I think it's a staff decision. While you're away from the thread you were involved in, it may have become derailed. Complaints would ensue, and then Zap! it's locked.
End-of-discussion!
Sort:
No, it wasn't that. I'll be more specific...
After a couple of screen-free days I return to chess.com. After muddling through my games I have a look at the Topic in which I'd last posted, and there are a couple of comments from persons critical of what I'd last written.
I go to respond and...nothing! Nothing at all. I am not able to answer my critics. The discussion-is-over, I SAID .
That I SAID is whoever it was to decide that I was to shut-up, thankyou very much, and I'll just make sure your properly gaffertaped into silence by calling this Topic closed.
At least that's what I imagine, as there's nothing that states otherwise. (I'll be the right dill, if I've just missed the explanatory note.)
So, is this Chess.com with the 'executive gag'? Or, does some precious, gutless, arrogant, member have the ability to go me and then "have the last word'' -as it were- by locking down the Topic? (Which might be handy during a domestic...)
That's not just gaffertape tactics: thats lets-stuff-the-bloody-gag-down-your-throat-first treatment.
And it's gutless, bloody, self-righteous censorship.
Jul 1, 2013
0
#4
Oh! Do you mean there was no comment box for you to respond in yet the thread was not locked? If so, then the OP of the thread blocked you.
Ahh,thankyou very much trysts ; that's sort of what I suspected. I didn't know that was an option. Where and how does this happen? I've seen no mention of it. Can you be of help? Or anyone else. Please.
Jul 1, 2013
0
#6
go to the OP's homepage of that particular thread, you will see on their homepage it will say "you have been blocked'
And does anybody out there have an opinion on this remarkable power to censor, to silence someone -an interlocuter in fact- just because, well... just because the OP feels like it! ?
Or what...
thankyou for the info kco.
You are right of course (as you've proved previously). "Thin skinned" is an appropriate term.
In the context however of an Open Forum discussion, where the OP gags you and then -with others- criticises your contribution, well, "thin skinned" is just a euphemism for gutlessness. And an excuse for a bit of good old self-righteous censorship.
Y'know, one could almost class that as a form of 'bullying' - if it wasn't for that term having become so overused (and so devalued) and so often just another grab for victimhood-pity-status.
In the process of "havingthelast word" by resortingto blocking, the OP gags me -denies me access- and also steals my contributions. (And, to a lesser degree, everyone elses contributions) . The censoring OP literally appropriates other's intellectual property while appropiating their voices.
This is rotten behaviour. This actually stinks.
Think about it: How can it be ethically justified?
Whatever happened to ' Please be relevant helpful and nice ! All these months after stamping that anodyne, banal, sacharine, shadowscript in these 'Post-boxes' and what's the difference? Some cowardly blowhard snivelling shit can silence me because he feels like it ! So what if he started the topic ? The life does not come from the question: the answers are what makes the thread!
This is sneaky, cowardly, arrogant, ignorant, immature -childish- hysteria being reinforced by this bizarre veto power.
Posting a forum topic -especially if it seeks opinions- by its nature becomes the common property of those who contribute their thoughts and time to that site.
Just because you brought the ball, sonny Jim, doesn't make you boss of the game! You go cry to mummy then...
Bugger this for a joke.
I've posted this in Off Topic but it's relevant to all forums. Or is that fora...?
What criteria are used when deciding to end a forum topic? (I assume that if I'm unable to post, then that topic's closed...)
Especially, who decides -and when- to allow no further contributions to a topic. Returning to the screen after a day or two to find a discussion you were involved in has been sumarrilly terminated can be... infuriating.
Is it a staff decision or is it up to the person who started the topic?