Board Problems, Suggestions and Updates

[Cascade Hellsing]

Why was this thread locked?
http://forums.kc-mm.com/index.php?topic=38096.0

I'm asking because a user suggested locking it because he didn't care, and the next moment, locked by a mod.
If that's the case, is it allowed now to lock threads just because I don't like it or I don't care about it?

Look at the thread. Most of the posts were just spam about how no one cared.

[Asuka]

Look at the thread. Most of the posts were just spam about how no one cared.

I know, that's why I'm not saying it should be unlocked.

But if that's the reason, it would be wise to make it clear and not just saying "Locked.", to make the spammers realize and stop them from doing it in the future...
That or warn everyone for spamming :D

[Segtendo]

It shouldn't be up to a member's decision to close the thread.

That or warn everyone for spamming :D

Or people can simply do this.
People, it's at the bottom right of every post. Use it.

[Miacis]

I know, that's why I'm not saying it should be unlocked.

But if that's the reason, it would be wise to make it clear and not just saying "Locked.", to make the spammers realize and stop them from doing it in the future...
That or warn everyone for spamming :D

Reminder : in the rules, spamming is posting worthless posts.
Warning someone from "spamming one post" is a nonsense.

If a thread goes awry, either redirect it and possibly give oral warnings, or lock it, temporarily, or permanently according to situation.

Also, Locking something should normally be accompanied by a little word to say why.

[Segtendo]

Well, then ds22 or another mod should edit that post and say why it's closed.

Am I following? :-\

[Miacis]

That, or they can simply post right after him to explain why.

Mods (Global or Local) and admins can post in locked threads.

[ItalianStallion]

Ha. That thread shows how [censored]ty this community is. All the guy was asking for was to vote for his band. Then we have a wagon of spelling and punctuation nazis demeaning the guy.

I mean, I understand how that can look unprofessional, but do you have to be such a rude [censored]? No.

[censored] like that is what sets me off. Even more, having someone say it should be locked, and the flock of ass kissing followers jump on the band wagon and vote for yes! Lock it! Woooo! Did that make you happy? Can you finally sleep at night now? That's the questions you should ask yourself, before doing all that.

I also see someone posted with just one word.. isn't that against the rules?

Just saying.

[Vyse]

Then we have a wagon of spelling and punctuation nazis demeaning the guy.

You say that a lot. I'm not sure what you think it means. No one said anything about his writing, apart from one person who mentioned all caps in reference to the rules.

Are you trying to imply that writing legibly takes some kind of extra effort? Because that's just funny.

I also see someone posted with just one word.. isn't that against the rules?

I dunno, why don't you read them?

I know you won't do that, though -- who does? -- so I'll just say that no, it's not, it never has been, and I have no clue where people get that idea.

Oh, right. The Family.

[??_?]

what's wrong with shameless advertising?

[SJS]

Just cause of all this, I went and voted for the guy's band. In the end, he got what he wanted. Way to make a big deal out of nothing.

[ItalianStallion]

Wait a minute, so now one word posting is allowed? I just remember that being against the rules for a long time. Must have been during the time you were absent, Vyse.

Well, now that you and Miacis both say it's okay to reply with one word in a post, then nothing else should be said about it.

This is just funny and reminds me of the whole multi accounts is against the rules and members who have more than one will be sanctioned, then when you came back, it became all right to do, all of the sudden.

I just don't know how you all expect people to follow the rules, and take you seriously, when they are changed whenever it's convenient.

[Vyse]

what's wrong with shameless advertising?

In Off-Topic? Absolutely nothing.

Am I the only one who actually knows the rules instead of assuming they're what I think they should be?

Wait a minute, so now one word posting is allowed? I just remember that being against the rules for a long time.

It's always been a rule in the Family, I think, but never on the forum proper.

Must have been during the time you were absent, Vyse.

This is possible, I guess.

[Segtendo]

what's wrong with shameless advertising?

He put that up so that Beastman wouldn't violate the wiki.

As for that guy's thread: I don't care for it, but I don't think it should've been locked.

[Miacis]

LordNoah, you know, there's the SRS Discussions board, if you're so keen on arguing for the sake of arguing.

Wait a minute, so now one word posting is allowed? I just remember that being against the rules for a long time. Now that you and Miacis both say it's okay to reply with one word in a post, then nothing else should be said about it.

Uhh ... no. It was never ever mentionned in the rules.
There was a rule about that in the Family Thread, but it's just a "thread rule".

Stop blaming on us your confusion. ._.

The only part that was EVER changed in "Disruptive Posting" is the signature size. And the addition of some footnotes. Everything else is intact from the origins of the boards.

Repeatidly posting spammy posts gets you a sanction, but one word isn't the same as spam.

[??_?]

He put that up so that Beastman wouldn't violate the wiki.

nope.

LordNoah, you know, there's the SRS Discussions board, if you're so keen on arguing for the sake of arguing.

[censored] no, I get moderated there.  Again, I'm not arguing for the sake of arguing, I'm just pointing out something amusing.