Or even made non-existant.
Mr Clark brought up a good point this morning in our typical am banter:
Out of a thread where there is 20+ people posting, with hundreds of replies, should three votes be enough to lock?
And what is the sense in locking a thread to begin with unless it’s breaking one of our few supreme rules?
Please vote.
I don’t really like the policy.
well then please put a fucking poll in your please vote thread. /fail
Well you can’t add a poll in this section until AFTER you posted the thread for some reason. :confused
I think you should be able to lock a thread, because to use the new Travis vs. Joey saga for example… the same things keep getting said over and over and over. It just gets old.
Three votes though… I don’t know.
Maybe if someone makes the motion to lock, a moderator can use their judgement to determine how many votes it should take for that particular thread.
That sounds reasonable. The Travis vs. Joey saga is entertaining to me. Then again I am just bored at work most of the time so might be more easily amused than other.
A thread should only be locked if it breaks a preestablished rule. If you guys want to live up to the whole free speech claim, you should let people continue to talk in the thread. If the 3 voters want it closed, tell them to GTFO of the thread. No ones forcing them to read it but when you close it you are forcing the discussion to be over whether its about Travis’s slow car or rspeed or travis’s rims, etc.
And on top of that I just like causing trouble.
This should be locked. 1 vote.
Who cares if it’s getting old to you? You dont have to read it.
If other people want to carry on a redundant conversation, let them. If no one does, no one will post in it and there’ll be no need to lock the thread since it will fade away on its own. Forum “democracy” is self-policing.
!!!
I’ve only been a member of this forum for about a week but I have to say I completely agree with the above statement by JClark.
It’s badass that people can say what they want to whomever they want. If you don’t like what’s being said or you don’t like how off-topic the post is getting then go read another thread.
i say 5, i can get three people on here to say or do anything
:rofl
Should be at a moderators discretion when something is out of hand or that far off-topic. Thats why there are moderaters, lol. To moderate moderatly.
yeah… thats working out pretty well :lol
:nod Yeah, anyone could get 3 of their butt buddies to get a thread locked
2 votes!
3 :nod
oo too bad. :mwahaha
to go with Paul’s rule…
Vote #4!!! (for locking this thread) :shifty
I’m sorry but the discussion thread of the “Three vote to lock” rule is immune to it for obvious reason. :confused
I thought it was a fair way for the community to help determine if a thread is deemed useless or dragging on for too long, especially if the moderators fail to notice it, or have varied judgment calls about it.
We could make it five rules to lock, but then it would have to be taken off “in a row” because it would be very hard to get five different people to post back to back on a thread they don’t want to see anymore.
While yes, “if you don’t like it don’t read it” make sense, it’s not always the case. It is still the part of the website and it still escalates drama. Ignoring the problem won’t make it go away. It’s almost like saying “If you don’t like the axle clicking during left turns, just keep making right ones”.
I think it’s retarded to lock a thread. The only time a thread should be locked is if it actually breaks a law. Otherwise who are we to tell someone they can or can’t say something. It’s a right that I fully enjoy as a citizen of this country.
Even if it is based on a vote. It just isn’t right. :nono