Suggestion: Quit Locking Threads

[321]

How you can even begin to compare this place to the other forum is beyond me. It is not even remotely closed to being doomed to the same fate. So the thread got locked, big whoop. It was unlocked. Move on. It's pointless to continue bickering about it.

Um, it was locked again. Hence, that's why there are more posts about it...

[Gydian]

Erm. I meant that to say "It was locked." Sorry.

[CK]

That thread started with a site being called out. Pokerstars has now cleared the issues with that site. That is why that thread is closed.

If you would like to start one 321 on the enforcement of T&C's by all means go ahead and I will even move over any related posts from that thread that ended up discussing that except for those which question that specific affiliate site.

The posts from the 60 day thing with tilt didnt call out an affiliate and ask the room to seek action. There is a big difference, however when PAS was called out, after the situation was resolved the thread was locked because there wasnt a situation to go after anymore. That is the difference.

Deleting the thread would have been the worst possible choice to make. 321 instead of arguing about why the thread is locked why dont you work on using that energy in a positive manner by discussing how all rooms, (not just pokerstars because its not limited to just them) should handle their T&C's or affiliates in general.

[321]

That thread started with a site being called out. Pokerstars has now cleared the issues with that site. That is why that thread is closed.

The thread started with Randy asking a question, and then others posted. Locking it makes no sense whatsoever, and you locking it is terrible moderation. Moderators are supposed to calm, not toss gas on a fire and lock threads.

The posts from the 60 day thing with tilt didnt call out an affiliate and ask the room to seek action. There is a big difference,

No there is not, and asserting there is some mysterious difference again doesn't make any sense at all. These are broad poker affiliate issues. Sometimes they involve specifics, and sometimes they do not. Why do you bring up this calling out an affiliate idea anyway? Where are the terms and conditions to this forum that say people can't post about certain topics?

Your position is simply bizarre. if this forum has terms of use that saying "callng out" someone is inappropriate, then delete the post or thread, period. Either it is okay and discussion should ensue, or it is not okay and it should be deleted. Locking such a thread is nonsensical.

however when PAS was called out, after the situation was resolved the thread was locked because there wasnt a situation to go after anymore. That is the difference.

"Go after"? What does _that_ mean? Honestly, it really does seem that since you are not a poker affiliate that makes your judgment suspect. This forum should be for discussing poker affiliate issues. Closing threads when one issue is "resolved" is rude and makes no sense because this forum is not merely for individual self-help threads. if it is, then _say so_. Say it is not a forum about braod poker affiliate issues. The issue of the use of the Pokerstars trademark is a significant, interesting and controversial topic that has a lot of ramifications for poker affiliates. The fact that one tiny aspect was "resolved" is of virtually no consequence in terms of the larger issue.

Deleting the thread would have been the worst possible choice to make. 321 instead of arguing about why the thread is locked why dont you work on using that energy in a positive manner by discussing how all rooms, (not just pokerstars because its not limited to just them) should handle their T&C's or affiliates in general.

Why, so you could lock that thread too? We were discussing T&C issues until you locked a thread.

[Gydian]

Why, so you could lock that thread too?

That's just out of line. Evidently you lack respect for staff within this community. If there was a problem with the way Kaus handled the situation, Jeremy would not have sat by idly, and he would have reopened the thread instead of posting what he did in it.

The fact you seem to think it's appropriate to continue tossing jabs of that nature at Kaus, and to try and claim that she's a "horrible moderator" for locking that thread is absolutely ridiculous.

[321]

That's just out of line. Evidently you lack respect for staff within this community. If there was a problem with the way Kaus handled the situation, Jeremy would not have sat by idly, and he would have reopened the thread instead of posting what he did in it.

The fact you seem to think it's appropriate to continue tossing jabs of that nature at Kaus, and to try and claim that she's a "horrible moderator" for locking that thread is absolutely ridiculous.

Why? What is that supposed to mean anyway? That I can't have the opinion that kaus is not a good moderator? Seriously, chill out. People get to disagree about how things are done.

My opinion is she is not a good moderator. She inserts her moderation into issues where she is too emotionally involved. This is a feedback forum. Part of the reason she is not a good moderator is because Jeremy has not made a clear terms of use for this forum. For example, is "calling out" some specific affiliate action not allowed? Yes or no. It doesn't matter so much which choice it is, but it creates problems when a moderator locks threads because one small aspect of it 'calls out" an affiliate action when other posters don't know of any prohibition this forum has in that way, and that aspect of the thread is a tangent in any case.

[CK]

omg you have to be kidding me. I did not lock it because it called out an affiliate . It was locked because the affiliate called out had been dealt with. Those are two totally different things. Instead of being so negative and argumentative why not do something positive. No matter what, any choice I make would not be approved by you and I am fine with that. I never asked for your approval in the first place. I am not going to sit here and debate you all night. If you want to do something positive great, if not than thats your choice to but dont say that you weren't given the opportunity.

This comment was based on your original post 321 as I see it has now been edited again.

[321]

I am being positive. You took a negative action for reasons that now even make less sense. Are you seriously saying you locked a broad thread about Pokerstars because ONE website was dealt with????

There are potentially dozens more websites they have not addressed. Again, this reflects on both why threads should not be locked, and the lack of clarity on moderation here.

Some of us would like to have threads on poker affiliate issues that positively influence this industry. We aren't gong to agree on what should be done about those issues, but inappropriately stiffling discussion of issues prevents anything positive from happening and renders this forum not nearly as valuable as it should be.

Regarding the age old idea that moderators involved in threads don't use their moderator powers in that thread, that is SOP in forums around the Internet, but Jeremy can do whatever he wants. It would be nice though if this was spelled out clearly, because it is not nice to have wasted other people's time by locking threads for no logical reason.