Topic: Locked threads on reputation board (Read 486 times)

It's the other way around: if something that's worse didn't lead to a change of rules, it's not very realistic to expect the lesser evil to lead to change.

I quite understand the school of thought you are bringing this from, but at the same time, we should canvass for equity and affairs for all. The suggestion will also stop the dire need to keep opening new threads for the same purpose just for defence or counterattack.

The fact that scammers are doing worse should not be taken as the basis to overlook what is not good just as it is also been overlooked in some other aspects of the forum where rules are supposed to be adjusted for obvious reasons.

Unless what the OP alleged is good, I believe changing rules to address it is important.

Your thread was posted as it looked like the same thing that JPR was doing, but you are correct and you posted the info and allowed for the point to be argued. With that being said, I cannot really group you into the same category as the other guy. If you're allowing the point to be argued then you're not being a coward either.

The question is more directed towards people like JPR that are not allowing a point to be argued. Yes I know someone can make another thread and argue their point, but they shouldn't have to.

People don't wanna rule change and that's fine just seems silly to have the ability to lock a thread in reputation period.

I have just noticed this thread therefore am only replying now after I noticed my name is mentioned.

I cannot recall when I last created a thread and locked it, therefore this is not a systematic pattern of conduct on my part and my name should not be attributed to those that might/are doing this type of conduct on a regular basis (including if they are known trolls).

The thread I created was not locked immediately, to my knowledge it was locked several hours later and at that point there were no replies were made but I decided to lock it however I copied the content of that post in another post in a different thread and even linked the post in the locked thread which was already part of the discussion.

Maybe I reacted and turned the tables on that narcissist because he created several threads asking for members to exclude someone else and it was he that received a lot of exclusions. We are human after all, infallibility is something we cannot possess.

And no, there should not be a rule in the Reputation board or anywhere else in the forum where creating and locking a thread is prohibited. Each thread that has been created and locked immediately (or even later if no replies were made) should be assessed on an individual basis and members can come to their own conclusions.

As for creating a thread and it being automatically considered cowardly by virtue of not allowing someone to defend themselves, that also is a matter of perspective and also should be based on the context of the locked thread. On that thinking, yes it is acceptable sometimes depending on the situation.

That's thoughtful of you and I've seen countless threads where some users would allege another user, but before you know it, the OP of the thread would lock it. So why allege some without giving such a person the fairness to state his own side of the story and for people to judge? This is certainly unfair.

A strict rule is the answer at the same time, and I even think that the current rules of the forum are outdated, it has to be updated where some points are removed and some are added for the betterment of the forum and its users at large. A lot of users are engaging in some excessiveness, and such should be frowned upon and curbed with the updated rules.

I can take over in February.

And my name makes it easy to tell that I have experience in the role - jokes are on me. 

board of clown posted topics.

and a clown mod.

clown mod can move a thread to clown board and the clown board thread are always unlocked and unmodded.

clown mod has one more ability he can delete and post on any thread on the clown board.


clown mod works for 1 month time and rotates out.

I volunteer for Jan 2025 duty as clown mod.
whos wants to do Feb 2025 duty?

   This would be a fun way to handle it, assuming the board is sort of like investigations and isn't crawled by search engines... but then the users will probably cry "forum censorship!"

Agreed! If the Forum is going to change rules everytime few Kindergarten grads messed up, creating and locking a topic intended for public discussion, we may end up not having any rules left. If you are going to write an episode on someone's character, you must also allow others to express their opinions. This is how adults discuss...

No, I don't think we should change forum rules just because of few members doing stuff like that.
We can however report all members who are creating similar topics, and if they continue to make them I would think about giving them temp ban or some other type of limitation.
Separate Kindergarten or Circus board could be created so mods can move topics there instead of trash 

I also reported it for the same reason and it is unhandled as well, just like other reports in the section. In my experience, moderators tend to take little action in that section, especially in cases like this. As it is a controversial section I imagine they fear a thread of complaint on Meta if they act.

I don't like the locked Reputation topics, but I don't think it's worth changing the rules. Scammers have been using locked threads on the Marketplace boards for years, and the rules didn't change. I'd argue scammers are worse than someone hurting someone else's feelings.

It is still unhandled. It seems that reporting does not help much in such cases.

For the first time, I'll have to disagree with you, Chymist.
Are we gonna wait till it becomes a long standing problem to get rid of it? "When we've got all it takes to plant more tree to eschew erosion(which,is less laborious), why must we decide to Wait until the rain comes, then we begin making ridges/contour tillage"?
Initially - ain't gonna lie - I was against it (I already read a similar thread by act) .. Cus I thought I'd be a little bit controlling but, jackfuck racer is  slowly making the reputation board miserable.
page 3!!!!
I think this is even more Better.
shows cowardice. Makes no requal-sense!

This reminds me of actual situations where you need to have someone standing in as the accuser to have a case. It mustn’t be the affected person or user in this case but the user would be willing to come forth for the case to continue.

I think users who are most affected by this policy and such acts from other users should come in and post their support to this notion about locked threads on the reputation board. It’s a board where one’s reputation is been put to question and having a say where you’re mentioned seems to not be of utmost necessity.

It could be really one sided when your not allowed a word on a course, especially when you’ve got one.

It really makes no sense to raise an accusation and then block the debate. The accused is forced to open another topic to argue against it. Normally it is said that there is a "presumption of innocence until proven otherwise". But to prove otherwise, it is necessary to listen to both sides. If the debate is closed to just one voice, it is no longer a debate and it is no longer possible to understand which side is right - regardless of the evidence presented.

That said, it doesn't really make sense to be allowed two things:
- The topic should be self-moderated, as this could distort the debate. It is true that there are scrapers that archive all posts made, but even this will destroy or make it difficult to understand the entire issue under debate.
- Close the topic immediately after opening it. This clearly prevents an open dialogue on the subject. It could even be possible for the OP to configure the topic to be closed x hours after the last post. This would avoid debates being left open forever.

+1 for not allowing self moderated topic and not allowing to lock the thread.

Another good proposal but when a topic finished it's discussion material and a different discussion or similar discussion that needs to receive better attention then the locking of the old topic is usable to me without moving it to archive.

If restrictions are applied, topic may be moved to another board, locked and returned again to the reputation board.

It is better to add a rule such as "locked topics should not be on the reputation board." Here we do not need to change the forum code and you can report topic to be moved to Archival.

will try to report using "locked topic please move it to Archival"

When I saw two of the topics, I made similar suggestion recently. You can see it on this link

Topics on reputation board should not have lock feature

It is called reputation, threads on the board should not have lock feature at all. Self-moderation also supposed not to be there as people said. It is about reputation and those features supposed to be removed.

I'd be ok with that option as well. I actually like the idea of no self moderated thread and making a user report if they think a comment is off topic or whatever.

I doubt the administrator want to add such features.

The easy way the moderators just need to move those threads to trashcan or add one more section for drama, perhaps "Drama" or "Shit Talking" sounds good.

They can just delete the post from users that they don't like and those users get mad, then they will create new self moderated thread because they don't want their posts got deleted.

Everything can be abused.

If in the end such a measure ended up being taken I don't think it would be a solution either, as someone who didn't want comments in their thread apart from their accusation and bumping it could make it self moderated and delete all replies, or the ones they don't like, which I wouldn't be surprised if Fuckingretardedraccer did.

So if measures were to be taken I think there would have to be two, not allowing lock threads in the section (at least with less than x comments) and not allowing self-moderated threads, as happens in Meta.

That might be what's happening, but neither need to be doing it IMO. They can just make a thread self moderated and delete replies they want to delete and keep sig spam down or whatnot. I'm all for users posting whatever they want about whomever, but would still like to see users be able to reply is all.

I think JackpotRacer is trolling JollyGood. JollyGood is the one who have such habit and his latest one was to make me look dirty which is the third link of the links posted on the OP.

Has anyone (especially the person in question mentioned in the thread) ever reported the locked thread they cannot reply in to the moderators and what was the outcome?

Mods are allowed to interpret the rules as they see fit, so there doesn't exactly have to be a standing rule about it for a mod to change the status of a thread from locked to unlocked. If they regularly unlock the thread to bump it, that's an added reason to unlock it.

Anyone who creates such topics probably understands that the same topic, but with a refutation, can be created for discussion. I see such topics as a banner that contains information that, in the opinion of the author, is the truth. But unfortunately, people do not understand that such a conclusion requires the opinions of not only the other party but also the entire community. Otherwise, such posts can be perceived as something uncivilized written on a fence. No more. Although we always have an understanding that posts without discussion quickly go into deep history and remain unattended.

If it doesn't, there's probably no need to lock it anyway.


Well, that's kinda why I don't think a user should be able to silence any responses to a thread that is against someone's reputation or accusing someone of a scam, they're creating a rule/restriction to censor responses on a forum that should be against censorship, especially in sections like reputation & scam accusations, but really anywhere, IMO. Although, I'd agree it isn't a large long-standing issue, but it may be becoming one.

Starting up another thread is of course possible, but having 2 threads for the same situation is annoying as a reader, if you even know the other thread exists.

That assumes the thread will even go that far--but if a restriction like this was to be implemented, there would definitely have to be a reasonable time or post count parameter.  However, I don't really think any such rule is needed.  This hasn't been a long-standing problem, and while it might be annoying to some people, there's absolutely no restriction on the accused (or anyone else) starting up a rebuttal thread which ideally would reference the locked thread.

Inefficient?  Yes.  But personally I'm for the fewest number of rules/restrictions possible.

I am quite annoyed by such a habit, I usually put such users on the ignore list, no matter what section it is.

For example, we often have someone in the service section regularly bump and lock, thus keeping their topic at the top. Earlier, I suggested that the locked topic be automatically moved to the archive, but certainly to reduce the bump power. It should certainly not be the top, a topic that you can read but not give a different opinion or ask a question.

Locked means solved or irrelevant, therefore, there is no need for it to be visible as a priority.

Seems pretty lame to start a smear thread and then lock it.. online forums are meant for discussion.

Maybe threads can't be locked in these sections until after page 2-3?

Locking threads is useful to stop the repetitive posts, when everyone wants to start repeating the first 5 posts in different ways, but doing it to censor any response seems a bit cowardly and manipulative.

Seconded. This should include the scam accusations board too at times.  It's getting annoying.

I don't see the point of one making a thread to criticize/accuse someone or a service if they are just going to lock it up immediately. If one hates or fears counter-criticism or defense from the one they accused, then they shouldn't open the thread at all. They won't die because of that.

If rules like this will be implemented then it is fine except the thread doesn't have anything to attach with any case or whatever, then for a thread where a user created and lock immediately without the accuser defending themselves shouldn't be locked or better still the accuser can make another topic to express themselves since the previous topic is locked and I believe it would also call the attention of the first poster to come reply on the new topic. Alternatively if the admin or mods finds it out whereby the accusers needs to defend themselves then it's better for them to unlock it when the op has locked it.

Should we have a rule regarding the reputation section where users cannot open a thread and immediately lock it? I feel like users the thread is about should have the right to defend themselves if they wish, without having to open a new thread cluttering the section.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/standing-strong-against-unjust-attacks-thread-locked-by-blackjackfun-5495165
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/--5494178
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/bitcoingirlclub-how-a-condescending-attitude-equates-to-trust-exclusion-5493610

Here are a few examples. It might be ok at times I suppose, but really comes off as kind of cowardly to not allow someone to defend themselves doesn't it.