delete

[odeon]

It's utterly pointless to lock threads here.

['andersom']

 

It's not pointless at all to keep them open.

[odeon]

I think we should remove the ability for members to lock threads. It doesn't fill any purpose.

['andersom']

The opening and closing game does provide some fun though.

It's the kneading of fresh meat.

[McGiver]

Here here.  I second that motion.

[Queen Victoria]

I will see your delete and up you 2 Daleks.

Exterminate.  Exterminate.

[Semicolon]

My first impression is to disagree with Odeon and McJagger. There's nothing to prevent someone who wants to comment on a subject from starting another thread that isn't locked, correct? Locking a thread won't necessarily stop a discussion. So why not err on the side of giving members more freedom?

You two have a prejudice against locking threads as being cowardly. The recently locked threads earned a shrug from me. If they didn't, I'd just start new threads.

I half-recall one thread that's somewhere in the bowels of the forum by now. One of the regular members was having a personal problem and locked the thread after it was discussed because the member didn't want to be reminded of it. If anyone else can recall more, please join in.

I'm curious about your arguments against locking. I'll think about it.

[Queen Victoria]

I have a locked thread somewhere on here containing stuff I posted from outside and wanted to remember.  Probably best forgotten.

['andersom']

Some real personal stuff, yes, I can see someone wanting to lock that after a while.

A new thread, just started, not sensitive, nor personal, and then locked, makes no sense to me. Why not let it derail and disappear into oblivion.

Some locked threads get a parallel thread on the same subject, made by someone else. And somehow those threads take longer to derail than threads not locked.

[Player]

Glad to see this open again.

Player, it is time to embrace the culture of I2.

The culture here is very different that's for sure.

[odeon]

My first impression is to disagree with Odeon and McJagger. There's nothing to prevent someone who wants to comment on a subject from starting another thread that isn't locked, correct? Locking a thread won't necessarily stop a discussion. So why not err on the side of giving members more freedom?

You two have a prejudice against locking threads as being cowardly. The recently locked threads earned a shrug from me. If they didn't, I'd just start new threads.

I half-recall one thread that's somewhere in the bowels of the forum by now. One of the regular members was having a personal problem and locked the thread after it was discussed because the member didn't want to be reminded of it. If anyone else can recall more, please join in.

I'm curious about your arguments against locking. I'll think about it.

Why is the freedom of the one more important than the freedom of the many? Presumably the locked thread had more than that one member posting in it, so by locking it the member is actively limiting the other members' ability to express their meaning.

As for that old private stuff argument, if you don't want your stuff on the internet, then don't post it there.

If it was posted there without your consent and you didn't have anything to do with publishing it any way, then that's a different discussion, unrelated to the locked threads one.

[Player]

My first impression is to disagree with Odeon and McJagger. There's nothing to prevent someone who wants to comment on a subject from starting another thread that isn't locked, correct? Locking a thread won't necessarily stop a discussion. So why not err on the side of giving members more freedom?

You two have a prejudice against locking threads as being cowardly. The recently locked threads earned a shrug from me. If they didn't, I'd just start new threads.

I half-recall one thread that's somewhere in the bowels of the forum by now. One of the regular members was having a personal problem and locked the thread after it was discussed because the member didn't want to be reminded of it. If anyone else can recall more, please join in.

I'm curious about your arguments against locking. I'll think about it.

Why is the freedom of the one more important than the freedom of the many? Presumably the locked thread had more than that one member posting in it, so by locking it the member is actively limiting the other members' ability to express their meaning.

As for that old private stuff argument, if you don't want your stuff on the internet, then don't post it there.

If it was posted there without your consent and you didn't have anything to do with publishing it any way, then that's a different discussion, unrelated to the locked threads one.

Surely if a thread is created by someone with the knowledge they can lock it at anytime in the future then isn't it unfair, or even tyrannical, to supplant the right to lock the thread? Perhaps that user would not have created the thread if the lock feature wasn't available.

Even if it is at the detriment of the majority, you have to stand by the original terms of the agreement because if not, then quite frankly, you've cheated a user.

[Jack]

It's amusing that this thread, which I thought would have been removed by now, gets more replies than other legit threads in this section.

All threads are legit. Except for the AFF threads in the Intensity subforum; those threads are no way legit.

[Jesse]

I think we should remove the ability for members to lock threads. It doesn't fill any purpose.

If you do that please bring back the ignore feature back. I would much rather have that than to be able to lock a topic,

[Parts]

I like to be able to lock threads as sort of indication that I don't want to talk about it anymore and I would like it to fallback into the board's archive.  I only have used it in threads about personal stuff like when my dog Yoyo died and I wanted to lay it to rest after a week or so.  I don't feel it's good for embarrassing thing or in debate threads as all it does is call attention to the thread so other member will start their own about it  or show that your losing