Naughty Mods don't own their decisions.

by **BoganGod** on Thu Oct 10, 2013 8:12 am

Before I took an extended break. Mods used to sign off on locking threads. Sometimes with an explanation. The standard was that a mod on locking a thread would post that they locked it.
Why have mods stopped doing that? Are they no longer accountable for their actions, or are scared that they may be asked to explain some of their more dubious locks. See some threads locked, purely it seems to stop questions that maybe are a little inconvenient. I know that consistency is hard to achieve with a largely volunteer workforce. Who might I add are doing a great job. Not an attack on anyone, just throwing the question out there. I thought there was strong community support for more transperancy and accountability. A few folks like chemefreak, nicky15, jdsiz, masli, and the list could go on a bit. Take the time to explain things if queried. How can you query someone on their actions, if you don't know who acted.

Why don't mods own their actions any more? Why don't mods sign who locks a thread?

by **Dukasaur** on Thu Oct 10, 2013 10:52 am

Normally, they do give a reason. Sometimes they forget. There's been no change in policy, but as you've acknowledged, consistency is hard to a achieve with a volunteer workforce.

Also, there is now a option for mods to send a PM to the poster when they lock his thread. This was only added in the last year sometime; it wasn't part of the BB software before. Some might be using that option and thinking (erroneously) that it's a substitute for a publicly-posted reason.

by **TeeGee** on Thu Oct 10, 2013 6:26 pm

Give me links and I will chase down those mods and whip them for you BG

by **BoganGod** on Fri Oct 11, 2013 12:21 am

TeeGee wrote:Give me links and I will chase down those mods and whip them for you BG

I would but if the anonymous mods are who I suspect they are, they would love the whipping. Have checked and by some miracle 2 of the locks that prompted this question, now have explanations. Detailed, sensible, even well thought out explanations. :roll:

by **HardAttack** on Fri Oct 11, 2013 1:03 am

BoganGod wrote:
TeeGee wrote:Give me links and I will chase down those mods and whip them for you BG

I would but if the anonymous mods are who I suspect they are, they would love the whipping. Have checked and by some miracle 2 of the locks that prompted this question, now have explanations. Detailed, sensible, even well thought out explanations.

Whipping ? !!!
Make sure to call me that i will love to watch :lol:

by **Jippd** on Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:55 pm

I support transparency and mods signing off on locked threads

by **Bruceswar** on Sun Oct 13, 2013 3:38 am

Jippd wrote:I support transparency and mods signing off on locked threads

it is rare a mod locks a thread and when they do it is most always clear why it was locked.

by **Shannon Apple** on Sun Oct 13, 2013 5:53 am

Most locks are pretty obvious anyway. I haven't seen any that were just locked without an explanation and where I did, the thread was out of control anyway. lol.

by **BoganGod** on Sun Oct 13, 2013 8:14 am

Bruceswar wrote:
Jippd wrote:I support transparency and mods signing off on locked threads

it is rare a mod locks a thread and when they do it is most always clear why it was locked.

Actually not that rare..... I asked this question because there were 6locked threads with no explanations/ownership of lock. This is not counting all the active clan war locked threads which we know why. Out of those 6, 3are still void of explanations.

I don't want to go into specifics as don't want to be seen to be picking on specific volunteers.

Shannon Apple wrote:Most locks are pretty obvious anyway. I haven't seen any that were just locked without an explanation and where I did, the thread was out of control anyway. lol.

Don't think your quite as well read as I am. More to the point, your probably not wasting near as much time as I am on this site atm.

by **nagerous** on Sun Oct 13, 2013 2:47 pm

LINKZ PLZ

by **BoganGod** on Tue Oct 15, 2013 8:40 pm

nagerous wrote:LINKZ PLZ

As previously stated. Will not add links. Don't want this to be seen as an attack on a few precious irresponsible/forgetful mods. Threads that prompted me to start this thread were not in Clan section.

by **nagerous** on Thu Oct 17, 2013 7:16 pm

BoganGod wrote:
nagerous wrote:LINKZ PLZ

As previously stated. Will not add links. Don't want this to be seen as an attack on a few precious irresponsible/forgetful mods. Threads that prompted me to start this thread were not in Clan section.

Without links this thread is dumb and a waste of time and energy. What's the point of attacking the mods if you don't have/refuse to give evidence to back up your attack. It's not like you have ever been afraid of targetting certain mods before?

by **BoganGod** on Fri Oct 18, 2013 12:50 am

nagerous wrote:
BoganGod wrote:
nagerous wrote:LINKZ PLZ

As previously stated. Will not add links. Don't want this to be seen as an attack on a few precious irresponsible/forgetful mods. Threads that prompted me to start this thread were not in Clan section.

Without links this thread is dumb and a waste of time and energy. What's the point of attacking the mods if you don't have/refuse to give evidence to back up your attack. It's not like you have ever been afraid of targetting certain mods before?

Was seeing whether it was an "official" policy to avoid taking responsibility. Seems that is not the case. Not afraid of targeting anyone. Trying a consultative approach. Plus if the forgetful/careless culprits ate who I suspect, know they have a lot more on their plates atm! Have noticed an increase in people putting their hands up on locks. Could be coincidental.

by **blakebowling** on Fri Oct 18, 2013 1:21 am

I've made a post to all moderators reminding them to note why they lock threads. If any of you see threads locked in the future that aren't noted why, please send a PM to the leader of the department the thread is in.