[maxelson]

OK. I was asked to post in here. Here I am.
What's the deal, Took?
Seriously- is a "stupid" thread in your opinion reason for a lock?

I would be most grateful for a reply. Unless this conversation needs to be had elsewhere.

[tooki]

Yes, being stupid is enough reason to close a thread. Besides, remember that (as spelled out in the rules), mods and admins have the right to close any thread for any reason, at their discretion.

The thread's title was clearly flamebait, and the thread didn't stand a chance of fostering actual discussion or conversation, so I decided to close it, and fully stand by that decision.

tooki

[paul w]

It is absolutely your right and privilege to close threads, tooki. But consider the content: we're talking about maxelson - who has distinguished himself by the quality of content in his posts. A quality I might add that is never the cause of a thread's ending. And furthermore, the thread was NOT flambait - it simply had a clever title. People reading the thread ( such as myself ) found themselves somewhat tricked - but ultimately the discussion that was starting to form was not the usual me vs you type thing that is EVERYWHERE here lately, but something else - something far more civilised.

In the event that the thread degenerates, sure- lock it. But the point I'm trying to make is - as an administrator or moderator of a forum, you'd think you'd want to encourage threads by or containing posts by people who have proven they actually bring something to the table OTHER than useless clever witicisms or bickering.

The fact that it is ENTIRELY your discretion to close threads (ie you not being some kind of robot) and that you actually close threads with thoughtful, civilised discussion by members who don't engage in the usual shenanigans that ruin such discussion is something that saddens members like myself - who used to love this place, but have since turned elsewhere.

Ultimately it's no big deal. This is just a private forum, open to any and all comers. But it's a pity as we had an opportunity to bring maxelson back into the fold - to shake things up a bit. I suspect he'll think twice before posting again here.

I could be alone, but it's how I feel and it IS the feedback forum after all.

[AKcrab]

Well said, paul_w. I considered posting in this thread, but chose to send Max a PM instead. I'm glad I did, because you phrased my feeling better than I would have myself.

[maxelson]

Originally Posted by tooki

Yes, being stupid is enough reason to close a thread. Besides, remember that (as spelled out in the rules), mods and admins have the right to close any thread for any reason, at their discretion.

The thread's title was clearly flamebait, and the thread didn't stand a chance of fostering actual discussion or conversation, so I decided to close it, and fully stand by that decision.

tooki

I was the poster. I know what the intent was and I clearly spelled it out. Clearly.
You calling me a liar, then?
Just say it, bud. Then justify it. Because your reasoning is off. WAY off.
Seriously. The crap you got going on in that joint and you lock THIS? Jeezus, you didn't even take my post history into account, because if you did, you'd never have pulled this. This is well and truly insulting. It was made so by your reply. I have NEVER given you cause for this.
Unfair. Unjustified. Overboard.
And I'd like to ask for a review. I'll even offer to change the title. But I'd like the discussion reopened. I'll even monitor it.

[Mastrap]

Tooki, it might be a good idea to differentiate between the usual flamebait suspects and people who have a history of posting thoughtful content.
You had to face up to your heavy handedness once before, I would have thought that would have been a lesson.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by paul w

And furthermore, the thread was NOT flambait - it simply had a title that invited flames.

Fixinated.™

The thread was flamebait. Heck, certain people here can turn a thread about Christmas trees into a flame war within five posts. A thread with an inflammatory title, whether or not the rest of the opening post was inflammatory, ultimately works out to an inflammatory thread. Next time, since he's apparently very eloquent and intelligent, maxelson can choose a title that isn't retarded and actually reflects the content of the thread like it's supposed to.

[Maflynn]

Originally Posted by paul w

It is absolutely your right and privilege to close threads, tooki. But consider the content: we're talking about maxelson - who has distinguished himself by the quality of content in his posts.

Past performance does no grant executive privlege to post flamebait threads. The title was intentionally misleading, so as to start a flame war. While the contant was "stupid" as tookie wrote.

[maxelson]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Fixinated.™

The thread was flamebait. Heck, certain people here can turn a thread about Christmas trees into a flame war within five posts. A thread with an inflammatory title, whether or not the rest of the opening post was inflammatory, ultimately works out to an inflammatory thread. Next time, since he's apparently very eloquent and intelligent, maxelson can choose a title that isn't retarded and actually reflects the content of the thread like it's supposed to.

Buddy, what do you know about me. NOTHING.
Let me let you in on something: I have no interest in flaming. I wanted a non flame thread. I wanted a title to get people there- perhaps to show that maybe- JUST maybe folk can avoid incendiary language- I CLEARLY stated what the thread was about and further indicated a wish that it remain clean. CLEARLY. I am saying what the thread is about- again.
Now that I have made that clear AD NAUSEAM, what is the problem.
It is your lack of trust, is it not?
IF you consider the thread to be flamebait, avoid it.
Now. I'd appreciate a bit less insulting in your replies from this point.

[maxelson]

Originally Posted by Maflynn

Past performance does no grant executive privlege to post flamebait threads. The title was intentionally misleading, so as to start a flame war. While the contant was "stupid" as tookie wrote.

I have explained the misleading title. I have offered to change it as a show of good faith. DONT tell me or anyone else what my intentions are. You know my intentions about as well as Chuck. I have stated my intentions clearly, and still... Again, the issue is your lack of faith. Blame yourself.

[Kevin]

Why not just start a new thread?

[maxelson]

Principle.

[Kevin]

And principle is probably the same reason tooki wont unlock it I am betting. For instance. If he does unlock it, then anytime he does lock a post people will start posting a complaint in here all the time thinking tooki will then lock it.

ALSO, those that recently had their thread locked for inane silliness could complain that YOUR thread wasn't also locked. And scream bias.

(not saying I disagree or agree either way, I am staying out of that part. )

[rickey939]

Proud of you.®

[Maflynn]

Originally Posted by maxelson

I have explained the misleading title. I have offered to change it as a show of good faith. DONT tell me or anyone else what my intentions are. You know my intentions about as well as Chuck. I have stated my intentions clearly, and still... Again, the issue is your lack of faith. Blame yourself.

Jeez dude chill out. I have no idea what lack of faith your referring to but anyways, I see a thread titled "Call each other racist intolerant hatemongers here... step right up." and you think its not flame bait.

Now I did not see your request to change the title and to be honest, I could care less. Nor do I care to know what your intentions were all I'm seeing is a thread calling racists, hatemongers to post there. With that mentality do I really want to know you intentions - absolutely not those so called intentions seem pretty off kilter.

[maxelson]

If this is the case, if you don't care, don't post in this thread. I'll take your character assessment under advisement. You're very kind.

[tooki]

Originally Posted by Mastrap

Tooki, it might be a good idea to differentiate between the usual flamebait suspects and people who have a history of posting thoughtful content.
You had to face up to your heavy handedness once before, I would have thought that would have been a lesson.

Wrong. "Heavy handedness" was never the issue, and more people thanked me for being firm than complained. (But curiously, people like to complain publicly and praise privately.)

And as has been said, post history should not make any difference. A thread with a flamebait title is a flamebait thread, and I stand by that assessment and the subsequent locking.

tooki

[tooki]

Originally Posted by maxelson

1) I was the poster. I know what the intent was and I clearly spelled it out. Clearly.
You calling me a liar, then?
Just say it, bud. Then justify it. Because your reasoning is off. WAY off.
2) Seriously. The crap you got going on in that joint and you lock THIS?
3) Jeezus, you didn't even take my post history into account, because if you did, you'd never have pulled this. This is well and truly insulting. It was made so by your reply. I have NEVER given you cause for this.
Unfair. Unjustified. Overboard.
4) And I'd like to ask for a review. I'll even offer to change the title. But I'd like the discussion reopened. I'll even monitor it.

1) Intent is sometimes relevant, but in this case it wasn't, because regardless of intent, it was destined to turn into a war.
2) I do not (and cannot possibly) check every thread. As clearly stated in the rules:

Remember also that just because a moderator has not noticed a violation does not mean that the rule is no longer valid, no longer being enforced, etc. All rules listed here (plus any at a moderator's discretion) are valid and binding.

If you see a thread that you think needs attention, report it.
3) Post history is not a factor in evaluating a thread. (It is a factor when evaluating actions against repeat offenders.)
4) No, thanks.

tooki

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by maxelson

Let me let you in on something: I have no interest in flaming. I wanted a non flame thread. I wanted a title to get people there- perhaps to show that maybe- JUST maybe folk can avoid incendiary language- I CLEARLY stated what the thread was about and further indicated a wish that it remain clean. CLEARLY. I am saying what the thread is about- again.
Now that I have made that clear AD NAUSEAM, what is the problem.

You have introduced no new information here. Your "interest in flaming" is irrelevant, and, if you indeed weren't interested in flaming, just shows that you have poor judgment when naming threads.

The fact is, you made a post with an inflammatory title that invites flames. Then in the body of the post, you go, "Just kidding. Please don't flame me." Regardless of which one was a lie — regardless of whether you actually intended to start a flame thread — the fact remains, that combination is flamebait. Actually, even just a "Don't flame here" thread would probably constitute flamebait, since that's the sort of thing flamers like to do.

Originally Posted by maxelson

Now. I'd appreciate a bit less insulting in your replies from this point.

I'd appreciate a bit less Katie Kaboom-esque drama in your replies, but somehow I don't think I'm going to get that.

Seriously, what is your problem? This is not a big deal. Go chill and smoke a bowl or something.

[maxelson]

I see. So. Your neanderthalish opinion of your community here is the reason my thread was locked. You expect all to flame, so your actions are pre- emptive. Basically, that seems to be the opinion of those who have expressed concern with my post- whether they agreed with my post or not- that is what they seem to be saying. You can't trust your community, so you'll just protect them from themselves.

Nice joint you got here. Foster the reactionaries. They seem to be your main constituents.

Tooki: my own post history may not be at issue. But your heavy handedness, over-control and quick trigger finger are.
I know you'll not assess that (you have not in the past), but I felt the need to say it.

You may now feel free to lock this one as well.
I'm done.
Unless you'd like to leave it where it is for entertainment purposes. I'm sure Chuck would appreciate that.
hejdå

[Chuckit]

Just because a few people tend to flame threads and you (either intentionally or stupidly) made a thread that would tend to attract them doesn't mean that's the core constituency here.

And the language you have used in this thread indicates to me that you're not as much a man of peace as you let on either.

[scaught]

if idiots didnt get the joke in the title of the thread in question, then the macnn lounge is even denser than i could have ever imagined.

if you feel the need to protect the populace from themselves, then perhaps you recognize that theres an issue greater than the title of maxelsons thread. maybe you could go work on that instead of locking something that might (in a roundabout and perhaps interesting way) fix it.

[subego]

Originally Posted by maxelson

4) And I'd like to ask for a review. I'll even offer to change the title. But I'd like the discussion reopened. I'll even monitor it.

Originally Posted by tooki

4) No, thanks.

Is this being denied because it's an unreasonable request?

[Kevin]

I think I tried to explain that above. Then everyone and their brother would be bugging for their thread to be unlocked.

Why not start a new one?

[subego]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Then everyone and their brother would be bugging for their thread to be unlocked.

Has this been the case when previous threads have been unlocked?

[Kevin]

Yes, the mods do one thing for one thread, and everyone else expects them to do it for them. The "Not fair" and "Biased" accusations come about.

Of course this could have nothing to do with why tooki didn't unlock it.

Just giving MHO.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by scaught

if idiots didnt get the joke in the title of the thread in question, then the macnn lounge is even denser than i could have ever imagined.

I don't see why the failings of a few necessarily reflect on the forum in general. For instance, just because one guy posted a flamebait thread and then went around complaining everywhere about how it shouldn't have been locked because it was actually just PRETEND flamebait, I don't assume everybody in the Lounge does that.

[tooki]

Originally Posted by subego

Is this being denied because it's an unreasonable request?

No, it's being denied because I looked at the thread, again, and came to the same conclusion that I did when I first saw it. I'm not fundamentally unwilling to review past decisions, but if I do review it, there is no guarantee that I will change my mind. Usually reviewing something just confirms my initial analysis.

In this case, I was contacted by private message, re-evaluated and explained my decision, and despite that, this thread was posted.

My decision stands, and I will not be unlocking the thread.

tooki

[subego]

Originally Posted by tooki

No, it's being denied because I looked at the thread, again, and came to the same conclusion that I did when I first saw it.

Okay.

You had in your response (unintentionally, I assume) given the impression you were unwilling to review the situation.

[besson3c]

How about unlocking the cool Tribute to Besson3C thread?


*ducks*

[Cubeoid]

Please do not throw anything at my friend, besson3c.

[Kevin]

[besson3c]

[Kevin]

[besson3c]

[Kevin]

[scaught]

come out and play-ay.

[Athens]

you know I was going to avoid posting in this thread but its starting to get to me. Give it a rest, Mods and Admins cant with if they do or dont. The post was stupid and deserved to get locked. They get bitched at for not locking posts and they get bitched at for locking posts. Tooki explained why clearly, that should have been enough. To make another post here asking for another explination well just puts you into the same group as the assholes that get locked all the time.

[AKcrab]

Originally Posted by Athens

Tooki explained why clearly, that should have been enough. To make another post here asking for another explination well just puts you into the same group as the assholes that get locked all the time.

Tooki explained in this thread his reasons. What are you going on about?

Oh right, you wanted another excuse to call someone an asshole.

[Kevin]

AK so what are you calling him?

[AKcrab]

What? I didn't call him anything.

I simply think he's going on about nothing.

[Kevin]

Yes but you are singling him out in the middle of the thread to berate him for something he is doing.

Just like what Athens did.. You just didn't call Athens a name.

Is it any different?

(BTW I realize I am doing it too, but I am just pointing out the humor)

[AKcrab]

This is the middle of the thread? I swear I thought it was done 6 posts ago. I didn't berate. If stating the obvious is berating, I suppose I must be guilty. I'm not the one who called/compared anyone to "assholes".

You hit on my girlfriend, I punch you in the nose.
You hit on my girlfriend, I tell you I think you're out of line.

Any difference?

[Athens]

Originally Posted by AKcrab

Tooki explained in this thread his reasons. What are you going on about?

Oh right, you wanted another excuse to call someone an asshole.

http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.php?t=278906

I locked it, because it was stupid and had a misleading title. (This was my conclusion after reading the contents of the thread.)

[Athens]

Originally Posted by AKcrab

Tooki explained in this thread his reasons. What are you going on about?

Oh right, you wanted another excuse to call someone an asshole.

who did I call an asshole, asshole

[Pendergast]

There is nothing like feedback coming from as****les...

[nredman]

Ripe For Lockdown®

[rickey939]

New Hotness!

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Pendergast

There is nothing like feedback coming from as****les...

I agree, but its us as****les who complain the most too

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by nredman

Ripe For Lockdown®

red alert: overdone: smells like somethin' burnin'