Change in policy?

I recall reading a post made by St. Chris regarding locking threads. http://www.eccie.net/showthread.php?p=257715#post257715

St. Chris stated:

You won't find a policy about locking threads because our intent is for threads to stay open. With that said, we reserve the right to lock a thread that we deem has a) run it's course b) become derailed beyond repair, or c) become a haven for "piling on" or other various infractions.

In short, if one of staff sees no value in leaving a thread open for any of the reasons mentioned, they may close it, however, you are right in that if a thread has been locked by a staff member, there should ALWAYS be an explanation given to the members concerning why the thread was locked....and you are always welcome to appeal any staff decision at any time, so long as it's handled in the appropriate manner.

I don't really buy your theory of ECCIE policy being "hey, it's a thread, I'm a mod, I'll lock it if I wanna, no explanation required" In fact, I find it rather comical and amusing. To illustrate that, point out any thread you find that has been locked with no explanation given and I'll gladly reopen it immediately. I'll assume that it had been locked by accident and if it's something that needs to be relocked, it will be-this time with the proper explanation.

Now I notice lately that threads are being closed with no explanation and there appears to be a lack of transparency. Has something changed since St. Chris made that statement?

I could point out 3 threads that have been closed over the weekend with no explanation at all. Will they be reopened? A post was also edited without explanation. I guess the provider lawyered up.

Here is a linck that roughly explains "fair use" in the US, there are exceptions to everything but generally copying material on the Internet is allowed if the original content is linked to and if the material is expanded or modified in some way with out that use being for profit. We are not a copyright attorney but did used to play one on TV.

http://www.umuc.edu/library/copy.shtml#whatis

Just an FYI

It would be nice if there was some kind of explanation as to why some threads were closed or member's posts were edited by mods. There has been a rash of threads closed lately with no explanation and no indication of who closed them.

I would settle for a vote of no confidence when a white knight mod goes out of control. How can anyone, male or female, respect that kind of behaviour.

I would settle for a vote of no confidence when a white knight mod goes out of control. How can anyone, male or female, respect that kind of behaviour. Originally Posted by texasjohn1965

Don't you know, a vote of no cofidence is what put a Sith Lord in control of the Imperial Senate. That didn't work out so well for the Jedi.

I recall reading a post made by St. Chris regarding locking threads. http://www.eccie.net/showthread.php?p=257715#post257715

St. Chris stated:

You won't find a policy about locking threads because our intent is for threads to stay open. With that said, we reserve the right to lock a thread that we deem has a) run it's course b) become derailed beyond repair, or c) become a haven for "piling on" or other various infractions.

In short, if one of staff sees no value in leaving a thread open for any of the reasons mentioned, they may close it, however, you are right in that if a thread has been locked by a staff member, there should ALWAYS be an explanation given to the members concerning why the thread was locked....and you are always welcome to appeal any staff decision at any time, so long as it's handled in the appropriate manner.

I don't really buy your theory of ECCIE policy being "hey, it's a thread, I'm a mod, I'll lock it if I wanna, no explanation required" In fact, I find it rather comical and amusing. To illustrate that, point out any thread you find that has been locked with no explanation given and I'll gladly reopen it immediately. I'll assume that it had been locked by accident and if it's something that needs to be relocked, it will be-this time with the proper explanation.

Now I notice lately that threads are being closed with no explanation and there appears to be a lack of transparency. Has something changed since St. Chris made that statement?

I could point out 3 threads that have been closed over the weekend with no explanation at all. Will they be reopened? Originally Posted by Merlin

Thank you for that post Merlin, I hadn't seen it.

I have edited the thread I closed and no, it will not be reopened unless owners/admin deem it necessary.

Thank you for that post Merlin, I hadn't seen it.

I have edited the thread I closed and no, it will not be reopened unless owners/admin deem it necessary. Originally Posted by DickEmDown

Okay. That is one thread. What about the other two? One was started by Valerie in the co-ed and the other was started by Wayward in the Sandbox (Love notes). Wayward's initial post was edited in the love notes thread as well. Why and who did that?

Okay. That is one thread. What about the other two? One was started by Valerie in the co-ed and the other was started by Wayward in the Sandbox (Love notes). Wayward's initial post was edited in the love notes thread as well. Why and who did that? Originally Posted by Merlin

Wow, I just checked...and I actaully closed the "Ok, I'm thinking of Houston" thread.
Damn, I must have been on a mission that day

I think we can agree, maybe not, but that thread had a) run it's course b) become derailed beyond repair, AND c) become a haven for "piling on" or other various infractions.

I will edit that one as St.C has suggested that there should ALWAYS be an explanation given to the members concerning why the thread was locked

Once again, thank you for the post and as for the "Love Notes" thread, I will not comment on it because I did not lock it.

DED

Can I comment on it?

As for Love Notes the OP received an explanation why the thread was closed, and like St. C stated he is more than welcome to appeal the decision. Thank you Mr. Merlin.

Can I comment on it? Originally Posted by Wayward

http://www.eccie.net/showpost.php?p=...1&postcount=35



Edited: Damn mojo, slow down...

As for Love Notes the OP received an explanation why the thread was closed, and like St. C stated he is more than welcome to appeal the decision. Thank you Mr. Merlin. Originally Posted by mojojo213

Anytime. Did you also edit his post? The provider has a link to her blog in her sig line so now she gets to complain that someone posted it over the internet and in particular this site. If she didn't want her blog to be read by eccie members, then why is the link in her sig line. Come on man!!! (in my ESPN voice)

No one would have probably noticed it if she didn't have the link in her profile.

As for Love Notes the OP received an explanation why the thread was closed, and like St. C stated he is more than welcome to appeal the decision. Thank you Mr. Merlin. Originally Posted by mojojo213

No I had to ask for one.

Okay we would like to appeal it or at least have some finger prints in the Original Post and an explanation of the edit... if we had edited a post to that extent we would have left our name and the why of it. It was never my intent for that thread to go as badly for Valerie as it did, was once again hoping for a little humor and maybe, just maybe the glimmer of a thought that she might have been a little out of line.

You seem to have showed her that she can do pretty much whatever she wants and the mods have her back.. that is not fair to all the other wonderful providers that follow the rules here.

We ask nothing more than that.

Here is the deal, unban deerhunter and we'll call the whole thing square. It has the added appeal of being the right thing to do...

Here is the deal, unban deerhunter and we'll call the whole thing square. It has the added appeal of being the right thing to do... Originally Posted by Wayward

Hmmm. Unban the banned. Sounds familiar, like deja vu.

Not that it matters but that sounds like a good idea. Ole deerhunter is due one anyway from Spellgate. But he is still a dim witted fucktard. But don't tell him I said that.