I know. But David's a staff member, not a mod.
Locking this thread - seriously mods??
Sort:
Feb 20, 2017
0
#23
macer75 wrote:
In my opinion, locking a thread simply because it touches upon a topic that has been discussed before is not within the rightful powers of a moderator.
The "rightful powers of a Moderator" are whatever the forum Admins decide they are.
If you use someone's website, that's how it works. When in Rome, do as the Romans do.
You can point out that this lock was inconsistent with previous procedure, certainly... but it's not an abuse of Moderator powers. Not unless the Admins say so (and that would be handled by PM, between the Admin and the Mod, not in the open forum).
Maybe they're running out of server space.
Feb 20, 2017
0
#25
VladimirHerceg91 wrote:
Maybe they're running out of server space.
They can buy some more.
blueemu wrote:
macer75 wrote:
In my opinion, locking a thread simply because it touches upon a topic that has been discussed before is not within the rightful powers of a moderator.
The "rightful powers of a Moderator" are whatever the forum Admins decide they are.
If you use someone's website, that's how it works. When in Rome, do as the Romans do.
You can point out that this lock was inconsistent with previous procedure, certainly... but it's not an abuse of Moderator powers. Not unless the Admins say so (and that would be handled by PM, between the Admin and the Mod, not in the open forum).
Yes, in legal terms you are correct. But the word "rightful" and expressions like "x has/does not have a right to ..." are rarely used today in purely legal terms. Now, perhaps they should be used more accurately - I myself certainly think so at times - but in this case I'm simply using the word in the more general sense in which it is commonly used. You can substitute it for a more appropriate term if you would like, but in any case I don't think it has a huge bearing on my overall argument. I believe that locking the thread was inappropriate, and I sincerely hope that the reasoning behind the locking of that thread is not applied to other threads, but if the staff insists that what the mod did is fine I have no choice but to assent.
Derp-Ssundee wrote:
macer75 wrote:
alexm2310 wrote:
Where do they draw the line? I doubt any of today's hot topic threads are original
Exactly. This lock was completely out of the blue for me. In the past I've only encountered two situations where threads were locked for repetiveness, neither of which is comparable to this one:
1. When one person creates two or more threads that are the same (which is usually accidental).
2. There was one time when there was a major bug in live chess (I can't remember what it is), and the forums were flooded with threads on the bug. Eventually the mods told people to report the bug only on existing threads, and that new threads on the bug would be deleted. I suppose that given the situation their response was understandable.
In this particular instance the OP was simply creating his first thread on a commonly discussed topic. His own top 10 list which he included in his first post was actually quite original, as it included Caruana, So and Aronian. I suppose if he had titled it "What do you think of my top 10 players list?" the mods might have been ok with it - yet the content of the thread would not have been greatly different. In any case, this is the first instance I have seen of a mod locking a thread under normal circumstances simply for being unoriginal.
who cares macer75 its just a thread
Indeed, the thread itself is "just a thread." But as I indicated in the other thread created in response to the mod's locking of that thread (https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/top-10-chessplayers-in-history-resurrected), I am concerned about the approach to moderation behind the lock, my thoughts on which I don't think I need to reiterate.
Feb 20, 2017
0
#28
the subject matter could have been a bit more original, but i guess the opee has a point, how many "relax and be yourself" or "be yourself" threads have been locked ?
Sanju_1996d wrote:
alexm2310 wrote:
I've seen a "Fischer v Carlsen" thread locked for being repetitive. Sure, people probably should use the older threats but it's simply unreasonable to censor a question just because it's been asked before. This is an online community, not a library
With All due respect to your opinion on the subject, its still kinda irritating to see same threads over and again. Who is greatest world champion? Who is Greatest player of all time? these threads are repeated again and again. And that's what mods are for, to prevent spam from community! Okay, Its not exactly a spam, still people genuinely needing the answer to such questions should first look this up on google. :)
There is no answer to these questions. That's why they're continually being discussed.
Sanju_1996d wrote:
macer75 wrote:
Sanju_1996d wrote:
alexm2310 wrote:
I've seen a "Fischer v Carlsen" thread locked for being repetitive. Sure, people probably should use the older threats but it's simply unreasonable to censor a question just because it's been asked before. This is an online community, not a library
With All due respect to your opinion on the subject, its still kinda irritating to see same threads over and again. Who is greatest world champion? Who is Greatest player of all time? these threads are repeated again and again. And that's what mods are for, to prevent spam from community! Okay, Its not exactly a spam, still people genuinely needing the answer to such questions should first look this up on google. :)
There is no answer to these questions. That's why they're continually being discussed.
Yeah Sure. But They Can Always Discuss This on preexisting thread instead of creating new every time.
Yes, we can, but it shouldn't be up to the mods to make that decision for us. And sometimes starting with a clean slate can have its benefits, such as in situations where one does not want to be weighed down by previous discussion of the subject, which will inevitably color current discussion if it occurs on a preexisting thread. In the particular case of the thread that was locked, the OP proposed a very original list of his top 10, and by starting a new thread with his list in the original post, he is much more likely to receive feedback on his list specifically (which he did) than if he had posted it in a preexisting thread.
Feb 20, 2017
0
#31
macer making a serious and intellectually superior post!! i'm just totally blown away!
I can see how this works:
1) lock new thread for there having been a similiar one before
2) lock old thread because it was necroed.
3) ?????
4) Profit!
Derp-Ssundee wrote:
[COMMENT DELETED BY DAVID ~ As Above]
I dunno... that looks fake to me. I've never seen a mod write "comment deleted by xx" when he/she deletes a comment.
Feb 21, 2017
0
#34
General-TsoTso wrote:
the subject matter could have been a bit more original, but i guess the opee has a point, how many "relax and be yourself" or "be yourself" threads have been locked ?
Totally diff cuz that is one guy creating the same thread and closing it down after 1K or 500 or whenever he decides to close his account.
Feb 21, 2017
0
#35
not too diff, i mean they are one guy talking to himself mostly and it's just all random bs, whereas at least there is some kind of discussion on the locked ones.
Feb 21, 2017
0
#36
General-TsoTso wrote:
...random bs...
It's not random, he is trying to figure out if he exists or not.
That guy challanged me to a cc game and I told him ok but I don't want to chat. Five moves in he starts off with small talk. I let is slide for a little bit but when started chatting about his life in bed and mine in bed I shut off chat.
He resigned immediately.
Not sure what is meant here. Even libraries have multiple copies of the same material. Redundancy here is natural and I sincerely think this is crossing a line. What's next?