delete

[McGiver]

I like to be able to lock threads as sort of indication that I don't want to talk about it anymore and I would like it to fallback into the board's archive.  I only have used it in threads about personal stuff like when my dog Yoyo died and I wanted to lay it to rest after a week or so.  I don't feel it's good for embarrassing thing or in debate threads as all it does is call attention to the thread so other member will start their own about it  or show that your losing

I agree with Parts.

you make a great point hyke. I now agree with you.

[bodie]

I think that completely removing your post is better  -  it makes the other people in the thread look silly 

[Semicolon]

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?

Good points all around, Adam. One exception: We give members the ability to insult other members' children, but that would be met with criticism.

I don't even know if locking threads is automatically considered a negative by a majority of members. I don't automatically see it as cowardly.

My first impression is to disagree with Odeon and McJagger. There's nothing to prevent someone who wants to comment on a subject from starting another thread that isn't locked, correct? Locking a thread won't necessarily stop a discussion. So why not err on the side of giving members more freedom?

You two have a prejudice against locking threads as being cowardly. The recently locked threads earned a shrug from me. If they didn't, I'd just start new threads.

I half-recall one thread that's somewhere in the bowels of the forum by now. One of the regular members was having a personal problem and locked the thread after it was discussed because the member didn't want to be reminded of it. If anyone else can recall more, please join in.

I'm curious about your arguments against locking. I'll think about it.

Why is the freedom of the one more important than the freedom of the many? Presumably the locked thread had more than that one member posting in it, so by locking it the member is actively limiting the other members' ability to express their meaning.

As for that old private stuff argument, if you don't want your stuff on the internet, then don't post it there.

If it was posted there without your consent and you didn't have anything to do with publishing it any way, then that's a different discussion, unrelated to the locked threads one.

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?

[McGiver]

Great point. I agree.

[bodie]

This place just tickles me sometimes.  A big hoo haa over nothing and then a big kerfuffle about agreeing or not with the big nothing.

McFickle you are so...fickle but I do wish I was in your clan underneath you!

[McGiver]

This place just tickles me sometimes.  A big hoo haa over nothing and then a big kerfuffle about agreeing or not with the big nothing.

McFickle you are so...fickle but I do wish I was in your clan underneath you!

ooo lala

[Gopher Gary]

delete

So what did you delete, anyway? 

[Semicolon]

This place just tickles me sometimes.  A big hoo haa over nothing and then a big kerfuffle about agreeing or not with the big nothing.

McFickle you are so...fickle but I do wish I was in your clan underneath you!

If you prefer, we can talk about AFF.

[Gopher Gary]

This place just tickles me sometimes.  A big hoo haa over nothing and then a big kerfuffle about agreeing or not with the big nothing.

McFickle you are so...fickle but I do wish I was in your clan underneath you!

If you prefer, we can talk about AFF.

Or b00bz. Now that's quality conversation. 

[Semicolon]

This place just tickles me sometimes.  A big hoo haa over nothing and then a big kerfuffle about agreeing or not with the big nothing.

McFickle you are so...fickle but I do wish I was in your clan underneath you!

If you prefer, we can talk about AFF.

Or boobs. Now that's quality conversation. 

Or AFF and boobs.

[Gopher Gary]

This place just tickles me sometimes.  A big hoo haa over nothing and then a big kerfuffle about agreeing or not with the big nothing.

Thank goodness you're here to help make sense of it. 

[Gopher Gary]

This place just tickles me sometimes.  A big hoo haa over nothing and then a big kerfuffle about agreeing or not with the big nothing.

McFickle you are so...fickle but I do wish I was in your clan underneath you!

If you prefer, we can talk about AFF.

Or boobs. Now that's quality conversation. 

Or AFF and boobs.

Nope. Just b00bz. I'm above AFF.

[Gopher Gary]

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?

Because Odeon said so.

[odeon]

My first impression is to disagree with Odeon and McJagger. There's nothing to prevent someone who wants to comment on a subject from starting another thread that isn't locked, correct? Locking a thread won't necessarily stop a discussion. So why not err on the side of giving members more freedom?

You two have a prejudice against locking threads as being cowardly. The recently locked threads earned a shrug from me. If they didn't, I'd just start new threads.

I half-recall one thread that's somewhere in the bowels of the forum by now. One of the regular members was having a personal problem and locked the thread after it was discussed because the member didn't want to be reminded of it. If anyone else can recall more, please join in.

I'm curious about your arguments against locking. I'll think about it.

Why is the freedom of the one more important than the freedom of the many? Presumably the locked thread had more than that one member posting in it, so by locking it the member is actively limiting the other members' ability to express their meaning.

As for that old private stuff argument, if you don't want your stuff on the internet, then don't post it there.

If it was posted there without your consent and you didn't have anything to do with publishing it any way, then that's a different discussion, unrelated to the locked threads one.

Surely if a thread is created by someone with the knowledge they can lock it at anytime in the future then isn't it unfair, or even tyrannical, to supplant the right to lock the thread? Perhaps that user would not have created the thread if the lock feature wasn't available.

Even if it is at the detriment of the majority, you have to stand by the original terms of the agreement because if not, then quite frankly, you've cheated a user.

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.

[odeon]

I think we should remove the ability for members to lock threads. It doesn't fill any purpose.

If you do that please bring back the ignore feature back. I would much rather have that than to be able to lock a topic,

I would if I could. The ignore feature doesn't work in SMF 2.x.