Locking

[Yaanniicck]

lock @zRinne
no just kidding i feel like this would kinda ruin the point because very few people ask for locks

what he say

 

[TheFastBowler]

Literally this has been triggering me forever but now I think I've come up with a viable argument.
One should not be able to request locks on other people's threads.
So I've come up with a list of reasons why this is total bs.
If you're lazy or just illiterate, at least read the bold.

Disrespectful
So I think we can all agree that every staff member has a brain. I think we can all agree that every staff member can use such a brain. I don't think they need people to tell them when to lock a thread. They know the rules front and back, inside and out. if something needs to get shut down, they will shut it down. They don't need a 10 year old telling them what to do. If you think you can do a better job than them, go apply and see where that takes you. Every staff member is qualified and active enough to close down threads that break the rules.

Necroposting
Obviously players outnumber the staff 10000000000 to 1 or something crazy. We'll notice if someone necroposts a thread way before they do. But guess what? Asking for a lock is necroposting too. Want to break the rules just to suck up and pretend to be superior? Go on right ahead. We lock necroposted threads to prevent obsolete threads from moving their way up to the top, some of which aren't even relevant anymore. So just ignore them and keep looking through the relevant ones, and soon enough the old ones will move their way back down the list. Posting on it asking for a lock does nothing but bump it back up to the top, so really you're only boosting it up further. Counterintuitive, right? And if you want to be irritating and PM a staff member to lock a necroposted thread, be their guest.

Discussion Closes
Whether it be you just finishing helping someone by directing them or whatever, or if a question gets answered, then just let it go, and it will die. If a staff finds it's been answered, they can lock it without getting 500 notifications.

Getting off Topic
If a thread starts veering off course, then instead of further diverting the conversation and asking for a lock, be the good citizen to actually contribute to the thread. 90 people asking for locks contributes NOTHING, which is, oh my, against the rules! I surely consider it post farming, as it doesn't add anything to the conversation (so I interpret it).

Arguments
If the situation becomes so toxic that people begin bashing each other instead of the ideas, I'm pretty sure a Moderator/Helper/etc. will notice. Trying to act all mighty and powerful trying to shut down a lock is pretty much minimodding which again, is against the rules. I think that staff have the brains to know when to lock a topic if every comment is just "***** blah blah blah ****"

Now I'm sure the staff could find it helpful, but to the creator of the thread, it can be very disrespectful, especially if they put a lot of thought into their post and it just gets shut down because some kid didn't x, y, or z.
And for a "jack of all trades argument" against every minuscule, different reply,
ALL YOU'RE DOING IS ACCELERATING THE RATE THEY LOCK STUFF. YOU'RE CONTRIBUTING NOTHING.
THIS IS BUILT ON THE BASIS THAT THEY READ EVERY THREAD (so they claim). EVERYTHING THAT NEEDS TO BE LOCKED
WILL
BE
LOCKED.

So now I'll just wait for the snarky reply.
EDIT: Or watch this thread get locked, that would be ironic
lmao

I know myself asking people to lock threads, but I see your point here.
I'm definitely never asking for a staff member to lock a thread anymore, you've totally driven it out of me.
And, yes, now that you have converted me into join the locking-thread-staff-spammer-disagree-club
I agree to your suggestion.

 

[CommunistCactus]

@Mac @Rororoyourboat Please tell the devs to implement this, since almost everyone agrees :)

 

[TheQueenWaddle]

I know myself asking people to lock threads, but I see your point here.
I'm definitely never asking for a staff member to lock a thread anymore, you've totally driven it out of me.
And, yes, now that you have converted me into join the locking-thread-staff-spammer-disagree-club
I agree to your suggestion.

Thanks for your openminded-ness.
Much appreciated <3

 

[Ping Ether]

@Mac @Rororoyourboat Please tell the devs to implement this, since almost everyone agrees :)

I don't think that's how it works...

 

[Saradabaschi]

@TheQueenWaddle I agree with you.
Maybe enough of them will read your thread xD

I personally never lock a thread when someone tells me to. As I can, as you said, make decisions on my own quite well ;)

 

[CommunistCactus]

I don't think that's how it works...

So letting this thread die off does work?

 

[Ping Ether]

So letting this thread die off does work?

Just because a lot of people agree, it doesn't mean it's the right choice.

 

[CommunistCactus]

Just because a lot of people agree, it doesn't mean it's the right choice.

So we shouldn't implement this? Why not?

 

[TheQueenWaddle]

*bump*

 

[TheVenom27]

*bump*

Bro just let it die. Don't bump* these conversations. There should be a rule for bumping. Also, if a thread is dying, then just let it be bumping is unnecessary.
P.S: Isn't there a rule that doesn't let you post replies that don't contribute to the thread conversation?

 

[Gainfullterror]

Bro just let it die. Don't bump* these conversations. There should be a rule for bumping. Also, if a thread is dying, then just let it be bumping is unnecessary.
P.S: Isn't there a rule that doesn't let you post replies that don't contribute to the thread conversation?

Bumping to keep a thread alive, and read by others, is completely fine.
And besides, he's trying to get more attention towards this thread that's useful for the mini-mods. What's the issue?
Look what Saradabaschi said:

@TheQueenWaddle I agree with you.
Maybe enough of them will read your thread xD

 

[TheQueenWaddle]

Bro just let it die. Don't bump* these conversations. There should be a rule for bumping. Also, if a thread is dying, then just let it be bumping is unnecessary.
P.S: Isn't there a rule that doesn't let you post replies that don't contribute to the thread conversation?

Bumping lets other people see the thread and share their thoughts, so yes, I'm indirectly contributing by allowing others to voice their opinions. Don't get your panties in a twist because you see a suggestion you don't like. But please, if you're so opposed to the idea, can you at least tell me why instead of not contributing to the conversation? Ironic, considering your post contributes absolutely nothing.

 

[TheVenom27]

Bumping lets other people see the thread and share their thoughts, so yes, I'm indirectly contributing by allowing others to voice their opinions. Don't get your panties in a twist because you see a suggestion you don't like. But please, if you're so opposed to the idea, can you at least tell me why instead of not contributing to the conversation? Ironic, considering your post contributes absolutely nothing.

I was responding to your comment

 

[TheQueenWaddle]

I was responding to your comment

Which according to you contributed nothing. Why would you reply, unless you're a staff member?
Oh wait.
But if you're going to reply to this thread, or any thread, address the content. I still haven't seen any good arguments that refute my points or the idea of an autolocking feature.

 

[TheVenom27]

Which according to you contributed nothing. Why would you reply, unless you're a staff member?
Oh wait.
But if you're going to reply to this thread, or any thread, address the content. I still haven't seen any good arguments that refute my points or the idea of an autolocking feature.

ok ok ok. no need to be rude please. To this idea, I agree that there should be an auto-locking feature, it will decrease the amount of necroposts. I don't think this will be added because there are a small amount of necroposters, and most if not all never necropost again. As for making a rule about asking for locks, I disagree, and as Spyro The Dragon said

staff cant monitor everything thats what we're for.

you might say that "The auto-lock is for this reason", but that won't stop people from posting on the wrong Thread section, or stop people from making threads about questions. If threads aren't locked like the question, people could just
post farm by answering the same question and keeping the thread alive. That's why we should be able to ask for locks as soon as the question is answered in order to stop post farmers. I believe that there should be an auto-locking feature, but I oppose the anti-askforlock rule.

 

[TheQueenWaddle]

ok ok ok. no need to be rude please. To this idea, I agree that there should be an auto-locking feature, it will decrease the amount of necroposts. I don't think this will be added because there are a small amount of necroposters, and most if not all never necropost again. As for making a rule about asking for locks, I disagree, and as Spyro The Dragon said
you might say that "The auto-lock is for this reason", but that won't stop people from posting on the wrong Thread section, or stop people from making thread about questions. If thread aren't locked like the question, people could just
post farm by answering the same question and keeping the thread alive. I believe that there should be an auto-locking feature, but I oppose the anti-askforlock rule.

Asking for locks I at least consider post farming, as you contribute nothing to the conversation. Some of the times the lock request gets rejected by a staff member because some people request them prematurely. I don;t understand your stance on these questions. Why would you want to stop people from asking questions? If a question stays at the top for long enough, eventually I'm sure either the creator will ask for a lock themself or a staff member will take notice and lock the thread themselves. And by asking for a lock, it

does nothing but bump it back up to the top, so really you're only boosting it up further.

 

[TheVenom27]

Asking for locks I at least consider post farming, as you contribute nothing to the conversation. Some of the times the lock request gets rejected by a staff member because some people request them prematurely. I don;t understand your stance on these questions. Why would you want to stop people from asking questions? If a question stays at the top for long enough, eventually I'm sure either the creator will ask for a lock themself or a staff member will take notice and lock the thread themselves. And by asking for a lock, it

Most locks are not rejected, if the person is smart about it. If they just say lock because they don't like the thread, then yeah it'll be rejected. I'm not trying to stop people from asking questions. What I meant was that removing our ability to ask for locks would cause people to farm posts. As I gave in my example, If a question is given then answered then a lock should be requested. If not players would answer the same question after another player had already answered it aka post farming

 

[TheQueenWaddle]

Most locks are not rejected, if the person is smart about it. If they just say lock because they don't like the thread, then yeah it'll be rejected. I'm not trying to stop people from asking questions. What I meant was that removing our ability to ask for locks would cause people to farm posts. As I gave in my example, If a question is given then answered then a lock should be requested. If not players would answer the same question after another player had already answered it aka post farming

-Which still happens.
-So asking for locks isn't post farming? Find a bunch of necro-ed threads and start spamming lock requests.

 

[Thaus]

-Which still happens.
-So asking for locks isn't post farming? Find a bunch of necro-ed threads and start spamming lock requests.

pls
Who was the last person that actually cared about messages?
I'm excluding @Masonhgg from this though.
If you claim that requesting for locks is post farming, so is bumping a thread.
And for necro-ed threads, if they're dead, no reason to lock as it's buried now.