.








^_^ JK

[Arcana]

---

omg, Cein made fun of me, I want this thread locked!

j/k