+Jhwk Posted August 30, 2006 Share Posted August 30, 2006 hey - before you lock the thread (jeremy) how about we discuss this whole thread locking issue for more than, say, 24-36 hours. some of us don't troll the website every day and read every post. What I think I know now: 1. Thread locking went away as a forum member "benefit" about 2 weeks ago - did you put that on the forum features page? 2. I have to ask "pretty please" to someone to get my lame a** threads closed when I used to be able to do it myself. What do I need? A note to a mod, a good flame war, off topic discussions, or just a good old curse word or two thrown in to spice up the night? 3. the locked threads that were previously locked weren't really locked, and I could have unlocked them and continued the mayhem until subdued? which brings up a question - Can't we just fix the lock (sorry, Closed) feature so that when a topic is closed, it is closed, for everyone, forever? isn't the old way kind of like logging archived caches expo facto? just looking for a little input, thought, and discussion before it is ASKED, ANSWERED, CLOSED. I'm a simple guy, just looking for some straight poop. Link to comment
+Glenn Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 As I understand it. The option to allow users to lock their own threads and to remove the lock is one in the same. To seperate the two options would require a rewrite of the forum software. So the question is, would you rather have the programer(s) at Groundspeak work on improving GC.com and WM.com or the forum software? Keep in mind that each time the creators of the forum software come out with an upgrade the Groundspeak changes will not be included. Groundspeak will have to take the time to put the changes back in. Also any bugs that are caused the changes that Groundspeal makes would not be supported by the forum creators and would fall on Groundspeak to come up with the bug fixes. Link to comment
+New England n00b Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 As I understand it. The option to allow users to lock their own threads and to remove the lock is one in the same. To seperate the two options would require a rewrite of the forum software. So the question is, would you rather have the programer(s) at Groundspeak work on improving GC.com and WM.com or the forum software? Keep in mind that each time the creators of the forum software come out with an upgrade the Groundspeak changes will not be included. Groundspeak will have to take the time to put the changes back in. Also any bugs that are caused the changes that Groundspeal makes would not be supported by the forum creators and would fall on Groundspeak to come up with the bug fixes. What's worse is that the Groundspeak lackies have nothing to do with the forum software - it is purchased from a company called Innovision. If you want to be able to split these functions, THEY have to do it. Groundspeak can do nothing. And it wouldn't even be an issue if people wouldn't be jerks and go unlocking threads that were locked for good reason. It only takes a few people to ruin it for everyone else. I don't like the fact that Jeremy needed to do this, but it isn't his fault - it's the fault of certain people that use this forum. Link to comment
+Jhwk Posted August 31, 2006 Author Share Posted August 31, 2006 Well, I would prefer to punish the few, rather than remove an essential feature for all. If folks are dorking around with the closed option, then you take action against them. It just seems like an unecessary burden on an already taxed moderator. Some people can pick locks - should we remove all locks or have the police come around and secure all of the locks for us? Link to comment
+New England n00b Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 Well, I would prefer to punish the few, rather than remove an essential feature for all. If folks are dorking around with the closed option, then you take action against them. It just seems like an unecessary burden on an already taxed moderator. Some people can pick locks - should we remove all locks or have the police come around and secure all of the locks for us? It IS an unnecessary burden to have to have the moderators constantly watching out for who is constantly opening closed threads. They already do enough. I don't like the way the PTB have had to deal with this, but what moderator is going to want to constantly babysit the forums beyond what they already do? As for the serious abusers, they have been individually punished, AFAIK. But they aren't teh only ones, just the straw on the camels back. Link to comment
+Jhwk Posted August 31, 2006 Author Share Posted August 31, 2006 As I understand it. The option to allow users to lock their own threads and to remove the lock is one in the same. To seperate the two options would require a rewrite of the forum software. So the question is, would you rather have the programer(s) at Groundspeak work on improving GC.com and WM.com or the forum software? seems like a stupid option - Hey, we can close a thread - but not really. What genius thought that option up. and at this point, I think GC and WM are fine. IMHO the programmer should fix teh dadgum forums and quit dorking with what already works. Link to comment
+ibycus Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 As I understand it. The option to allow users to lock their own threads and to remove the lock is one in the same. To seperate the two options would require a rewrite of the forum software. So the question is, would you rather have the programer(s) at Groundspeak work on improving GC.com and WM.com or the forum software? seems like a stupid option - Hey, we can close a thread - but not really. What genius thought that option up. and at this point, I think GC and WM are fine. IMHO the programmer should fix teh dadgum forums and quit dorking with what already works. Well the forums aren't really broken, they just don't work the way you want. Was there really that many people abusing it though? I never noticed it. Wouldn't we be better just to ban anyone abusing it for 24 hours or some such? Link to comment
+Jhwk Posted September 1, 2006 Author Share Posted September 1, 2006 (edited) .... Edited September 1, 2006 by Jhwk Link to comment
+Jhwk Posted September 1, 2006 Author Share Posted September 1, 2006 As I understand it. The option to allow users to lock their own threads and to remove the lock is one in the same. To seperate the two options would require a rewrite of the forum software. So the question is, would you rather have the programer(s) at Groundspeak work on improving GC.com and WM.com or the forum software? seems like a stupid option - Hey, we can close a thread - but not really. What genius thought that option up. and at this point, I think GC and WM are fine. IMHO the programmer should fix teh dadgum forums and quit dorking with what already works. Well the forums aren't really broken, they just don't work the way you want. Was there really that many people abusing it though? I never noticed it. Wouldn't we be better just to ban anyone abusing it for 24 hours or some such? or the way they used to work yes - YES! that's my whole point. Don't punish the lot for the actions of a few. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one. disregard that other Spock quote which came later. Link to comment
+robert Posted September 1, 2006 Share Posted September 1, 2006 I think someone needs another break. Link to comment
+Jhwk Posted September 1, 2006 Author Share Posted September 1, 2006 I think someone needs another break. or at least a nice LONG weekend cache on everybody! Link to comment
Recommended Posts