Peanut Gallery Commentary on the Staff Log of Bannings and such like.

[Edwardo Piet]

I would have liked to see one of pool's threads that got him banned. Just out of curiosity. I get deleting the subsequent repetitive ones, but would have been interested in seeing the original.

He wasn't getting the attention he needed with his new persona so he basically self-destructed as predicted. I didn't even see the threads and I know what he did.

---

Anyways I'm going out to volunteer at an office. I often don't feel up to it and my sleeping is off track so I often miss... to the point where I probably miss more times than I go. But I type so fast that I get so much more done so much quicker than everyone else that I make up for all my times absent LOL. I often get a few weeks worth done in a few hours, lmao how slow are the rest of them?! Lol.

Laters.

[Shell B]

So many threads get closed these days. It's lame. That's my commentary.

I recently 'put down' some threads.  I don't do it lightly, but in this case they were identical postings, most had no replies and were violating the TOS.  Even then, I don't lightly do that.  Despite a goodly number of admins and mods, sometimes action is warranted and there aren't too many staff on line to consult with.  Forum software does allow us to highlight a thread so most of the members cannot see it but staff can, and that condition can be undone if upon reflection it is decided a given thread is OK.  It's always a tough call for me to blip an entire thread even if the opening post in a thread violates the Terms of Service but there are responses to it that do not.

Oh, I don't even see those. I'm not logged on enough to see the repeat postings go buh-bye. I basically mean threads getting locked when members can't get along instead of members being warned or threads being closed in the staff questions forum when they've turned into a discussion. Again, not a huge deal. I'm not getting on a "staff are such assholes" kick, just to be abundantly clear. I'm just saying I'd prefer threads that have provoked discussion and don't break the rules be allowed to run their course. I don't expect anything to change because of that gripe. I'm just having a gripe.

[Cyberman]

Well, on the Staff Questions thing, that's basically the point. It's an auxiliary way for people to access Staff on whatever forum-related subject they feel needs clarification or alteration, rather than a debate facility. Once the questions have been answered and the subject is over, the threads have served their purpose.

As for the former point of ordinary threads getting locked, that’s usually so that we can keep shitfests from flaring up while we confer about how to handle them.

[Shell B]

Sure, but discussion often follows, which is always touted as the point of this place. Maybe splitting the thread and moving it to a discussion section would be more conducive to that goal, but I realize that would be a hassle for staff, so it'll just be annoying blip on my radar.

As for threads getting locked just to stem things while you confer, the consensus often is, "we're going to keep this locked." I liked the idea when it first popped up, but realized I didn't like it when a discussion had to stop because the thread got derailed.

I'm going to reiterate that this isn't a HUGE deal for me. I'm just thinking out loud.

[Edwardo Piet]

I'm just thinking out loud.

Welcome to my world. It's all I ever do

[Tiberius]

FWIW I wouldn’t be opposed to keeping suggestion threads open for others to continue discussing even after staff have made a decision.

[Cyberman]

Indeed. It's a case by case thing.

[Shell B]

Or even just making it clear that the staff questions forum isn't for discussions, and that discussions get closed down once staff has made a decision.

[pocaracas]

SC banned? April fools?

[robvalue]

I think I've been banned too, I can't post anything