Mods Posting in a Thread After They Locked It

[Kornholio]

Is anyone else not okay with this practice? I realize it's Dennis's world and he can run it how he see's fit, but I find the practice of talking when responses cannot be posted very poor form and not representative of the establishment I figured Dennis (and the other mods) were/are trying to create. I see it as nothing other than kicking someone while they're down.

I'm interested in what the other mods and even Dennis have to say about this practice.

 

[OldBlade]

IBTL
c

 

[Kornholio]

I'm asking a serious question and not in an asshole'ish manner. I'd ask any of the mods and Dennis the same question to their face and I think most if not all of them have met me and know that I wouldn't ask it like some jerk. There's no reason this can't be discussed with serious decorum.

 

[tzrider]

I just did that in a CA thread. If that's the instance you're referring to, I didn't realize the thread was locked (it doesn't act that way for me, though there is an icon that I didn't notice). Even so, I'd do the same thing again in that situation.

 

[Kornholio]

Your post reminded me about asking about the practice, Andy. There tends to be a dog-piling act where more than one mod will come in after the act to essentially speak their mind and it's typically not favorable to the OP's point or to another member's point.

We all disagree on stuff from time to time, but how does not just posting "Thread Closed" and perhaps a short and non-directive explanation as to why become less desirable than basically throwing in another opinion when you're not going to allow the OP or other members to speak to that opinion, even in a TOS-appropirate manner? How exactly does that further the objective of making this place less hostile?

 

[Yakoo752]

I think it's dependent on what is posted and on which subforum it resides, along with which mod is posting...

if it's within their wheelhouse I'm more accepting

also, what caused the thread to be locked...

 

[Kornholio]

I think it's dependent on what is posted and on which subforum it resides, along with which mod is posting...

if it's within their wheelhouse I'm more accepting

Again, if the objective is to make BARF less hostile, then leading by example should be preferential to the obverse.

 

[ScarySpikes]

Your post reminded me about asking about the practice, Andy. There tends to be a dog-piling act where more than one mod will come in after the act to essentially speak their mind and it's typically not favorable to the OP's point or to another member's point.

We all disagree on stuff from time to time, but how does not just posting "Thread Closed" and perhaps a short and non-directive explanation as to why become less desirable than basically throwing in another opinion when you're not going to allow the OP or other members to speak to that opinion, even in a TOS-appropirate manner? How exactly does that further the objective of making this place less hostile?

The times I've seen threads closed the Mod posting has been an explanation of why the action was taken and that makes total sense. Which threads have had other things posted anyway?

 

[tzrider]

Your post reminded me about asking about the practice, Andy. There tends to be a dog-piling act where more than one mod will come in after the act to essentially speak their mind and it's typically not favorable to the OP's point or to another member's point.

We all disagree on stuff from time to time, but how does not just posting "Thread Closed" and perhaps a short and non-directive explanation as to why become less desirable than basically throwing in another opinion when you're not going to allow the OP or other members to speak to that opinion, even in a TOS-appropirate manner? How exactly does that further the objective of making this place less hostile?

I see your point, though the specifics in this case weren't super clear. Tim locked the thread but I don't think he was certain what else he might do with it. It might have been re-opened, it might have been moved.

Meanwhile, I checked my subscribed threads list, saw activity in the thread, didn't notice the lock icon and clicked to the first unread post. Looked like an open thread to me, so I replied. Learned later the thread was locked. Decided to let my post stand.

Crash analysis should be a place where a rider can post honestly and not be attacked. I've felt that way forever. The difference this time is the rider isn't being honest and is even revising his account to avoid taking responsibility for the crash. The thread should really be in General and re-opened, if you ask me.

 

[Yakoo752]

Again, if the objective is to make BARF less hostile, then leading by example should be preferential to the obverse.

sometimes the mods provide more information about the reasoning behind why a thread was locked or sometimes its in humor (IATL)

I don't see it as large a problem you are indicating

TZ probably could have withheld his post as it's just adding his opine but if it was an error based on an icon being missed, maybe this is a mountain out of a mole hill

(I agree with his post above)

 

[dmaxAl]

I lol'ed at the 'Mister TZRider' bit.

CA is serious business and if you've been here a while you should know that. And I agree, there's a few guys on here like Mr TZRider that take the time to share how not to fucking well crash. If you post there with 'hey fuck me I crashed and have every intention of repeating it', well....

 

[Kornholio]

sometimes the mods provide more information about the reasoning behind why a thread was locked or sometimes its in humor (IATL)

I don't see it as large a problem you are indicating

TZ probably could have withheld his post as it's just adding his opine but if it was an error based on an icon being missed, maybe this is a mountain out of a mole hill

(I agree with his post above)

I don't want this to all focus on that CA thread. That was merely the catalyst for me starting this thread to post the question to the good of the group.

 

[Blankpage]

Is anyone else not okay with this practice? I realize it's Dennis's world and he can run it how he see's fit, but I find the practice of talking when responses cannot be posted very poor form and not representative of the establishment I figured Dennis (and the other mods) were/are trying to create. I see it as nothing other than kicking someone while they're down.

Agree 100%, very lame practice

 

[ThumperX]

I've seen it where it was a closing statement and offered clarity, and I've seen it as a getting the last dig in to a member.

There is some mean spiritness in the mod core that comes out now and then. I look at it as all being equal and just skim over their posts.

We don't see what mods see; but, if it's too much give up the position because a bitter overworked, angry moderator doesn't do Bud or the forum any favors.

Papa911 for mod

 

[Reli]

The OP in that CA thread was a tool anyway. Talking about how the driver who hit him was a "cholo" like as if that makes a difference.

 

[Yakoo752]

I don't want this to all focus on that CA thread. That was merely the catalyst for me starting this thread to post the question to the good of the group.

ah - there have been times where I have questioned the activity but it really is few and far between, ime

 

[carries an axe]

If its closed I don't post in it.

I used to do it but came to the same conclusion.


Jason this should be ingeek speak.
I'm going to move it over there later today once enough people see it.

 

[afm199]

I think it's high time a cabal, err I mean quorum of members could suspend mods indefinitely!

 

[JesasaurusRex]

I think it's high time a cabal, err I mean quorum of members could suspend mods indefinitely!

 

[weasel]

Could you report said posts?

I don't recall having "conversations" in closed threads. Maybe after an explanation with some like "Ok, I understand why this was closed" but not to keep the thread going for mods only.

p.s. We don't get a whole lotta perks for being mods