Hard Light Productions Forums
Site Management => Site Support / Feedback => Topic started by: MatthTheGeek on March 29, 2012, 02:38:33 am
-
I come to report an unearned warning and double post deletion from the WCS board.
Original post was at follows :
You guys are familiar with the term feature creep, do you? Probably not.
You realize you're talking to senior members and team leaders, right ? They are perfectly familiar with the term, thank you very much. They are also perfectly familiar with how a modding team works.
EDIT: oh, and by the way, you might want to stop deleting my posts just because I disagree with you. Just sayin'
The warning said :
You have received a warning for insulting other users and/or staff members
Unless someone can point out where I was insulting, I request the warning to be removed, the post to be restored and the moderator to be sanctionned.
Thank you for your attention.
EDIT: does this belongs here or in Site Feedback ? Feel free to move it if necessary.
EDIT2: It seems the situation is evolving. Two more posts were deleted, the one I partially quoted from Tolwyn and one from Karajorma that was on the same tangent than mine. The thread in question is Spoon's WCS review (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=80395.0). I think someone is trying to hide their tracks.
-
WCS Is free to moderate posts within their Board as they see fit.
Maybe be less combative in your approach with them would be more helpful. Because it does NOT aid the community in any way when they decide they don't want to be a part of it anymore because of the behaviours of others.
-
How do you justify deleting half a thread without further notice ? That's not moderation, that's vandalism.
-
Well I don't give a stuff about my reply. So basically you're the only one complaining.
-
So I read the first post and thought about the general developmental relationship with WCS and SCP. Then I thought about how WCS is a big attention grabber for HLP. I concluded that no one would do anything about the terrible moderation if only to keep WCS at HLP.
Then I read the rest of this thread. Yup.
But meh, WCS already pushed me away thanks to their "we are better than you attitude".. so blah..
-
I know that there has been some contention between both teams in the past, but what I don't see is how that affects inappropriate behavior in the here and now. MatthTheGeek, I've already seen you make a couple of flat-out inflammatory remarks in that folder, the sorts of comments that Tolwyn and the rest of the team frankly shouldn't have to deal with. Tolwyn may have been a bit over-zealous in handling that thread, but I'm honestly willing to let that slide myself, given how your participation in previous threads has gone. If you're going to walk around with a chip on your shoulder, don't get all offended when someone comes up and knocks it off.
-
That doesn't change the fact that policy at HLP has been to not delete posts except for outright spam.
-
That doesn't change the fact that policy at HLP has been to not delete posts except for outright spam.
I was just about to say this. Does this mean that we can start deleting posts we don't particularly like?
-
That doesn't change the fact that policy at HLP has been to not delete posts except for outright spam.
I was just about to say this. Does this mean that we can start deleting posts we don't particularly like?
:eek:
YES! There are some threads in the FSU board that need equal treatment.. I'm a moderator over there...
-
Too bad I only have moderator powers in the HWBP board, I would have helped you in the noble task of cleaning the FSU board of the rampant stupidity that crawled in some of its threads :p
-
How, when and where deletions (if they are to occur) on a general board level are one thing. So far as I know however, that is not a set in stone that all other sub forums need to abide by, nor do I see it written anywhere as such. Especially since users -are- capable (somehow in some way) of being able to remove their own posts. (currently under discussion)
It's more a disruptive issue balance than anything else. We don't (as a general rule) allow for it willy nilly. But in the specific circumstances raised here, the number is insignificant to the reason. (also currently under discussion)
And no, that does not mean that moderators are free to exercise carte blanche just because they feel like it. I highly urge you not to try. (not up for discussion)
-
ok, so I woke up feeling like crap and that was the state of my previous posts in this thread... here's my civil addition to this topic since the issue seems to be under discussion with the admins.
I get that they may have freedom to moderate as they see fit. Deleting posts, though, is a big action. I don't want to argue this specific case, but I do want to bring this under consideration...
Based on this I should have freedom to delete posts on the BtA board as I see fit. What about the FSPort board? That's still mostly a private project. Clearly you think post deletion on FSU is not an option. So where is the line drawn? Can posts be deleted based on previous posts from that person? Or can posts only be deleted based on it's own content? For better or worse, this is the gray area that this thread has opened up. It probably needs to be clearly addressed for the future.
For the record too, you will likely not ever see me delete posts unless it's spam. Even on the BtA board. If people have a problem with my mod, that doesn't give me the right to selectively hide their posts from view.
-
In general, I think mjn's questions need answering; however, do you think that stopping WCS from deleting posts will solve anything? It is a symptom of a bigger problem. You really need to hug and make up instead of going over their heads.
-
Look, everyone with any authority on HLP is a bad moderator. This is a small community, there's a very small talent pool to draw from, and basically everyone who has ever held the job is completely unsuited to the task, whether because they don't give a **** or they're just slightly autistic. This is not a problem unique to HLP! BioWare, for example, has horrible moderators on their forums, and they're a large for-profit corporation that depends on good relations with its fanbase. Moderation is hard and requires a certain sense of humor, a certain blitheness, a certain je ne sais quoi
The problem is compounded because some of the people involved have been around forever (goob, kara) and some are comparatively new (zacam) which creates odd discrepancies in style
The question needs to be how to strike a balance between our bad posters and our bad moderators. The answer is to make swashmebuckle and redsniper supreme admins. This should handle everything pretty well
aaaaalll that said
WCS should probably be allowed to moderate their subforum however they please. It's their subforum, after all! Same goes for individual projects like BtA. Delete, edit, abuse, do as you please so long as the consequences are confined to your subforum. Seems only reasonable. I guess HLP, uh, higher-ups could step in if a subforum leader turned out to be a crazy racist or something, but otherwise, it's their subforum~~~!
-
Spoon's full review still hasn't been addressed by the team at all, which is a bizarre occurrence. I don't believe I've ever seen a creator or group thereof outright fail to comment upon criticism of their work on this site. The responses have run the range from the gracious to the childish, but deafening silence is new.
I guess what I'm trying to say here is that the WCS forum is weird. The fact they use this site for hosting but maintain offsite forums they prefer to refer people to when asked questions is also pretty weird.
-
I'm totally okay with them never replying to that review. I think that's almost always the correct decision for professional creatives interacting with critics: read the review, take away as much as you can, don't respond. This lets both sides do their jobs better.
-
basically everyone who has ever held the job is completely unsuited to the task, whether because they don't give a **** or they're just slightly autistic
Put me down for one of each.
-
But not even acknowledging that the criticism exists is imho not exactly good form.
-
Delete, edit, abuse, do as you please so long as the consequences are confined to your subforum.
Just wondering: is Matt's warning confined to the WCS subforum? I thought they had to be global.
EDIT: Personally I appreciate the policy of deleting only spam, and I would prefer if it were enforced throughout HLP. Merge/lock/splits I'd say do whatever.
-
Delete, edit, abuse, do as you please so long as the consequences are confined to your subforum.
Just wondering: is Matt's warning confined to the WCS subforum? I thought they had to be global.
If warnings are global they should not be handed out without due process.
-
Because Forum warnings can affect your future career prospects...
-
I don't know how forum warnings work. After you get three are you autobanned? Or still manually banned for subforum warnings? Or only banned from that subforum?
-
It's a point system that slowly degrades by 5 points a day, the worst a Moderator can do to you is stop you from posting for a few days.
Hey, here's an idea guys, maybe WE should just make blanket assumptions about entire sections of the membership, it seems to be in vogue at the moment...
-
Part of the problem with HLP's moderation is that it's not really unified or consistent. It behaves more like a lose bunch of vigilantes that randomly step up to enforce their view of 'justice' than a unified team of people working towards the same goal. This has major problems with consistency, as already said.
Moderators on the private boards still need to be held to the same standard as any other global moderator or admin in terms of moderating. If they aren't, this also hurts consistency and frankly I don't want people who are kinda like Omniscraper being able moderate freely as they please, not even for their own project board.
-
To be honest, there are guidelines for Moderators to follow, and it's up to other Moderators to make sure those guidelines are kept to. For my own part, I'll admit to not being 100% comfortable with the idea of deleting posts out of threads, but not having read those posts, I'm can't really make a judgement in either direction.
I think the point is at the moment is that Moderation on a Mod that has (a) just been released and (b) is getting a LOT of media attention has to work to a slightly different set of rules to the 'norm' for in here. Mostly I tend to find we are pretty easy going to a point, and all our usual poo-delivery services are probably running as normal, but I think that, especially whilst there is a lot of external focus on the Forum, our usual good-natured combativeness and acerbic, but well-intentioned criticism could run the risk of being misinterpreted as something that it isn't, and whilst the old-timers on here are used to each others habits, it may not be helpful to project the image that this is the acceptable level of conversation, since newcomers who post comments that could easily have come from an established member tend to get pounced on.
I suppose it boils down to the concept that the Mods creators are the ones who will bear the brunt of how it is received by the public, and the public will, in part, judge them by the Forum and its content. During the release phase they are going to be far more conscious of that, so expect a lot more Moderation on that specific Forum for a while.
-
Well, the problem with moderators/admins acting as a unified team is that they would need centralized leadership that they agree to respect, or they would need some sort of democracy. In either case, anything that they disagree or feel strongly enough about could be reason for them to 'secede' and go their own way. This isn't particularly healthy, as everyone probably has their own favorite 'buddies' or people that they mostly agree with, and if that person quits being a mod or admin because of their feelings, then the people that admire them are also likely to be offended.
Currently, it seems that we have a benevolent (or not benevolent, if that is your view.. my view is it's meant to be benevolent) dictatorship, under which are various ... under-dictators, ruling over other, lesser, dictators, who together assist in the rule of their nation-states on behalf of the dictatorship, some of whom have authority that stretches into other nation-states, or who share rule over some of the same nation-states (speaking of the forums as different 'nation states' governed by admins / mods here...)
This system is most likely the best system we can actually get, considering the makeup of HLP, and the fact that it's not like the community 'owns' any part of it; it's a cafe owned by someone else, who lets you come and hang out with your buddies, for free, and of course has the right to enforce order in said cafe as they see fit. However, the cafe is too big for one person, so they delegate to those members of the cafe as they see fit... there really is no other way that I think HLP could be sensibly run, given the varying viewpoints we have here. I've personally experienced what appeared to be personal targetting of myself and my posts, and, after having talked with an admin, taken several chill pills, and a few days to cool off, was able to see how my posts may have possibly been seen by the moderator in question.... it was rather eye-opening. I didn't mean to cause any offense, however, upon receiving what I thought was a hostile response by a mod (splitlock with thread re-named), I of course became very upset. However, looking at it from the moderator's point of view, I can see how my post could be taken as ... potentially harmful to the HLP community, as I hadn't been careful enough with my description of the software I was advocating people try.
Do I think the moderator overreacted? Yes.
However, I perfectly understand how he came to his decision now, and have come to terms with that, as an unescapable byproduct of people having sole responsibility to police a public forum for free, in their own free time, such as it is.
I also believe that perhaps I may have overreacted to what I considered to be personal belittling directed at myself.. which did not end up to be the case. Certain people just have different styles, which can clash with others' personal styles of communication. Both sides do not mean offense, or only mean to come across as slightly annoyed, the other side, which does not understand, takes this as a direct insult, and the situation escalates. Both sides are most likely both at fault, but hey, welcome to planet Earth. ;)
I'd say, to get along better: if you feel like grabbing your plasma rifle, don't. Post your objection in an abbreviated form, stating that you will respond more fully in the next day or so, after you've had time to think with a clear head on the matter. Patience is the community's ally, at this point.. as well as a bit of self-control and willingness to put aside your own (at least apparently) offended pride for the sake of civility. Be the bigger person, and, unless you can post with a detached aloofness to any perceived personal insult, avoid posting until you can be perceived as reasonable by any standard.
Take all of the above ramblings with a grain of salt; I'm not trying to come across as some know-it-all or more-perfect-than-you asshole, just sharing some musings. ;) Also note that (at least in my case) sometimes it's necessary to just take a break from it all and check back in a few months after everything's died down and it's all water well under the bridge.
-
The general policy at HLP is to not delete posts unless they are spam, but this isn't a hard-and-fast rule and it has been bent in the past. Moderators and especially admins have a fair amount of discretion here. And that's a good thing, because HLP benefits from a number of different perspectives. It wouldn't do to have a monolithic top-heavy bureaucracy on the board -- I've seen too many real life examples of that.
Now, I disagree with the decision to delete the posts. I would have preferred that they be split-locked instead, if someone wanted to remove them from the thread for whatever reason. And I think the warning was unwarranted; I didn't see anything particularly out-of-line from MattThGeek.
But we should cut the WCS team some slack. They just released a huge mod that took 10 years of exhausting effort to complete. It's a huge load off their shoulders and they are probably expecting and hoping that everybody is just as ecstatic about it as they are. I disagree with the moderation but I don't think sanctions are warranted. After all, they didn't ban MattThGeek or delete Spoon's review.
-
WCS should probably be allowed to moderate their subforum however they please.
I disagree. Every board should adhere to same rules unless exceptions are clearly stated in board description and/or sticky topic in said board and approved by admins. How are you otherwise supposed to know what rules apply where?
In addition, if different boards have different rules, then punishments should also be separate which is not possible unless admins create membergroups for each board to deny permissions. And that is way too much work to maintain for any length of time. So if someone is punished in WCS board which follows different rules than rest of the HLP, then they have no grounds for that punishment to affect said person in any other board on HLP.
My personal opinion? Either follow same rules as everybody else or GTFO. I wouldn't give special treatment to WCS, Diaspora, Blue Planet or hell, even SCP or FSU for that matter. They don't like the rules, bring issues up with admins for discussion. Failing that, then they can set up their own forums somewhere else. Which by the way WCS already has done, so it seems even weirder for them to have boards here at HLP.
Now we get to rules. I am well aware that they are very loosely defined here at HLP, but that's because people here tend to have more common sense than in your average internet forum, and admins can discuss things out case by case basis. Though I have to express my frustration that admins are SLOW in such matters, especially since majority tends to skip the matter entirely not saying a word, which does NOT help in reaching a consensus. Back when HLP was basically ran by me and Goober, it wasn't fun trying to decide anything because it was so frustratingly difficult to reach a consensus with admins that weren't even joining in the discussion. And that includes Tolwyn by the way. Admins pamper each other way too much, afraid they'll hurt others feelings, even knowing full well that someone hasn't actually earned the privileges given. But what do I know, I've been out of the loop for so long.
Wait, I got sidetracked and started rambling. Dammit, better stop here.
-
WCS should probably be allowed to moderate their subforum however they please. It's their subforum, after all! Same goes for individual projects like BtA. Delete, edit, abuse, do as you please so long as the consequences are confined to your subforum. Seems only reasonable. I guess HLP, uh, higher-ups could step in if a subforum leader turned out to be a crazy racist or something, but otherwise, it's their subforum~~~!
My personal opinion? Either follow same rules as everybody else or GTFO. I wouldn't give special treatment to WCS, Diaspora, Blue Planet or hell, even SCP or FSU for that matter. They don't like the rules, bring issues up with admins for discussion. Failing that, then they can set up their own forums somewhere else. Which by the way WCS already has done, so it seems even weirder for them to have boards here at HLP.
Agreed with Fury. Allowing hosted projects to moderate their subforums however they please is effectively carving up HLP into fiefdoms. I for one would be much less comfortable posting in the boards of hosted projects if what I post there could be edited or deleted at any time for any reason. That non-spam posts were deleted (and I read them before they were lost) in this one instance is distressing to me, and I wouldn't be inclined to post in a place where it could happen anytime.
As for users deleting their own posts, my understanding was that users could delete posts or topics of theirs to which no one had replied, although maybe that isn't the case.
-
I'd like some uniform rules around here. Letting subforums enforce their own rules would be problematic because
- there are 50 friggin subforums (not counting subforums' subforums)
- at least the WCS board doesn't really provide their own rules in written form
- because of the above, regular users have a hard time knowing what rules they should be following when posting
- also because of the above, global mods have a hard time moderating if they do not know what rules to follow when moderating
- if global mods should not meddle with subforums' moderation policies, why even have global mods?
Just my two cents. Not that I truly care.
As for users deleting their own posts, my understanding was that users could delete posts or topics of theirs to which no one had replied, although maybe that isn't the case.
I think users can still delete any and all of their own posts (except if the thread is locked). Back in the days, they couldn't delete threads they'd started but apparently this has changed. Not sure why.
-
As for users deleting their own posts, my understanding was that users could delete posts or topics of theirs to which no one had replied, although maybe that isn't the case.
That is the case. I can delete this post (until someone replies), but not my previous post above.
EDIT: Perhaps not; I don't seem to be able to delete this post, even though no one's replied.. :confused:
-
Oh. 5w337. It tends to be ****, when some people decide to delete their older posts for some dimwitted reason.
-
Not to issue this as any sort of an "Official" statement here are my thoughts on the process:
General Blanket Rule: Spam posts, when and where they happen, get deleted. I don't think anybody disagree's with this.
General Public Moderation: (Non-Project-Specific Moderation) Follows the above, and utilizes locks/splits etc as needed. Deletions are considered as a 'last ditch' effort for clean up, usually to follow after either a Monkey or a Ban which can be petitioned for to the Administration. Any deletions take place through a Moderator Quorum.
Global Moderators: Provide support and assistance to the category (non-Project Specific) Moderators, or to respond/co-ordinate with Project Moderators on any issues reported on the board. If in doubt, you can apologize/iron things out later after the issue has been addressed, as per the above guidelines.
Project Specific Moderation: Same as the above, but does have more of an influence that is specific only to the the project being moderated. Project Leadership can either handle the project management or have a dedicated Project Moderator for the forum. Along with the above, -moderate- powers of deletion due to disruptive elements are allowed to maintain a positive community balance, but should ideally be left to a last-resort measure but is left to the discretion of the Moderator/Project Leadership.
Administration: Moderates on all of the above and acts as a go-to for process review of the actions taken by the above categories. Should any other Moderator or general Member place a call to have a Moderators actions reviewed, the Administration team reviews the actions and either Supports it, Reverses it, communicates with the Moderator/Project Moderator, or takes other actions as deemed necessary; Up to and including reviewing that individuals access to Moderation powers.
Edit: To further clarify, I do agree with Fury on the concept that individual Project boards -should- come up with some form of "rule-sets" that they themselves are expected to adhere to. So long as they do not contravene the General Policy rules in any way and maintain upholding those, that is. Everybody should have a clear understanding (or ability to obtain said understanding) in whatever Managed Project board they are in. And in lieu of one being posted, it should be assumed that the General Policy guidelines are the only ones in effect.
-
That doesn't change the fact that policy at HLP has been to not delete posts except for outright spam.
I know I'm late to the party here, but this. This this this this this.
Subforum or no, hosted project or no, admin or no, we don't delete posts at HLP because we don't like them. Hell, AFAIK, we don't delete posts at all. There shouldn't be special rules for anyone.
Incidentally, I find it very odd that I'm 100% in agreement with Fury and Maththegeek both on this. :p
-
There have been a few occasions where I had to delete posts because a few posters couldn't stop making off topic posts after two split locks. And no doubt there will be more occasions in the future where I will be deleting posts. So I don't in particularly care about silly motto's about not deleting posts at all.
- if global mods should not meddle with subforums' moderation policies, why even have global mods?
There are still 40 other subforums for the global mods to moderate. Overal I'd like the global mods to stay out of my little disturbed and twisted corner of HLP.
-
Like you said yourself, it was after several splitlocks and several in-thread warnings about the behavior of the poster. Which is completely different from outright deleting posts out of the blue.
-
Actually I have a serious question here.
WCS is running a separate forum from this site and they tend to refer people with technical or other commentary to that forum, unless apparently they don't like them. They appear to be actively distancing themselves from HLP, to be honest.
Why are they being hosted here?
-
What's the harm?
-
Like you said yourself, it was after several splitlocks and several in-thread warnings about the behavior of the poster. Which is completely different from outright deleting posts out of the blue.
True, just pointing out that "Hell, AFAIK, we don't delete posts at all. There shouldn't be special rules for anyone." is false.
ya know, just sayin'
-
What's the harm?
What's the good? It's kinda like Mobius trying to run off to GW with a project.
-
I disagree with the deletion of any post that isn't clearly spam. Let me give my reasoning.
This is the internet and as such allows us to behave in ways that we wouldn't if we were face to face. What this means to me is that I have time to think before hitting "post". This allows me to pretty much hide my true nature, as I am truly an ***hole.
For other people it gives what i like to call "Broadband Balls." It is very easy to be courageous when the worst that will happen is data flowing across your screen.
For yet others, it brings a false sense of superiority.
Couple any of these with the ability to negate that which we don't like, and you are asking for trouble. It can (read as will) start more crap than it solves, and as has been noted, HLP is a small community. We don't need more crap.
Let's not even bring in the fact that Mod leads do change, and each brings a different tolerance and style...consistency gets thrown out the window.
Now for my basic opinion. Most people at HLP need to just get some thicker skin and grow the f**k up.
-
I might almost be able to agree with the 'never delete posts' principle, but sometimes I read the Wings of Dawn subforum
-
Wings of Dawn subforum whose mod knows how to use the split function and has the brain to do so before randomly deleting. You keeping bringing back WoD but we both know it is a completely different situation from WCS.
-
No one forces any of us to read anything on here. Don't like it don't read it. I stay out of Hard Light ( still can't call it by it's other name) because 90% of what I see in there is not of interest, or is just political/religeous/antipolitical/antireligous crap.
-
No one forces any of us to read anything on here. Don't like it don't read it. I stay out of Hard Light ( still can't call it by it's other name) because 90% of what I see in there is not of interest, or is just political/religeous/antipolitical/antireligous crap.
How exactly is the project leader of Wings of Dawn supposed to avoid reading the Wings of Dawn subforum that he is moderator of
Personally, I am grateful I can read the Wings of Dawn subforum, full of great content about a great project, without having to filter through plans on how to best kidnap and rape its characters
-
Project leaders have to read it. Grateful for WoD is great...although now I am thoroghly confused by your pervious statement.
-
Project leaders have to read it. Grateful for WoD is great...although now I am thoroghly confused by your pervious statement.
Indeed, project leaders do indeed have to read it. Why do you think said project leader should not have the right - after many warnings, splits, and locks - to delete posts concerning plans on how best to abduct and rape his main characters?
-
... without having to filter through plans on how to best kidnap and rape its characters
Wait... There's no way that's no spam. But that's beside the point. How can we condemn illegal download and then condone kidnapping and rape?
And I have to agree with Matt, Fury, Goober, BlackWolf, and ShadowWolf, or I have to disagree with Battuta.
EDIT: Just to clarify, I believe that topics about kidnapping and rape (even on WoD) should not be allowed and are potentially spam.
-
I could go for moderators being able to gag in the forum that they moderate. I personally would never use it, but a three day gag is preferable to deletion. They keep it up, admin SHOULD step in at that point.
Syph this isn't an agree with us or with them...I can see valid points on both sides.
Sorry for the triple post, i meant to hit modify.....can an admin delete the first two? That my friends...is irony. :lol:
-
I don't think anybody loses out if we have globally consistent moderation policies, but amend them such that kidnapping-and-rape schemes are deleted.
-
Indeed, project leaders do indeed have to read it. Why do you think said project leader should not have the right - after many warnings, splits, and locks - to delete posts concerning plans on how best to abduct and rape his main characters?
...oh. I didn't know about that.
I could go for moderators being able to gag in the forum that they moderate. I personally would never use it, but a three day gag is preferable to deletion. They keep it up, admin SHOULD step in at that point.
That's what I was thinking of. Since the issue of split-locking not being enough doesn't seem to come up that often (I don't think), a moderator might not need to have that power themselves but could, say, ask an admin to do it. If the offending poster doesn't take the hint after getting a few days off from posting in the forum in question, you could step up the duration of the gag until it becomes permanent. Then, if anyone ever wonders why that poster is banned from posting in that forum, you can point to the offending posts and say, "That's why."
-
1, 3, 5, perm...i like that
-
/me totally abuses power and deletes two of ShadowWolf's posts
-
/me totally abuses power and deletes two of ShadowWolf's posts
Consider yourself reported to the admins, mister!
-
I still laugh at the irony.
-
I should point out that Tolwyn did delete his own post which was the one Matth was answering because he obviously thought it was more inflammatory than it needed to be.
Of course HLP will never accept that someone wants to avoid having a confrontation. We've got to have multi-page drama over everything.
-
Oh, yeah, I forgot about that aspect. Well, we've still covered some useful ground in this thread, such as
- whether deleting posts is ever appropriate
- whether moderators should be able to set their own rules for their subforum
- how a moderator might handle cases of people repeatedly making highly inappropriate/offensive off-topic posts in their subforum
And now we can add another: how a moderator might handle the case of words that they realize they shouldn't have posted but that someone has already replied to. One option is to just delete the offending post and all replies to it, as we've seen. Other options include, for example, adding a closing post of your own (e.g., "Never mind. Let's not take things this direction.") and then split-locking the offending post, all replies to it, and the one you just added.
-
I tend to disagree with locking a thread I've been involved in with after posting anything to do with the thread. It's too much like trying to have the last word for my liking. But yeah, saying something like that is sometimes the best option.
-
In the solution I proposed, the moderator is ensuring that they have the last word, but it's to make the best possible ending of a line of conversation that can't possibly end well.
-
word
-
lol
-
no u