delete

[odeon]

I agree with bodie - how would he have known that we don't really like locking threads here?

You can't really criticise someone (especially a new person) for locking his thread, when we have given them the ability to do that

Also most people don't spend that long researching a forum and working out the "culture" there before they join/post

Especially for a forum mostly full of people with ASDs, it seems kinda strange to expect new people to "know" the unwritten "rules" and "culture" of the place

If we don't want people locking threads then why give them the function in the first place?

I could understand the response if he'd locked a thread he was having a big argument in and was clearly losing. That would show cowardice. But to criticise someone for locking the thread just because we don't "do that" here seems kinda daft

Who says when it's ok and when it's not ok to lock a thread?

If I know, he must know.

Seriously, there's no way he could have known, other than by spotting that other recent incident or reading old threads. But to lock a thread where his only word was "delete", where people didn't even have to derail the thread because there wasn't anything to derail? Why lock that?

[odeon]

It says on the door about this place having few rules and a lack of moderators.  It doesn't say anything about unwritten rules.

 

   it's a con

NO, it's an admin conspiracah!

[odeon]

Even if locking threads is cowardly, since when is there a policy of making hard rules against things that are cowardly? Why not just use the current system of callouts?

This is an excellent point.

My answer is "I didn't think of that. I just reacted on the spot"

The slightly longer answer is that there aren't any hard rules. This was a case of me being annoyed by a completely pointlessly locked thread and reacting. In retrospect, a callout might have been better. Maybe. Can't decide.

This is sort of better because it brought out the discussion in the open and that's important.

We have a culture that is largely about censoring as little as possible and moderating nothing unless we have to (or, in a few cases, using word filters and the like but that's just because admins are evil). The board, I believe (but check with McJ), was started not as a freedom-of-speech board but a place for spazzes to learn how to stand their ground and fight back, and if anything, this is a case illustrating that, being responsible for your words and your actions.

It is also about freedom of speech and where to draw the line, so IMO it's a good thing that this discussion happened.

That is to say, I don't have a clear-cut opinion but I like the discussion.

["couldbecousin"]

Who says when it's ok and when it's not ok to lock a thread?

If I know, he must know.

  You appear to lack Theory of Mind.  Read this, it will help you! 
 

       http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sally-Anne_test

[odeon]

Who says when it's ok and when it's not ok to lock a thread?

If I know, he must know.

  You appear to lack Theory of Mind.  Read this, it will help you! 
 

       http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sally-Anne_test

 

But you already read it.

[McGiver]

Even if locking threads is cowardly, since when is there a policy of making hard rules against things that are cowardly? Why not just use the current system of callouts?

This is an excellent point.

My answer is "I didn't think of that. I just reacted on the spot"

The slightly longer answer is that there aren't any hard rules. This was a case of me being annoyed by a completely pointlessly locked thread and reacting. In retrospect, a callout might have been better. Maybe. Can't decide.

This is sort of better because it brought out the discussion in the open and that's important.

We have a culture that is largely about censoring as little as possible and moderating nothing unless we have to (or, in a few cases, using word filters and the like but that's just because admins are evil). The board, I believe (but check with McJ), was started not as a freedom-of-speech board but a place for spazzes to learn how to stand their ground and fight back, and if anything, this is a case illustrating that, being responsible for your words and your actions.

It is also about freedom of speech and where to draw the line, so IMO it's a good thing that this discussion happened.

That is to say, I don't have a clear-cut opinion but I like the discussion.

yes, stand your ground.

[Player]

You feel cheated when a thread containing the word "delete" is unlocked by the evil admins? Do you always check if you can lock a thread before starting a new one?

It's not an agreement, it's a check box, one that the software put there and one that we should have removed a long time ago.

Doesn't the fact that the lock button exists mean there is an agreement? I'm just throwing the argument out there - I personally don't care if this thread is locked or not.

Btw, I locked the thread because I couldn't just delete the whole thread . Seriously, people were beginning to make fun of my nooby ways - and then I saw that juicy lock button and pressed it.

[Jack]

Why did you delete your post?

[Player]

Why did you delete your post?

I think it might have come across as trollish so I decided to delete it. It's the kind of thread which I'd consider creating if I was an established regular user of the forum.

[Player]

Has the admin considered ever setting a post limit before a newb can create a thread (say like a 100 post limit) so they can adjust to the forum? Seems like letting newbs create threads is asking for trouble.

[Jack]

No worries. You're going to be just fine here.

[Semicolon]

Has the admin considered ever setting a post limit before a newb can create a thread (say like a 100 post limit) so they can adjust to the forum? Seems like letting newbs create threads is asking for trouble.

This is a free speech forum. In general, nothing will be done to limit free speech unless it interferes with the operation of the forum.

[Gopher Gary]

delete

So what did you delete, anyway? 

[odeon]

You feel cheated when a thread containing the word "delete" is unlocked by the evil admins? Do you always check if you can lock a thread before starting a new one?

It's not an agreement, it's a check box, one that the software put there and one that we should have removed a long time ago.

Doesn't the fact that the lock button exists mean there is an agreement? I'm just throwing the argument out there - I personally don't care if this thread is locked or not.

Btw, I locked the thread because I couldn't just delete the whole thread . Seriously, people were beginning to make fun of my nooby ways - and then I saw that juicy lock button and pressed it.

Semantics. Yes, it's there, but its existence has caused more than one argument through the years. I wouldn't say it's an agreement. It's an omission and a glaring one at that, a testament to the community's inability to ever go beyond arguing.

My main standpoint here is about not hindering anyone's right to post nonsense. I dislike censorship and loathe the kind of moderation exercised by some sites, where some little twat is allowed to control what I post. I can respect the need to remove offending content where minors are present but far more often it's just about that little twat's desire to grow a dick. And I fucking hate that.

When it comes to I2, the site is here to enable spazzes to stand their ground and fight back. You can't do that when threads are locked.

[odeon]

Why did you delete your post?

I think it might have come across as trollish so I decided to delete it. It's the kind of thread which I'd consider creating if I was an established regular user of the forum.

Trollish is fun because it makes people talk.