Soft Locks

[Slayer3751]

I hate them so much. Someone bumps it and you post. Then you get banned for 7 days. How can we be expected to read every response in a 5 page thread to see if it's soft locked? The mods should just lock it.

MODS!!!! PLEASE JUST LOCK IT!!!!

[firemario1]

It's a test of responsibility. I agree with the idea of soft locks.

[The-Eagle]

PM system is awesome!

[SCUD14]

At 3/24/08 06:17 PM, Slayer3751 wrote: I hate them so much. Someone bumps it and you post. Then you get banned for 7 days. How can we be expected to read every response in a 5 page thread to see if it's soft locked? The mods should just lock it.

MODS!!!! PLEASE JUST LOCK IT!!!!

You're supposed to read a whole thread before you post. Also don't whine about bans etc. please.

[John12346]

When a thread gets enough posts, it can't get locked, it seems. So soft-locking is the only way.

[PlatinumWarrior]

At 3/24/08 06:18 PM, firemario1 wrote: It's a test of responsibility. I agree with the idea of soft locks.

Agreed.

[DP]

Read the whole thread before you post. Its to test to see if you are smart to think before you act.

yes the moderators are conspiring against dumb users. GET USED TO IT.

[Slayer3751]

At 3/24/08 06:18 PM, SCUD14 wrote:
don't whine about bans etc. please.

I'm not

At 3/24/08 06:19 PM, John12346 wrote: When a thread gets enough posts, it can't get locked, it seems. So soft-locking is the only way.

Thank you. I didn't know this

[Impornant]

At 3/24/08 06:19 PM, John12346 wrote: When a thread gets enough posts, it can't get locked, it seems. So soft-locking is the only way.

Lies. I'm pretty sure the biggest thread on the bbs is locked right now.

I'm just to lazy to find it.

[DP]

At 3/24/08 06:23 PM, Ss2-teen-gohan-Ss2 wrote:

At 3/24/08 06:19 PM, John12346 wrote: When a thread gets enough posts, it can't get locked, it seems. So soft-locking is the only way.

Lies. I'm pretty sure the biggest thread on the bbs is locked right now.

I'm just to lazy to find it.

Actually a mod said that after 5 days the thread can not be moderated anymore.

[macio]

At 3/24/08 06:23 PM, Ss2-teen-gohan-Ss2 wrote:

At 3/24/08 06:19 PM, John12346 wrote: When a thread gets enough posts, it can't get locked, it seems. So soft-locking is the only way.

Lies. I'm pretty sure the biggest thread on the bbs is locked right now.

I'm just to lazy to find it.

Bad thing that Tom Fulp's over 2000-page thread "Which one of you took a shit under my desk?" doesn't exist.

[Rage]

We can't lock threads over a week old. That's why soft locks are needed for spam threads that go under the radar or for normal threads gone awry. Even then, it's only done on threads where the [large] potential for spam justifies the soft lock.

A soft lock doesn't require you to read the entire page. It'll always be the last post in the thread, so if you're unsure, just check there.

[robattle]

What the fuck is a "soft lock"?

No I'm serious I have no idea what a soft lock is.

[Rage]

At 3/24/08 06:32 PM, robattle wrote: What the fuck is a "soft lock"?

No I'm serious I have no idea what a soft lock is.

It's when a moderator makes a last post in a thread saying not to post in it or you'll be banned. When a thread needs to be locked and is over a week old, it's basically the only option for a moderator, spare administrator intervention.

[robattle]

Well ok thanks for telling me.

[Mr-Contradiction]

At 3/24/08 06:34 PM, RageVI wrote: It's when a moderator makes a last post in a thread saying not to post in it or you'll be banned. When a thread needs to be locked and is over a week old, it's basically the only option for a moderator, spare administrator intervention.

An informative thread? On Newgrounds!!??!!??

Oh it's about Newgrounds, nevermind.

[mranarchy]

At 3/24/08 06:18 PM, SCUD14 wrote:

You're supposed to read a whole thread before you post.

Yeah-you do that...

[StarF68]

At 3/24/08 06:34 PM, RageVI wrote: It's when a moderator makes a last post in a thread saying not to post in it or you'll be banned. When a thread needs to be locked and is over a week old, it's basically the only option for a moderator, spare administrator intervention.

Mods can't lock topics over a week old? Why not just somehow enable that? :O

[Rage]

At 3/24/08 06:40 PM, StarF68 wrote:

Mods can't lock topics over a week old? Why not just somehow enable that? :O

A week, or maybe it was thirty days. It was changed recently and it's rarely ever an issue anyway. Old topics can't just not be locked -- they can't be deleted or destroyed either. There's some solid reasoning behind it. Just imagine if a moderator destroyed a 2,000 page topic.

And while we're on the topic of soft locks, here is an example of when it's really necessary. There is no other way for us to stop such a craptacular spamfest.

[ItBeShannonFoo]

I didn't know what a soft lock was. I simply thought someone was going crazy. Maybe they should.. include that in the rules... I read through them. Maybe I skipped it.

Anyways, Depending on what the subject is, I read all the way through.

yet for something such as "what's in your ctrl V" that doesn't require prior knowledge of what everyone else is posting because it's not likely you'll come up with the same thing.

Yet it is interesting to read.

[SCUD14]

At 3/24/08 06:53 PM, RageVI wrote:

A week, or maybe it was thirty days.

How has the first through to 1337th topic been locked then?

[Rage]

At 3/24/08 06:54 PM, ItBeShannonFoo wrote:

yet for something such as "what's in your ctrl V" that doesn't require prior knowledge of what everyone else is posting because it's not likely you'll come up with the same thing.

It also doesn't require you to actually paste what's in your ctrl + v. We had people advertising their websites, making off-topic posts (as bad as the topic itself is), and treating it as an open invitation to post whatever they want with no consequence.

[ItBeShannonFoo]

At 3/24/08 07:02 PM, RageVI wrote:

At 3/24/08 06:54 PM, ItBeShannonFoo wrote:

yet for something such as "what's in your ctrl V" that doesn't require prior knowledge of what everyone else is posting because it's not likely you'll come up with the same thing.

It also doesn't require you to actually paste what's in your ctrl + v. We had people advertising their websites, making off-topic posts (as bad as the topic itself is), and treating it as an open invitation to post whatever they want with no consequence.

I understand that. I was simply saying that someone who didn't read all 30 so pages { such as myself } because the topic doesn't necessarily require people to... might get someone banned.

[gumOnShoe]

At 3/24/08 07:06 PM, AtomicBurger wrote:

At 3/24/08 06:19 PM, John12346 wrote: When a thread gets enough posts, it can't get locked, it seems. So soft-locking is the only way.

How many?

Its not posts, its time since creation of topic.

[Arby]

At 3/24/08 07:05 PM, ItBeShannonFoo wrote: I understand that. I was simply saying that someone who didn't read all 30 so pages { such as myself } because the topic doesn't necessarily require people to... might get someone banned.

Therefore, check the last page for continuity's sake and to check for soft lock. Not hard.

[videogamer0810]

Then why not make it so that topics over a week old can't be deleted, but can always be locked, regardless of how old it is? Locking a topic is a reversible process, so that should never be made unavailable. It would make BBS surfing so much easier for both normal users and moderators.

[ItBeShannonFoo]

At 3/24/08 07:12 PM, Arby wrote:

At 3/24/08 07:05 PM, ItBeShannonFoo wrote: I understand that. I was simply saying that someone who didn't read all 30 so pages { such as myself } because the topic doesn't necessarily require people to... might get someone banned.

Therefore, check the last page for continuity's sake and to check for soft lock. Not hard.

They could also use one of the neat color coded icons to signify whether or not it has been soft locked.

and I didn't know what a soft lock was until this post. Otherwise, I probably would have.