Please remove the option to close own threads.

Most forums I've been to don't let you lock / unlock / override mod locks / delete posts that have been responded to.

No forum limits a poster's ability to delete their own posts. The only kind of restrictions I've ever seen on a forum were:

Cannot post more than 2 messages per 2 minutes (prevents spam, includes topics).
Cannot edit/delete own post until a certain user level has been reached.
Cannot make more than X topics/posts per day below a certain user level.

Personally, I really liked GameFAQS's message board system. It's been heavily adjusted lately - edit feature was recently added in the last year or so. The features it provided were not what made it so good, though. The thing about GameFAQS is that you had to earn the ability to post regularly. You had to earn the ability to make more than 3 topics a day. You had to earn the ability to lock your own topics.

I think SE should follow their example and set up a similar system for their own official forums. Keep everything as is, but only give it to users who have earned it through posting enough. Users who have proven that they're 2 cents is worth taking more than 3 times a day. Personally, if they took it a step further and required that you had a job level over 30 as a restriction before having some privilege, I'd be all for it. Already getting nauseated at the numerous people hiding behind mules.

Doing this fixes a lot of issues the majority here seem to have with these forums. Joe-blow can't make an account and slap a mule on it then go spam the forums, locking every topic he creates.

Thanks for bringing up your concerns about this. We are currently looking into addressing this.

I hope your adjustments come swiftly, then.

Quote:

---

The thing about GameFAQS is that you had to earn the ability to post regularly. You had to earn the ability to make more than 3 topics a day. You had to earn the ability to lock your own topics.

---

The thing is, the GameFAQs boards are massive- it's one of the biggest forums out there. They need to be strict because with more total users comes more bad users. These forums are not that big.

I'm OK with a thread lock feature, but I think the use of it should be restricted in frequency, and users should not be able to unlock threads after locking them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Camate

Thanks for bringing up your concerns about this. We are currently looking into addressing this.

---

We all better lock as many threads as we can before they fix it!

ok for example i have made threads in the past just making casual conversations or asking a simple question and trolls start all over it for no reason derailing thread and destroying the whole point trying to be made or question trying to be asked. So I personally have deleted threads i have posted but for valid reasons to reason to have troll bashing in any forums / threads I know it will forever exist but to decide whether to delte your post is no different then to edit your own post and making it blank etc to me but u still see all the troll brigade walking on.... worrying about people deleting the post they made is one of the last things people should have to worry about lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShadowHeart

ok for example i have made threads in the past just making casual conversations or asking a simple question and trolls start all over it for no reason derailing thread and destroying the whole point trying to be made or question trying to be asked. So I personally have deleted threads i have posted but for valid reasons to reason to have troll bashing in any forums / threads I know it will forever exist but to decide whether to delte your post is no different then to edit your own post and making it blank etc to me but u still see all the troll brigade walking on.... worrying about people deleting the post they made is one of the last things people should have to worry about lol

---

This has been brought up. No I don't believe you should do it, a GM Should. You should report the trolling posts and a GM/Moderator will come and lock the thread and take action against those who made the bad posts. Really from your point of view wouldn't this be better? not only do you get the thread locked, the alleged "Trollers' Get their posts deleted too.

After being on these forums for less than a week I already knew half of the posters here had no idea what the hell a troll was or how to take constructive criticism, They should not have the power to determine when a thread gets locked because most of them can barely have the power to understand how, Just because someone disagrees with you, doesn't make them a troll.

Also, I admit there are some positives to locking your own thread. I.E you ask a question, it gets answered, Problem solved/close. However its the Bads that outweigh the goods because not every OP can use his brain. 9/10 a thread thats locked by the OP goes like this:

OP:"I think XXX would be cool, we should add it"
Others: "I don't like this idea, for xxx reasons"
Others2: "I agree with others, it just seems bad"
OP:"You're all trolls and idiots Im closing this thread"

the problem is simply that while there are 1-2 positives for this power, its overshadowed by the fact people get "power hungry" when they get a taste of power, It goes to their head, and it easily becomes abused.

You are aware that the only one that looks like a troll, is the person who deletes his post, right? So if you have any delusions about deleting your own post to counter trolls, it is about time to wake up.

So what you are saying is if you start a thread that is potentially badly worded and other people twist the meaning of your words to suggest it means something other than the intended point of view, we shouldnt have the right to remove that. What is the difference between editing or deleting posts or threads if someone is going to manipulate the words to mean what they think you were saying to the point that everyone else believes that was your intention in the first place. I am for moderators to be sent messages to remove these points, I just think its an awful lot of work if some people continually change the meaning of other peoples points of view to make them look like they are saying something else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by katz

So what you are saying is if you start a thread that is potentially badly worded and other people twist the meaning of your words to suggest it means something other than the intended point of view, we shouldnt have the right to remove that. What is the difference between editing or deleting posts or threads if someone is going to manipulate the words to mean what they think you were saying to the point that everyone else believes that was your intention in the first place. I am for moderators to be sent messages to remove these points, I just think its an awful lot of work if some people continually change the meaning of other peoples points of view to make them look like they are saying something else.

---

In a situation like that the OP just needs to learn to articulate their argument better. A clearly worded, concise argument is very difficult, if not impossible for someone else to misconstrue.

Specifically on topic, in general it all comes down to who actually has ownership of a thread (this is in a general sense because we all know that SE "owns" all the threads on this forum). Does a thread belong solely to the person who started it, or does it belong to the community of people that are taking part in the discussion? I believe that it belongs to the group because often a thread can move on to cover subjects not strictly related to the original post, and still be extremely valuable and useful to the community as a whole. As a result giving the power to lock threads to a biased individual, and the OP is always a biased individual, is inherently a bad idea.

There is a reason why there is a neutral group of moderators appointed to, well, moderate the forums. Ideally they are able to look at every thread and post from an unbiased perspective and make judgements on what needs to be moderated or left alone. I've never seen a successful form that gives this kind of authority to all the posters. I'm not saying that kind of forum can't exist, but it requires that the overwhelming majority of the posters actually behave like adults, and unfortunately that just won't happen here.

So if English isnt your 1st language, we shouldnt post, very diplomatically put of saying dont post if your not english. Hell why not just say if you dont have your english qualifications you shouldnt post. Lets discriminate against that category of people too.
See how easy words can be twisted to mean something else.

Free speech and respect of others should apply.

If we do decide on not allowing others to delete or close threads,Id also like the ability of quoting other people to be changed so that the whole message is copied and not changed ie the whole quote is put in and not manipulated by others. If this is too much traffic on the board then just the ability to refer people back to the original post number and no quotes allowed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by katz

If we do decide on not allowing others to delete or close threads,Id also like the ability of quoting other people to be changed so that the whole message is copied and not changed ie the whole quote is put in and not manipulated by others. If this is too much traffic on the board then just the ability to refer people back to the original post number and no quotes allowed.

---

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FS_NGF8WRG4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by katz

So if English isnt your 1st language, we shouldnt post, very diplomatically put of saying dont post if your not english. Hell why not just say if you dont have your english qualifications you shouldnt post. Lets discriminate against that category of people too.
See how easy words can be twisted to mean something else.

---

Nobody said that you can't post if English isn't your first language, but it will be harder to be understood if English is not your first language and you post in an English forum. Think about it. Would you post in English on a Japanese language only forum? Think you would be understood by everyone there?

Quote:

---

Free speech and respect of others should apply.

---

There is no such thing as free speech online. There are also no such thing as respect online.

And I'm 100% serious about this.

I have respectfully asked you not to make comments about my comments. You have forced me to take further action.

"This message is hidden because Korpg is on your ignore list. "

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by katz

I have respectfully asked you not to make comments about my comments. You have forced me to take further action.

"This message is hidden because Korpg is on your ignore list. "

---

Oh snap, I can't miss this opportunity. Hey, I'm quoting you and typing, Please block me too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Karbuncle

Oh snap, I can't miss this opportunity. Hey, I'm quoting you and typing, Please block me too.

---

Why should I block you, you have valid discussion points, havent tried to manipulate what I quote, havent broken any forum rules (to my knowledge).

Now the topic must be closed because nothing but immaturity can come of it.

Really, when will it end?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raxiaz

Now the topic must be closed because nothing but immaturity can come of it.

Really, when will it end?

---

You see Billy, when it comes to the internet. it will never end. If you will turn your attention to exhibit A:

Exhibit A: Anonymity.
*People, normal people, Will act like idiots/a**holes/jerks online simply because they see it more as an alter-ego where they can do what they want with little consequence.

Exhibit B: Audiences.
*People will further act like the above in an attempt to be cool, or fit in, with the "internet click" that is a forum. This further exacerbates the problems in Exhibit A.

**Please note this startling revelation is brought to you by Pennyarcade!

The problem with any forum Is that for the most part, people can/will say what they wouldn't normally say IRL, because it bares little consequence on a forum. Its not that i enjoy this prospect, in fact its rather annoying when i have to listen to Saint preachalot babble on about how the forum should be a sacred holy ground for any and all bad ideas and anyone who disagrees with an idea is burned at the stake as a troll. Or expect a forum topic to always stay on topic.

Its a problem that comes with all internet forums. However if you ask me, the FFXI Official forums are by far the most tame forum I have visited on the internet. For the most part the users you people label as "Trolls" Are the most intelligent of this group, They know what they're talking about and it makes people who don't angry. Because when someone comes in spouting math/etc/facts, it makes other people feel stupid, and when people feel stupid they feel insulted/etc, and a cycle begins where it degrades into back and forth hate spewing.

So its as much the alleged "Trolls" fault as it is the player calling them a "troll". Its like adding fuel to a fire.

So saying "Oh boy this is going to get nasty blablah" is as bad or worse than any actual conversation beginning simply because its throwing fuel on the flame. You can blame a fire for consuming wood if you lay it right next to it.

Your comment towards Katz was really uncalled for. I'm a mutual party in this and I don't care for either one of you two, but I can point out an immature comment when I see one. It was also "adding fuel to the fire" as you just so articulated yourself...

Do people even read what they post any more? :confused:

I gave katz my genuine feelings

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raxiaz

Your comment towards Katz was really uncalled for. I'm a mutual party in this and I don't care for either one of you two, but I can point out an immature comment when I see one. It was also "adding fuel to the fire" as you just so articulated yourself...

Do people even read what they post any more? :confused:

---

Once again you are being hypocritical. You say your words with the illusion of consideration then add a sarcastic insulting comment at the end which is very much fuel to the fire. You go to say how its stupid when people result to unnecessary comments, Then add little quips and insults to the end of your posts.

Which in itself is an uncalled comment. hence hypocrisy.

besides the first half of my post was more in general to all posters, Only the last like, 3 sentences was in regards to you.

That being said, I was only pointing out the fact he basically blocked Korpg for responding to him in quotes. I may be reading his post wrong but it sounded like "I asked you to stop quoting me and you didnt so im blocking you now".

So I, Jokingly, told him basically "Oh oh me next!". I was just pointing out the absurdity of blocking someone for quoting them. However, I do not know their backstory, So i could be interpreting this wrong. I read the forums often but i rarely read back-and-forth arguments spanning multiple pages to their fullest.

Either way, It felt like, from reading, He blocked someone from quoting him. Which i found an absurd act.

You are interpreting it wrong.

And there is no such thing as "joking" on the Internet. You may as well go back to middle school mentality when posting on the Internet. Anything you think is "made in fun" and "just teasing" may as well be bullying on here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raxiaz

You are interpreting it wrong.

And there is no such thing as "joking" on the Internet. You may as well go back to middle school on the Internet. Anything you think is "made in fun" and "just teasing" may as well be bullying on here.

---

I interpreted it quite right if you ask me. You basically accused me of spouting nonsense I don't read, which in itself as an unnecessary/uncalled for comment just as much as anything i said. Simple hypocrisy.

And yes, Despite belief you can joke on the internet. rather its funny is subjective. Point being, I was pointing out the absurdity of blocking someone for using a forum function (Blocking) with the sarcasm of asking him to please block me next. I honestly did expect him to block me however, it does not change the fact it was sarcasm.

Joking/Sarcasm has always been a gray area for me when it comes to humor. If done right, i found sarcasm can be funny, even to the receiving end. however I found it works more when the two in question are friendly with eachother. Which means it may not have come across friendly to him.

I won't deny my intentions were to call him out on his absurd action. But as i said, I could be misunderstanding WHY Korpg was blocked. Which could easily be solved by katz himself.

Edit: And i wouldn't go as far to say sarcastically asking someone to block me in an attempt to point out the absurdity of blocking someone for responding using the Quote function is cyber-bullying.

Edit2: And my intent wasn't bullying in any way, Again, It was simply to point out the absurdity of blocking someone for using the quote function/replying. Which is what i interpreted his act as.

You're still adding fuel to the fire so you ARE being a hypocrite, more so than me. You seem to have put more thought into your pennyarcade revelation than you did in your "joking" comment spawned from misinterpretation of events (i.e. naivety or ignorance). Your "joking" comment makes you look weak-minded and hypocritical to me.

At least when I say something I stand by it, rather than calling it a "joking statement."

Addendum: It doesn't matter if your joke wasn't meant to be interpreted as bullying. Tell that to the kids who were shot at some school because they bullied some kid and they thought it was "all in fun." Be careful what you say everywhere you are, internet or not, because it might just come back to bite you in the ass someday.

There's nothing stopping anyone from taking what you say the wrong way.

And give me time to edit posts before responding, geez. I rarely get everything i need to say out on the first type through. My thought process involves much editing...

I find i never get my thoughts through clearly the first time around. I end up revising my statement several times before I'm happy with how its conveyed. Even remove whole paragraphs.

I never called it "cyber-bullying", I was making a reference to an event (in real life) that may be "made in fun" for some but really "bullying" to another. On the Internet, we call this "trolling," or rather, what you were doing is called "trolling." You're inciting flames from another user by provoking them with your comment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raxiaz

You're still adding fuel to the fire so you ARE being a hypocrite, more so than me. You seem to have put more thought into your pennyarcade revelation than you did in your "joking" comment spawned from misinterpretation of events (i.e. naivety or ignorance). Your "joking" comment makes you look weak-minded and hypocritical to me.

At least when I say something I stand by it, rather than calling it a "joking statement."

---

Yes, But even if we're both hypocrites doesn't make you less of a Hypocrite is what I'm saying. You denied being hypocritical, that doesn't sound like standing by your statement to me.

I am standing by my statement, Just because you don't believe me does not mean I am not. I've been very clear on why i said what i said. I used Sarcasm to point out an absurd action. Sorry if its too complex for you to understand. Actually read what i said, Joke/sarcasm was a gray area, I admit i worded my first response wrong, "Sarcasm" was a better word than "Jokingly". I've corrected this.

And i've already accepted i am ignorant of the events taken place between Korpg and Katz, You pointing out something I've already said adds no more relevance to it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raxiaz

I never called it "cyber-bullying", I was making a reference to an event (in real life) that may be "made in fun" for some but really "bullying" to another. On the Internet, we call this "trolling," or rather, what you were doing is called "trolling." You're inciting flames from another user by provoking them with your comment.

---

I deny it as trolling. My post was not an attempt to piss people off by purposefully saying something that would enact the most negative responses. That is trolling. My intent was never to "Incite" Flames. Simply to point out it was absurd to block someone for quoting them.

If i was trolling, your comment on asking me if i even read my posts is trolling as well. Fair is fair, by your logic anyway, that was a Trolling comment, Because to me i saw no other reason to say it but to insult me.

Where did I say I denied being hypocritical? Point that part out to me, please.

And pointing out that you were ignorant of it doesn't change the fact that you are ignorant of it and shouldn't have made a comment on something that you know little to nothing about, just your own experiences with both users. It would have avoided this whole debate.

The way you worded it is clearly provoking the user and you are thus "trolling." It doesn't matter how you view it on the Internet, it matters how others view it.

Honestly Katz, I do feel you're overreacting. A person commenting on what they're getting from your comment (i.e. "This is what I understand you to be saying") isn't necessarily a manipulation; they could simply be stating what their view on your words is. If you're being unclear and/or vague, misunderstandings happen. I won't say that people don't manipulate quotes and such at times, but honestly Korpg was simply replying to you and you're essentially sticking your fingers in your ears and going "LALALALALA LAST WORD". I don't mean this offensively and I apologize if it comes off as such, but it's a bit of a childish behavior. Especially with the post you blocked Korpg for; he had valid points. Not having English as a first language makes it hard for English people to understand you at times, for one thing, and I know sometimes your posts give me trouble once in a while, though I can generally get the gist of them pretty quickly.

That being said... Rax, Karb's got a point. People are so thin-skinned here that the slightest sarcasm and/or joking is treated as "OMG, YOU'RE BULLYING ME AND YOU'RE A TROLL." It's a social nuance, knowing that people aren't always 100% serious when they say things. More often than not, these jokes aren't meant to be derogatory or hurtful, but are sometimes the best way to point out a problem or absurdity like Karby did. It's no different than when we say "I'm sorry, but you're being absurd by blocking <insert person> for <insert silly offense here>." People will still be just as thin-skinned and still call down flames and trolls. Threads will derail, and the "victim" is just as guilty because they can't learn to take a damn joke. Plus jokes are the best way for us to express our feelings on a matter, but in a less aggressive way. At least in my case it is. ^^;

Either way, you're both fighting over a pretty dumb point. Yer both being hypocritical at points, but what human isn't? No one's perfect. Just let it go already, geez. ~_~

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raxiaz

Where did I say I denied being hypocritical? Point that part out to me, please.

---

Teehee! I was hoping you'd ask that

Quote:

---

You are interpreting it wrong.

---

Right here ^^! I read this as you Implying my assumption on your hypocrisy was wrong. IF you did not deny being hypocritical I fail to see why you would tell me that interpreting your post as "Flame bait", hence "uncalled for" was "Interpreting it wrong", Implying it was not Flame Bait/Uncalled For, hence you werent being hypocritical.

Am i reading too far into it? I bet its the excuse I'll get. But i dont think i am.

Quote:

---

And pointing out that you were ignorant of it doesn't change the fact that you are ignorant of it and shouldn't have made a comment on something that you know little to nothing about, just your own experiences with both users. It would have avoided this whole debate.

---

I'm sorry? I commented on the facts i had at hand. 1) Korpg psots, 2) Katz Blocks him for quoting/responding to him. I'm filled in enough on what i saw to type what i did. While i am ignorant to the preamble to this, It does not change the fact that from the facts i had at my disposal, It looked for all intents and purposes Katz blocked Korpg for Quoting/Responding to him. An Absurd act in my eyes.

Quote:

---

The way you worded it is clearly provoking the user and you are thus "trolling." It doesn't matter how you view it on the Internet, it matters how others view it.

---

I call bubcus, See this is the exact reason why users should not be able to lock threads. I had no intentions on "flamming" him or "Trolling" him. My intention was to point out the absurdity of blocking someone for responding to them.

Do my methods leave room for improvement? Yah, I don't deny this one bit. Looking back i honestly believe i could have acted better. However, Even if i went back and changed it my actions have already happened and what i did can not be taken back. So no matter how much i want to go back and change it, I can't. I'm stuck with the choices i made. Its a sad truth, no amount of regret will change it.

So no, My intents weren't trolling in any way, Only to maybe point out to him that his actions were absurd/extreme and he shouldn't block someone for responding to him.

Edit: In Honor of Kens post, I will end the argument here. Rax get your last post it and I promise I won't respond on this anymore. I admitted to my wrongs, and he's right. We're talking in circles. I know what i did wrong and i could have gone about it differently, But i honestly feel nothing would have changed.

I'd be called a troll no matter how i said it, because again, People don't understand the difference between trolling, and disagreeing, or pointing out absurd actions. To them its all the same.

No, I will not stand by and watch as one of the human race's downfalls is clearly abused. The inability to actually understand what another person is meaning is the exact reason for many conflicts. It's also why society can't advance as fast as it should. People don't take time to understand ****, they just read/hear what is stated and interpret it for themselves. They don't know what the **** the other person really means. They just THINK they do. If they're right, awesome, if wrong, what happens then? Nothing? Nothing is hardly ever what happens in a misunderstanding.

Misunderstandings lead to stupid bull**** like this. They also lead to fights, wars, and death. Saying they don't is ignorant. Yes, I'm standing by that statement.

This game alone even has it stated that the inability to communicate freely without misunderstanding is one of many civilizations' downfalls...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Karbuncle

Teehee! I was hoping you'd ask that



Right here ^^! I read this as you Implying my assumption on your hypocrisy was wrong. IF you did not deny being hypocritical I fail to see why you would tell me that interpreting your post as "Flame bait", hence "uncalled for" was "Interpreting it wrong", Implying it was not Flame Bait/Uncalled For, hence you werent being hypocritical.

Am i reading too far into it? I bet its the excuse I'll get. But i dont think i am.



I'm sorry? I commented on the facts i had at hand. 1) Korpg psots, 2) Katz Blocks him for quoting/responding to him. I'm filled in enough on what i saw to type what i did. While i am ignorant to the preamble to this, It does not change the fact that from the facts i had at my disposal, It looked for all intents and purposes Katz blocked Korpg for Quoting/Responding to him. An Absurd act in my eyes.




I call bubcus, See this is the exact reason why users should not be able to lock threads. I had no intentions on "flamming" him or "Trolling" him. My intention was to point out the absurdity of blocking someone for responding to them.

Do my methods leave room for improvement? Yah, I don't deny this one bit. Looking back i honestly believe i could have acted better. However, Even if i went back and changed it my actions have already happened and what i did can not be taken back. So no matter how much i want to go back and change it, I can't. I'm stuck with the choices i made. Its a sad truth, no amount of regret will change it.

So no, My intents weren't trolling in any way, Only to maybe point out to him that his actions were absurd/extreme and he shouldn't block someone for responding to him.

Edit: In Honor of Kens post, I will end the argument here. Rax get your last post it and I promise I won't respond on this anymore. I admitted to my wrongs, and he's right. We're talking in circles. I know what i did wrong and i could have gone about it differently, But i honestly feel nothing would have changed.

I'd be called a troll no matter how i said it, because again, People don't understand the difference between trolling, and disagreeing, or pointing out absurd actions. To them its all the same.

---

LIKE'd. Yeah, I LIKE'd a post going against me.

"You are interpreting it wrong." was a statement on your interpretations of Korpg's/Kat's relation to each other. I did not intend for that to be a statement on your interpretations of my posts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tamoa

To close your own thread because you don't get the feedback/support you expected from other forum members, is a cowardly thing to do. I can't think of any other FFXI forum that I frequent, that give forum members access to this. Deleting posts, yes - but not closing threads.

---

GameFAQs allows users to close their own topics if no one has posted in them for a certain amount of time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhianu

GameFAQs allows users to close their own topics if no one has posted in them for a certain amount of time.

---

That wouldn't be a bad way to change it if you ask me.

It would leave people to talk if they were so doing, and if it got too bad GMs would lock it, But it gives the OP the power to close a thread that for all intents and purposes is dead.

Its a sensible way to handle it. I like it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhianu

GameFAQs allows users to close their own topics if no one has posted in them for a certain amount of time.

---

Yeah that sounds like a good idea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raxiaz

No, I will not stand by and watch as one of the human race's downfalls is clearly abused. The inability to actually understand what another person is meaning is the exact reason for many conflicts. It's also why society can't advance as fast as it should. People don't take time to understand ****, they just read/hear what is stated and interpret it for themselves. They don't know what the **** the other person really means. They just THINK they do. If they're right, awesome, if wrong, what happens then? Nothing? Nothing is hardly ever what happens in a misunderstanding.

Misunderstandings lead to stupid bull**** like this. They also lead to fights, wars, and death. Saying they don't is ignorant. Yes, I'm standing by that statement.

This game alone even has it stated that the inability to communicate freely without misunderstanding is one of many civilizations' downfalls...

---

You're really taking an extremist view on this. We're not going to start wars or kill each other over a misunderstanding on a game. The worst that's going to happen here is someone is going to get butthurt and block another user or close their thread because they don't like people disagreeing. If someone's so thin-skinned that they're going to hurt themselves or something more over this or a little internet reputation, they're not going to survive in general society. People aren't always sugarcoating their words and more often than not will speak their minds in the most blunt manner, i.e. either using sarcasm to denote that they disagree/disapprove or simply flat out saying "no, you're wrong."

You're no saint yourself, few are and I know I'm sure as hell not, yet you're talking about the crusade to "not watch as one of the human race's downfalls is clearly abused". What downfall? The fact that we misunderstand? It's not necessarily that someone is purposely misinterpreting, but that we make assumptions based on the information we're given and go from there. If we do not know the whole story, it is because we were not present to learn of it. We can only use the information we have, and from the information provided, Katz did seem to be blocking him for a silly reason. I know a good deal of the backstory after watching them argue and I still think it's a dumb reason.

Still, you're looking far too deeply into what's simply a game forum. If this was a political event then yes, it could have extreme consequences. But here? No, not really. It feels like you're just preaching and honestly, it makes you come off with an unlikeable (to me, maybe not to others.) "Holier than thou" attitude. You're just as guilty of making misinterpretations, and just leaping down throats because someone else misunderstands due to a lack of information is hypocrisy, just as you said.

And ugh. Last word, can't back down from an argument, etc. Yay being a hypocrite myself about ending the argument bit. :s

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhianu

GameFAQs allows users to close their own topics if no one has posted in them for a certain amount of time.

---

I like this idea. Mods still have the main control over threads but if something's dying people can close it so we don't have huge necrobumps out of the blue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhianu

GameFAQs allows users to close their own topics if no one has posted in them for a certain amount of time.

---

That is not a forum I frequent - in fact, I have never been to that forum.

Also, that's a different thing altogether. If members of this forum were allowed to close their own thread if noone's posted in it for say, 2 weeks, or however long, I wouldn't mind. As it is now though, we can start a topic, close it at will, reopen at will, and even override forum mod locks. Which is utterly ridiculous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kensagaku

That being said... Rax, Karb's got a point. People are so thin-skinned here that the slightest sarcasm and/or joking is treated as "OMG, YOU'RE BULLYING ME AND YOU'RE A TROLL." It's a social nuance, knowing that people aren't always 100% serious when they say things. More often than not, these jokes aren't meant to be derogatory or hurtful, but are sometimes the best way to point out a problem or absurdity like Karby did. It's no different than when we say "I'm sorry, but you're being absurd by blocking <insert person> for <insert silly offense here>." People will still be just as thin-skinned and still call down flames and trolls. Threads will derail, and the "victim" is just as guilty because they can't learn to take a damn joke. Plus jokes are the best way for us to express our feelings on a matter, but in a less aggressive way. At least in my case it is. ^^;

---

This, very much this. I do believe I have said it before, if you can't handle people disagreeing with you, or pointing out a flaw in your argument, even saying outright they think whatever idea/opinion you posted is dumb, you really shouldn't be posting on this or any other discussion forum at all.

As for those whose 1st language isn't English - well, I'm one of those people. I try to make a point of using correct English, and wording myself as carefully as I can. I can't say I have seen anyone being ridiculed here for bad English if it's obvious they are from a non-English speaking country.

It's not a "holier than thou" attitude it's a blunt statement. Misunderstandings start crap all the time. I'm not saying we're going to start wars on an internet gaming forum, but if we're not stopping to think about what someone says on a freakin' message board, how the hell do you expect us to stop and think about what someone says or does in the real world?

Completely missed the point, I see...