Closing Threads
 

Why are threads being closed so much. WHY? We already have an abundance of people's posts being deleted, so why are threads being closed as well. It makes absolutely no sense to go through a thread and delete all of the 'innapproaite' posts and then close the thread.

Wake up.

Oh, and don't tell me to make a support ticket. And don't close this thread.

Also, if you do delete someone's post, don't leave this as a reason:

It should be mandatory when a mod deletes a post to specify exactly which rule the post broke.

Agreed.

(Yay, I replied before this thread is closed).

And, of course, the same would go for closing a thread.

I just went through the rules and it says nothing about discussing forum rules/actions. So, common logic tells us that this thread should not be closed.

The wrong posts are being deleted. If someone says: "Dude, you are a douchebag, I can't believe you could be so stupid. Try not being a *****, okay?" Then that's fine to be deleted. However, posts that are debate, borderline heated debate, but not personal debate, are being deleted. It's rediculous. And I see absolutely no reason to close a thread. Closing a thread should be used only for threads that, when started, have no point or are spam.

Recently a thread was closed about access violations. Now I'm sure people will argue what the problem was solved, but what if someone still has the same problem? And they read that thread. It should still be open.

People disagree with people. That's why people post on the forums. Allow them to disagree. Allow them to debate. It's why they're here.

:o

The topic in the GK forums was closed because there was an official announcement made. But still, I think it would've been nicer to just move it to the main forums, since it entailed some finer details as to what Velox was doing. Those could've been useful to people who may not know whether or not their accounts have been sabotaged or not. And speaking of which...

I'm tellin' y'all it's
http://images.amazon.com/images/P/63...1.LZZZZZZZ.jpg
Had to be reposted. <5 @ Beastie Boys

I'd also like to see the entire discussion removed instead of just the part where the attacked one is defending himself.

I couldn't agree more.

The funny part is, Administration will look at this and be annoyed because people are disagreeing with them instead of actually trying to make a positive change for what the players want.

Mykel:
When I close a thread, I post why I close it
The thread about the "rumor about Malinko" was closed because it was already established that Malinko is pwa, and the thread was becoming a battleground for people to attack Malinko. If Malinko wishes to make a thread announcing his becoming a pwa, he can feel free to do so...

The post that you are referring to: the person who made the post, will know what he posted, therefore he will know why I said what I said, and if he doesn't, he can simply ask
Also, the one closed about access violations was probably closed because there was more than 1...not sure without looking.

Fry: I simply overlooked those posts, as I forum PM'ed you, because I had to go...and the entire discussion does not always have to be removed if there are parts of it that are appropriate.

Keep in mind, all the info is still there for people to read in the threads that were closed. There is no sense having several threads spread everywhere with the same discussion.

Also, if there are ever any questions, I can always be forum PM'ed.

Some threads should be closed, so they dont get out of hand. I disagree with some closed ones, but usually its for a good reason...usually :)

Yes, we all know that Malinko is PWA. If I make a post about hiring for a server, does that mean that the thread should just be closed? No. Just because a thread has 'served its purpose' doesn't mean that it should be closed. Horrible logic.

She didn't just close the thread because it had served its purpose.

Okay, she deleted those posts. So why then close it?

http://www.uthouston.edu/hLeader/gfx/2004art/shadow.jpg

I like closing threads. It's fun.

On every message board I've browsed upon, I've felt the mods have been on this power trip so they could have the power of closing threads and deleting things.

In general, I think people take mod positions on sites and message boards far too seriously. There is no mod school. Nothing is prestigious about being a mod. Mods are not cooler than normal users.

Just leave threads open. Unless someone is being majorly bashed, there really isn't a need to lock a thread. On a repost of a topic, maybe a link to the already ongoing discussion, but there are far too many threads I see on boards where a mod replies "Well, what's-his-face has found whatever, so there is really no need for this any more. Locked."

Augh. Who cares.

Trick question! You do! So does Mykel! And like 9 other people!

Haha.. I am great. :cool:

I haven't seen the moderation being that bad lately.. I personally felt Zero Hour was nuking posts in the GK section just because he could, but that's ok.

I think moderation has gone up alot from when it has been, it's just been a testy last month on certain subjects, and due to experiance with said subjects you can see why a thread (such as the one about Malinko) would of been closed; but at the same time you can see why it coulda been left open..

Eh, there's always been a small comprimise when it came to how these forums operated, but I mean honestly, who wants to see reasons for threads being closed, like there is for each deletion? The reason for post deletion annoys me when reading a thread.. it's nice to know my comments were deleted/why, but I don't want to see *******#1/2/3/4/5/6/7///9/8/76/7/56/23r4/2/e1q/ and so on.. I'd rather not see that happen with the 'closed' threads, either.

Just my 2 cents. I'm catching up to 50. ;l

Why do the police enforce the law, anyways?

Even police go above and beyond. Police have rules too.

When the laws are made responsibly and enforced responsibly, responsible people do not have a problem with it. The fact is, the enforcing of the rules is erratic. Not just that, but many of them make no sense and the authorities refuse to discuss them, are falsely interpretted for personal agendas, et cetera.

Yes but my point is... You know what, nevermind. It was meant to be an obnoxious, satirical comment to what he was saying. I'm not even going to bother debating it with you or VT since you can't take a joke. :|

This is true, since we are both hardass and emo.

You see Police break the law all the time, though. Do you get upset, goto City Hall, and demand reform? No, you just do it here cause it's the internet.

On that note.. continue.

Police go to jail all the time for breaking the law. Don't get me wrong, a lot of times they get away with it, and there have been a lot of times when mods have done things they shouldn't have.

Oh well...

Anyway, we need Kaimetsu back, or a different person to 'run' the forums. I understand we have quite a few super-mods now, but Moonie generally 'runs' them.

We need defined ranks of "Super Super" mods. Like the Super Duper Duper Mod, Super Duper, then the dinky Super Mod (hi Kamuii <3)

okok we already have that new idea

I didn't really read that you quoted him, I just read what you put and made a judgement off of that. :( Lo siento.

Hey hey I don't take orders from nobody. No guff. >:[

Though I am susceptible to bribes of the candy type.

What about potatoes? ;)

I do not 'run' the forums (I am not the forums admin), nor do I 'run' the other supermods. I am equal to them, not above them. If you are going to make satements, at least make sure they are true statements.
Aside from the occasional griping about one thing or another, I see nothing wrong with the way the forums are being run by any of the supermods.
If you are expecting things to run perfectly all the time, wake up, they wont.
I have some peppermint nougats ^^

Lies. Asking me how many times I'm going to make stupid posts doesn't answer anything. Theres no IQ test for the forums therefore you cannot hate on stupidity. I aint feelin that ma.

Lol sorry my bull****-o-meter went off.

I dunno. I've seen forums where the Mods are nicer and don't close a bunch of threads and delete posts.
Honestly I think the Graal Forums are the second worst run forums on the internet. (For the worst run forums check out some random Harry Potter forums, those guys close and delete -everything-)
And yes, it's possible to run "perfect forums", i've seen it, unfortunatly they were closed down because the guy couldn't fund them anymore and didn't want them anymore.
The point is it is possible to run something nice and, you know, good. You just suck at it.

It's the fact of the higher ups don't want people to post negative comments. They are going to say most of it turns into flamefests, so they stop them early. I just think they might be worried that people will pick up on the facts.

Is free speech there to protect the masses, or the few?

What I don't under stand is the phobia a lot of staff seem to have of criticism. If I were staff I'd want to confront my detractors on the forums and beat them.

Moonie, I tried to simplify it as much as I could for you. I tried to break it down and avoid all political incorrectness that I knew you would attack if you had the opportunity.

I realize you do not run the forums. I realize that you aren't above any of the other super-mods. I know this. Spare me the mumbo-jumbo. But everyone also knows that you are the (INVISIBLE RANK, MAKE BELIEVE! NATURALLY ASSUMED! ZING!) 'head' super-mod. You do most of the modding.

That is what I meant...

I know a guy like that...

Nonsense. :cool: I have done far more banning recently.

MG isn't really a "head" super mod, not even in a de facto way. I doubt the other supermods would sit by and let her overrule one of their moderation decisions.

She does do most of the visible modding, but that's because she views modship as a moral mission and mods for what she perceives to be ethical infractions (at best she'll invoke a vague technicality in the rules) rather than solely for clear rulebreaking. It has nothing to do with some kind of de facto supermod hierarchy.