Self Locking/Unlocking Of Threads

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

Weird wording is weird I know.

 

So I was thinking about it and...we have an item to lock topics. It is free and available to everyone.

It's likely a forum issue itself but I was wondering why we're not just automatically allowed to lock and unlock our own threads at will with a button press.

I can't think of many real issues with this idea in the long run. And it's kind of a pain to have to go through all the extra steps especially for things like Polls.

If that's not possible then I would like to know if perhaps an "unlock your thread" item would be something we could get.

[Fusion X. Denver]

Maybe to prevent necroing old threads? I can think of a couple instance of people who'd want to reopen threads that should probably remain closed. 

 

Main example I can think of is for controversial threads. If a mod locks it when things get heated or the discussion starts going in circles, the OP may be tempted to reopen it and keep things going when they shouldn't.

[Northern Sage]

As I recall, the only such option lets you unlock any topic.

[(GigaDrillBreaker)]

from what I understand of the acp, the only way to implement it would be through shop items, since they can't really change the forum and its mechanics.

 

This also has the issue of people unlocking threads that were locked by mods (due to rule breaking etc).

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

Maybe to prevent necroing old threads? I can think of a couple instance of people who'd want to reopen threads that should probably remain closed. 

 

Main example I can think of is for controversial threads. If a mod locks it when things get heated or the discussion starts going in circles, the OP may be tempted to reopen it and keep things going when they shouldn't.

Maybe make it punishable to unlock threads that mods have locked? I mean there would be a couple issues likely but really if someone would abuse it to do something as dumb as that a punishment should be enough.

Basically I think that is a good point but I also think that just adding the warning would prevent most from going through with it.

And since necro-bumping is already against the rules that part's covered.

[Tinkerer]

I agree on there needing to be a quicker way to lock threads, but I really don't see any good coming from unlocking your own threads. Was there any reason you had in particular regarding unlocking threads that would make it a good idea?

[Snatch Steal]

Wouldn't it make more sense to have the lock only able to be lifted by the person who placed it?

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

I agree on there needing to be a quicker way to lock threads, but I really don't see any good coming from unlocking your own threads. Was there any reason you had in particular regarding unlocking threads that would make it a good idea?

What bad is there?

And well one thing is you can do things like...You made a mistake/forgot to get some information so you lock it and unlock it after.

Or you don't want anyone to post in it until a certain time passes.

Or for instance you make one of those "Post and I'll" threads. You can lock it after a few posts, get the things you need for it, unlock it and continue. Without being spammed with a dozen things while you work on two of them.

Just would be convenient and I can't see any real issues.

 

Wouldn't it make more sense to have the lock only able to be lifted by the person who placed it?

If possible yeah, just wasn't sure since it seems something a bit more complicated.

[Yuuji Kazami]

The pros outweigh the cons if the function was given to members, so I support the cow's suggestion. Unless there's a programming obstacle that's too complex or arduous, I see no reasonable objection.

[Flash Flyer - Sakura]

It's relatively easy to let you guys do this (just check "can members open/close own threads"), but the reasoning being that some members may decide to reopen a thread that we deemed lockworthy or in the case of CC users (in rare cases), lock thread if they don't want comments.

 

Would be helpful for poll creators to lock stuff without getting the lock tool (or having them PM a mod to do it), but that's about it. 

 

===

We can certainly punish users that choose to override a mod's decision to lock the thread, but this is something that needs discussion with the other mods as you all know full well that this isn't someone a single staff member can decide on their own. 

[(GigaDrillBreaker)]

Could you limit it to polls?

[Flash Flyer - Sakura]

From what I have access to, it's either forum-wide open/closing threads, or you don't get the privilege. Might need to check if evil/Flame/Night can limit that permission to specific sections, but chances are that they have the same options as I do with regards to permission giving.

 

If we could limit it to specific areas, we'd likely approve of the idea. 

[Yuuji Kazami]

Yeah, the limiting to specific areas sound better. I had forgotten that someone can secretly unlock some thread that was locked for good reason.

 

Or atleast limit the unlock to the person who locked in the first place.

[Flash Flyer - Sakura]

Well, the permission is "Users can open/lock their own threads", so that's already taken care of. It's not giving permissions to other users to unlock threads not belonging to them.

 

Only the staff can un/lock threads that aren't ours.

[Catterjune]

Maybe make it punishable to unlock threads that mods have locked? I mean there would be a couple issues likely but really if someone would abuse it to do something as dumb as that a punishment should be enough.

Disagree. It would create pointless busy work for mods.

 

Follow up thoughts:

1) When have you ever, after locking your own topic, wanted to have it unlocked?

2) What would be stopping you from locking topic, editing and blanking out the post, then re-creating it?

3) "Let's give users the the opportunity to ban people! But like... obviously they only use it on spambots, obviously! But if they banned other people, obviously they should get punished!"

 

Like I mean, I understand wanting a similar feature but as far as I know it can't be done with the tools we have. Get YCMaker to come online and change IP.Board? =D

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

Disagree. It would create pointless busy work for mods.

 

Follow up thoughts:

1) When have you ever, after locking your own topic, wanted to have it unlocked?

2) What would be stopping you from locking topic, editing and blanking out the post, then re-creating it?

3) "Let's give users the the opportunity to ban people! But like... obviously they only use it on spambots, obviously! But if they banned other people, obviously they should get punished!"

 

Like I mean, I understand wanting a similar feature but as far as I know it can't be done with the tools we have. Get YCMaker to come online and change IP.Board? =D

What busy work? Seriously there will be very few people who would actually abuse it if just the warning of "This will be punished" is there. Because, as was said before, the option is only to lock and unlock your own topics. So it's quite obvious if someone has abused it. If there's seriously that much a concern that people won't listen to the warning and not unlock topics locked by mods then I think there's a larger issue at hand. I would predict only a few people would actually do it and those that would are the types who would make a fuss about it elsewhere anyway.

 

1) There are several examples I could give but I am sure you would point out how it's "Not needed". Such as a Poll you screwed something up with. Or a thread that you want to keep it from being flooded until you're ready to respond. Basically it just is a convenience. Is it something that's super urgent and unable to be done other ways? Of course not. But that doesn't mean it wouldn't be helpful.

Also even if it's just being able to lock them that alone is super helpful since you don't have to go through several steps just to do it.

Oh also RP. Someone locks an OOC and later needs to copy something from it easily (including spoilers and such) they can unlock it and then grab the thing and relock it.

2) That just makes unnecessary clutter and is far less convenient. If an option exists to make it go smoother I say it makes sense to try it. Since the only issue is something that I can honestly not see being an issue for long.

3) This makes no sense as an argument. It's not nearly the same thing. That's something with far larger consequences and seriously there's very few instances I can imagine someone unlocking a thread a moderator has locked.

Plus if you make it against the rules to do such a thing people won't do it much...Hence why, ya know, people don't post porn and aren't constantly spamming and flaming. It happens sure but not to the extent you seem concerned about.

 

As for your last line

 

It's relatively easy to let you guys do this (just check "can members open/close own threads")

Sakura literally already said it's a thing we can totally do.

 

btw Sakura since I quoted you; any news on the other mods' thoughts?

[Catterjune]

You missed out on the whole second part of the sentence (or as I like to call it, the crux of the entire issue):

 

 

 

but the reasoning being that some members may decide to reopen a thread that we deemed lockworthy

 

That's what will cause tons more work for the mods, because they now have to all send massive wide PMs and document it all on their end "Okay I locked this topic, that topic, and the other topic so if they come back on please lock them for me".

 

That's what's gonna cause warns to increase and severe punishments to go up. "Because you kept re-opening that topic, I had to ban you instead of the usual close topic."

 

That's what's gonna cause problems with the Mod Squad. "CC Mod's Not doing his job! Look at all these spam topics in the CC section!" "What do you mean!? I locked them all last night! Oh, they musta been unlocked..."

 

That's what's gonna cause issues with mods and members on punishments. "Oh he unlocked his topic and he only got a warn increase but I got a one week ban? Totally unfair!"

 

That's what's gonna turn the typical YCM drama from the random shitfest it usually is to an even bigger fire. The "polls, RPs" and all that other "benefits" we get don't come close to the damage that giving spammers and other YCM idiots the ability to unlock their topic.

 

tl;dr - Think about it for longer then five seconds and you'll realize it's a terrible idea.

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

You missed out on the whole second part of the sentence (or as I like to call it, the crux of the entire issue):

I didn't miss it I cut it out because that wasn't what was relevant to what I was specifically responding too.

And because I already commented on that part several times.

 

I highly doubt it will be even a one tenth of the issue you're making it out to be.

If it's really thought to be a big issue of losing track then simply having the mod post that it was locked and why (Which I think most do and should do anyway).

 

Though if it's possible at least to make it an option to just lock their own topics more easily that I assume we both can agree on being good, yes?

[(GigaDrillBreaker)]

Actual spam is typically hidden, rather than being locked, from what I understand.

 

If people unlock threads that were locked by mods, it would obviously warrant punishment. That said, something being against the rules does not necessarily prevent it from happening, nor does threat of punishment. The only real way to prevent it would be to make them incapable.

 

Even so, it is important to keep in mind that threads being locked by mods is actually quite a rare occurrence. The situations in which a thread will be locked by a moderator, and the member chooses to unlock it of their own volition would not happen often. Making a note in the mod forum when a thread is locked would not be difficult (I am not certain why Catterjune seems to think there would need to be PMs, that is just ridiculous) and if the thread was unlocked it would be simple enough to work out.

 

Thus said, it really boils down to a conflict between the benefits (which have been stated multiple times, and each have their own merit) and the risk of just how much damage someone can do after unlocking their own thread before a mod realizes what is going on. With a vigilant staff, I sincerely doubt much of issue could really happen, but, put simply, vigilant isn't the first word I would use to describe the staff as-is.

 

All in all, it really is up to the staff. It is their judgment call on whether the risks in this are real, or whether it is just a minor amount of additional bookkeeping so that members can have more freedom in how they use the forum.

[Dad]

While I'm still on the team, I'm opposed to this.  YCM is far too immature and reckless to handle something this risky.  It's enough that you can lock your own threads.  Just be sure you actually want them locked before you do so.

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

Sooooooo is there any way to just let people lock topics easier, at least?

I will concede that apparently I'm too optimistic about the people of YCM.

[Flash Flyer - Sakura]

Unfortunately, outside of the lock item or having to PM a mod to open/close threads for you, not really.

 

As I mentioned, if we could limit it to particular sections that aren't going to have the privilege abused, we'd probably consider it. But since the only options are "forum-wide" or not at all, we have to use the latter option.

 

(I mentioned "probably" because even if it were possible, idea would have to go through the other mods first to see if they'd approve.)