Should Moderators Be Allowed to Post in Closed Topics?

Vin Ghostal · Post by **Vin Ghostal** » Thu Aug 04, 2005 2:48 pm

This is an issue that's come up many times in the course of my five (five?!? I'm getting old) years at the Archive. It's an issue that returned to my radar in the form of Redstreak's weird, pointless whine-fest which was quickly (and rightfully) closed by our faithful moderators, and has since been (according to current board settings) eligible for posts only from moderators and administrators.

Question: Do you think moderators and administrators should be allowed to post in threads after they have been closed? The spirit of the current system is sound: a moderator that chooses to close an inappropriate thread has the opportunity to post his reasoning for closing it at his leisure, rather than hastily typing out an explanation as the thread spirals out of control. However, as threads are extended to 2, 3, 4, or more posts from various moderators after they have been closed, complaints from ordinary posters (though there's nothing ordinary about this guy) have crept up in the past. What do you think?

Disclaimer: I have no personal opinion on this matter. Moderators and administrators should consider this a public referendum rather than any cricitism or attack upon the system, staff, or individual administrators or moderators. Except for 91, who can suck a snow leapord's ass (Credit: Wesley Willis, R.I.P.).

RID Scourge · Post by **RID Scourge** » Thu Aug 04, 2005 3:15 pm

I think that the one who closed it should be allowed to post a reason for doing so (if not self-explainatory), but if every mod/admin is just posting their two cents, then perhaps the thread should remain open, so that everyone can do so.

Or if they want to continue posting in a closed thread, perhaps they could move it to the mods/admins only area, so that they're not bumping a thread no one else can post in.

In the case of Red's thread, it seems like everyone just wanted to get in their last stab at him (deserved or undeserved, that's basically what it came down to, and it was a bit gratuitous). All that really had to be done in that case was have the mod, who closed it say something along the lines of "This individual has stepped on a few toes, himself. This is about the third time he's left. In order to prevent those, whom have been rubbed the wrong way from flaming said individual, this thread is closed."

Halfshell · Post by **Halfshell** » Thu Aug 04, 2005 3:17 pm

Originally posted by Vin Ghostal
leapord

I vote for "Ghostal shouldn't be allowed to use words that he can't spell"

I'm abstaining from comment on the main issue, being as I have a bias that should be readily apparant to anybody who's been here more than about a year. And probably many people who've been here since then.

[EDIT]

As far as the Redstreak thing goes, I have two things to say on it:

1) An open topic with absolutely no replies says far more than any cheap shot could

2) Does anybody actually believe for a moment that he's not reading this post? Hi, J!

Vin Ghostal · Post by **Vin Ghostal** » Thu Aug 04, 2005 3:53 pm

Originally posted by The HeartBrend Kid
I vote for "Ghostal shouldn't be allowed to use words that he can't spell"

Originally posted by The HeartBrend Kid
apparant

HBK either has a learning disability or is just plain stupid. There are only two choices in this particular poll.

Halfshell · Post by **Halfshell** » Thu Aug 04, 2005 3:54 pm

"It's like goldy, or bronzey, except it's made of iron..."

Post by **Hound** » Thu Aug 04, 2005 4:20 pm

Well, I don't know if the issue is clear-cut enough to say one way or another whether it is or is not ok for staff to post in a locked thread.

I think in regards to Red's "farewell" I, moreso than most everyone else, had every right to respond. Though I missed the threads closing by minutes if not seconds. I didn't come along days later and bump the thread.

In other threads it's sometimes one of us taking the oppurtunity to clarify the reason the thread was closed or reinforce a warning that was given. A little back-up for the threads closer.

It could possibly be any number of things that are reasonably warranted.

Then again I have no problem with anyone saying, "Y'know that's out of hand now..." to let us know when to stop. I just don't think we can say it's something never to be done.

It's all about the circumstances...

This post made with no spelling mistakes because I'm better than both Ghostal and Brend...

Vin Ghostal · Post by **Vin Ghostal** » Thu Aug 04, 2005 5:02 pm

Originally posted by Hound
This post made with no spelling mistakes because I'm better than both Ghostal and Brend

Originally posted by Hound
oppurtunity

Quiet, bitch, get back down on your knees. -The Roots

Jetfire · Post by **Jetfire** » Thu Aug 04, 2005 5:17 pm

I have no issue with mods posting in after a topic is closed if theirs a reason for it, it explain the situation or such.

But posting serveral times for no other reason to only get the last word in seems impolite, especially to the other members of the board who are automatically excluded from it.

From my time as a mod I assumed it was frounded upon when it occured back in '01/'02 and I recall everyone at the time agreeing to stop it.

Sixswitch · Post by **Sixswitch** » Thu Aug 04, 2005 5:22 pm

No, Moderators should most certainly not be allowed to post in a topic that has been closed unless it's for administration reasons. They should not (as in the Redstreak thread) post to get the last flame/word in on a subject.

I have mentioned this before, and maintain that it sets an annoying double standard that certainly gets on my nerves.

If a topic is locked, it is locked. If people are posting in it, then it should remain open. It's that simple.

This is possibly the only thing that annoys me about the Mods here at the Archive.

-Ss

PS: No spelling errors! Boo and Yah (respectively)!

RID Scourge · Post by **RID Scourge** » Thu Aug 04, 2005 6:00 pm

I definitely think there should be some groundrules to what a mod/admin can post after a thread is locked. For example:

1. The initial explaination for it being locked, if not obvious to everyone reading it.
2. Someone requests information, but due to inflamatory posts, the thread gets locked before an answer is given. If a mod knows the answer, he may post it.
3. In the case that a thread is closed by one mod and another mod subsequently bans one or more of the responsible parties because he has warned them of such behavior in the past. If it is not obvious to everyone why this person was banned, then an explaination may be made.

Activity that would be frowned on would be:

1. Using it to get the last word or flame an individual.
2. Posting something that only serves to bump a topic that no one else can post in.

I'm sure something a bit more substantial could be drafted up.

Reflector · Post by **Reflector** » Thu Aug 04, 2005 6:08 pm

Originally posted by Jetfire 2.1
But posting serveral times for no other reason to only get the last word in seems impolite, especially to the other members of the board who are automatically excluded from it.

Well said, and surprisingly well spelled also.

I've long advocated discarding that power of a public mods-only chat club. It's a useful feature for reasons Ghostal noted, but I think that any purposeful use can be done within an hour or so of a topic's closing. When threads are still being kicked about days posthumously, it's usually not being done for administrative reasons...

EDIT: Damn, I didn't see option four. No fair.

Jetfire · Post by **Jetfire** » Thu Aug 04, 2005 6:51 pm

Originally posted by Reflector

EDIT: Damn, I didn't see option four. No fair.

I didn't either

Seriously, quite clearly the posting where others can't only creates bad feeling towards the mod team.

Galvatron91 · Post by **Galvatron91** » Thu Aug 04, 2005 8:07 pm

Where's the option saying that Vin Ghostal should not be allowed to post, EVER!

Sir Auros · Post by **Sir Auros** » Thu Aug 04, 2005 8:10 pm

I admit that it bugged me at times when Denyer would do that countering one of my posts in a locked thread, but I see nothing wrong with it as long as we're not carrying on a conversation amongst ourselves in the thread.

I also think that it's ok for us to get the last word in over the person that caused us to close the thread. You act like a jackass and force us to close something, we get to have the last word.

In the specific case of Jason's (he hates it when you use his real name, shortly before realizing I wasn't siding with him in his insanity, he told me he was going to post some rules about when people could and couldn't use his real name) latest farewell thread, I posted in it days after the fact because I was gone when all the fun happened and really wanted to get one last shot in for him to read in invisible mode or for him to hear from his supporters. Denyer did likewise once he had a connection and time to peruse the boards.

Bottom line is I think people are making a mountain out of a molehill when the only times I've seen our staff post in a closed thread is to add their thoughts on why it was closed or the tool wrecking the thread deserved it.

Also, I voted for both that we should be able to do it and that Erik is monkey spooge. What? That wasn't an option you say?

Sixswitch · Post by **Sixswitch** » Thu Aug 04, 2005 8:46 pm

I'm sure many people wanted one last shot at him, not just the Mods. So it should have remained open.

I'm not gonna argue though, since I've cast my vote and said my piece, and really have nothing more to add.

-Ss

Sir Auros · Post by **Sir Auros** » Thu Aug 04, 2005 9:04 pm

Originally posted by Sixswitch
I'm sure many people wanted one last shot at him, not just the Mods. So it should have remained open.

I don't doubt that, but as I said in the thread Myles started, I had no say in leaving the thread open or closed. I also think it might have been better left open if only for the spectacle of a public flogging, but I'm not going to undermine whichever staff member closed it by opening it and there hasn't been a discussion in the staff forum about reopening it.

Post by **Hound** » Fri Aug 05, 2005 4:32 am

What staff forum!!!???

There's a staff forum?

You guys are holding out on me!

It's because I can't spell "Opportunity" isn't it?

Figures...

Like I said before, I had every right to respond to Jason. I don't see how anyone can sanely say that isn't true.

I'm actually not really that keen on the idea of reopening the thread so that the entirety of the membership can get a shot in at Jason and anyone who might support him can then respond in kind and it become a problem that we then have to close.

It's enough that Luke and I said our piece and it's done, not everyone needs to get a shot in. What would be the point? A bunch of people saying "me too" is what it would be. That's really the root of the problem with Jason to begin with, him having to get the last shot. Well now no one needs to get any shot in, because he's gone. Let's let it go.

RID Scourge · Post by **RID Scourge** » Fri Aug 05, 2005 5:26 am

There used to be one. I figured you guys made it like an enchanted isle, so that only staff could see it . . .

Whether or not you had every right to do so, does that mean you have more right than someone, like Bombshell, who has also had bad blood with Red (or am I imagining that? I don't remember quite that much because I never put much stock in paying attention to Red)? I personally didn't have any scrapes with him, but I realize that there were enough people here, who did. Certainly, Skywarp and Scout said nothing in the thread.

Originally posted by Hound
Well now no one needs to get any shot in, because he's gone. Let's let it go.

If that's the case, why did the mods feel the need to get the last shot in?

I'm not saying we should make it open Redstreak season at the archive, but if a thread like this is closed so that people don't take one last shot at him, it seems quite hypocritical for the mods to take that one last shot.

In fact, in a case, where the mods don't want it to evolve into a flamefest, it's almost best if the bugger was deleted, so that other mods/admins aren't tempted to post their two cents, while others feel as if they're not getting to say their piece . . .

Zisteau · Post by **Zisteau** » Fri Aug 05, 2005 6:23 am

#3. The explanation for why a thread is closed is expected and wanted. The other parting shots get annoying, frankly, and it happens in a large portion of closed threads. (Maybe its just my God-Complex not getting to do the same thing....

)

Post by **Sades** » Fri Aug 05, 2005 6:49 am

Case by case basis and within reason. In this case, I think staff posting in a locked topic is forgivable given the fact that Jason basically posted as many inflammatory things as he could and talked about people in a "you know who you are" fashion and a number of happened to be staff. I also think that if a person is going to post **** like that then they'd better damn well be able to accept the consequences of their actions... On the other side of that though, I'm a moderator. IMO it's my responsibility to make mod decisions based on what I think would be best for this forum/the people in it and in this case I didn't see the topic going anywhere good so I locked it.

Other topics... I rarely ever see the need for comment in an already locked topic so I don't really bother. Unless I'm the person who locked it, of course. *shrug*

Originally posted by Hound
It's because I can't spell "Opportunity" isn't it?

That, and the adult diapers...

TFARCHIVE FORUMS

Should Moderators Be Allowed to Post in Closed Topics?

Should moderators be allowed to post in closed threads?

Should Moderators Be Allowed to Post in Closed Topics?

Re: Should Moderators Be Allowed to Post in Closed Topics?

Re: Re: Should Moderators Be Allowed to Post in Closed Topics?