[louise tagg]

It's kind of lame how they just assume the thread isn't worth keeping open after it reaches 200 replies. All that results in is hundreds of different threads on the same subject, making it impossible to find any previous information that may have been posted. I'd much rather go through 500 posts than 500 topics with 200 posts each.

It's a performance thing. They are required, because of techinical stuff, to lock threads at 200 posts.

[Roberto Gaeta]

IMO, the forums without the uptight mods and stupid rules(especially the swear filter) are the better forums - like geekhack.

[sarah]

questioning moderator actions is not allowed.

Since when? Authority screws up, call 'em out. Nothing wrong with it. We don't live in Tamriel were you get death for speaking out against authority.

On this, I don't know either way, 198 isn't the limit, but it might be close enough. On the other hand maybe it was spiteful. Considering it got almost post limit over a progressive time doesn't make me think it was a thread that was considered a forum game, considering it was allowed to be here so long. I don't really care anyway.

IMO, the forums without the uptight mods and stupid rules(especially the swear filter) are the better forums - like geekhack.

Ohhh~ you are so wrong. I use to be apart of a forum were 90% of the people were complete ass holes trolling each other about random bs, it was allowed to continue for so long because no mod gave a flying crap. There was so much racism, sixism and hatred it was sickening. And it was just a video game forum too.

[Dina Boudreau]

Mods can be an odd bunch. They're free labor, and some people post on forums just to get their post count up...just so some day they can be a moderator. I saw a thread (not one of mine) several days ago where somebody piped up and said "You aren't supposed to be talking about this, I reported you and hopefully they'll come lock the thread." I piped up with something like "Hey, I disagree totally with the OP's point, but why in the world do you care if the thread gets locked?" There was nothing offensive about it, it was just technically against some rule. To anologize to some sort of law, it wasn't like somebody reporting a theft or assault or even minor vandalism, it was more like reporting somebody driving five miles an hour over the speed limit or somebody parking for two minutes in a no-parking spot because they had to run into a store. Yeah, it's technically a violation of a rule, but it isn't hurting you or others, so why bother reporting?

Their answer: "Because I keep my nose clean and try and help the mods because some day I hope to be a mod." Then they followed up with "In contrast to how this might sound, I am not trying to brown-nose." At which point I had to tell them that yeah, their behavior was practically the definition of brown-nosing.

So yeah, there are people who like to be unofficial Forum Nazis, in the hopes that one day they'll get a chance to be a moderator, at which point they become official Forum Nazis.

NOTE TO PEOPLE WHO NEED THIS SPELLED OUT FOR THEM: Note I did not say "All forum moderators are Forum Nazis", I said that people who are at heart tattling little Nazis hope someday to become moderators, so that they can have power to indulge their inner petty Nazism.* I'm sure that most mods, the ones who just wanna keep the place from devolving into a junior high locker room and keep the 14 year olds from driving others from the forum by hurling epithets at each other - we get enough of that playing Halo on XBox Live, after all.



_____________________________________________
* Did I just violate Godwin's law? Probably. OH WELL.






EDIT: Also, I'm not saying anything about any particular moderator. I haven't been here but two weeks, so I wouldn't have any clue who's a good moderator and who isn't.

[Marquis T]

I used to be a lot on bioware forums raging about the fail called DA2 and the mods there werent nearly as bad. Except for one guy who should jump off a cliff. Could be though that if they started banning angry people insulting things there wouldnt have been anyone left on the forum.

The mods here arent terrible (ive seen worse) but they should really ease up sometimes. And also if theyre gonna ban someone for something (even though its usually idiotic) they should treat everyone else the same. I got banne for calling out a troll once and arguing with him yet I see many people doing exactly the same and yet theyre still here.

[Natalie J Webster]

Just let the mods have their fun; if these forums are their job, you know their lives must be sad.

It's their entire existence to ensure that only whining, complaining, and outrage are present on the boards.

[Claudia Cook]

It's a performance thing. They are required, because of techinical stuff, to lock threads at 200 posts.

No. They were required to do so in the past. There is no reason to do so now. IP.Board software is perfectly capable of handling threads with more than 200 replies.

[Lori Joe]

You do know the mods aren't Beth employees/representatives, right?

BootySweat is a really good mod, and he got the job for a reason.

[Andrea P]

No. They were required to do so in the past. There is no reason to do so now. IP.Board software is perfectly capable of handling threads with more than 200 replies.

There are other reasons as well, of course. From the rules:

It used to be that we had a lot of server problems. The forums would die almost every night and we'd have to wait for one of the system administrators to wake up and re-set them. Eventually they enabled a script that checked the status of the forums every 15 minutes and reset them if necessary, but there were still a lot of problems.

It's worth noting that we were using a different software at the time.

To help ease the strain on the servers the member list was removed and we started locking threads at 200 posts, this helped immensly. Now, with the new software, neither is necessary to keep the servers happy, but we still lock threads at 200 posts. There are many reasons for this:
?Most threads, by the time they hit 200 posts, have wandered off topic. Starting fresh can bring them back on track, or the new thread can reflect the direction the conversation has taken. It also isn't uncommon for no new thread to be made because the topic had really run its course.



?It is rare for someone to read 500+ posts before responding, making exceptionally long threads incredibly repetative. This is less of a problem with the 200 post cap - in all likely hood the thread is still very repetative by its third or fourth iteration since people aren't reaching the archives, but at least people are more likely to read the past 50 posts or so if it means starting at the beginning of the thread. With espeially persistant topics, like the Multiplayer thread in Oblivion General, the thread starts off with an introduction that includes a FAQ and other tips for new posters. This helps catch them up so they don't have to read the archives.



?It is possible that locking threads at 200 posts is proactive. It could be that without this rule we would eventually encounter server problems. The software is able to handle large forums much better than the old stuff, but when new games/content are released this place explodes in size, hopefully the 200 post limit helps the servers and helps keep the place under control

[Taylor Tifany]

I used to complain about the moderators like you. Then I took a temp ban to the knee.

[GRAEME]

Just let the mods have their fun; if these forums are their job, you know their lives must be sad.

It's their entire existence to ensure that only whining, complaining, and outrage are present on the boards.

I haven't seen a single constructive thread locked nor a "thanks" thread locked.
They lock whine threads as they lock whine about whine threads. What's the common of these threads?

Exactly, not being constructive aka pointless.

If you confuse "being constructive" with "ranting" that's your problem.

[Kelly Upshall]

This forum locks any topics when the post count reaches up to 11 pages... pretty ridiculous. Trying to keep with the whole 11-11-11 thing... once again showing aesthetics over quality.

[Ymani Hood]

Certain people that have posted in here should take some time out to read the forum rules. Posting about moderator action is against one of them...use the PM system to contact a mod if you have concerns. Locking topics at 200 posts is another.

[FITTAS]

9. Posting about moderator or administrator action or inaction is also against the rules of this forum.

Please feel free however to contact the moderator involved, another moderator you feel comfortable with, our community manager Gstaff or another admin if you disagree with a moderator action. Our moderators do not mind taking a second look or discussing an action with the other moderators and admin to assure they have acted fairly. So if you think you've been treated wrongly or that unfairly, be sure to send a PM. Sometimes moderators make mistakes.

Given the number of threads and reports, it might not be such a strange thing that we didn't get to the thread until it was nearly full anyway. The number of people who seem to have forgotten basic civility and courtesy is really surprising. The most reported problems are going to be the ones that get attention first.

As for locking threads about problems, haven't you noticed that if we do, we end up getting grief about OMG TEH MODS ARE CENSORING EVERYTHING THAT IS BAD!!!!!!!!!!! It doesn't matter that we are attempting to lock multiple threads about the same thing and get everyone to post in one thread. If we don't, we get complaints about "WHY AREN'T THE MULTIPLE THREADS ABOUT THE SAME THING LOCKED?!?!?!?!?" So, since everything is wrong for someone, we're answering reports and warning/suspending the flamers, trolls, and spammers. The threads will either fall off the first page, or provide a discussion for those posters who are interested.

Locking threads at 200 used to be necessary. It isn't now. However people don't bother reading entire threads even when they are less than 200 posts; no one is going to read the whole 200+ posts before they post their comment. And most of the threads end up being rather repetitious by the 200th post. If a new thread is started because people are interested in continuing the topic, it gives it a better chance of continuing the discussion.

[Darren]

Why don’t you go kick a kitten while you’re at it, then wonder why the mood around here svcks.

/signoff

I used to kick kittens all the time, but then I took an arrow in the knee.

[Agnieszka Bak]

I used to kick kittens all the time, but then I took an arrow in the knee.

Ha! Ace.

[Naomi Lastname]

This forum locks any topics when the post count reaches up to 11 pages... pretty ridiculous. Trying to keep with the whole 11-11-11 thing... once again showing aesthetics over quality.

You do realize that you set your own page size, right? You can decide whether you want to see avatars, signatures, and emoticons and stuff. You also get the option of how many posts and how many topics are shown on each page. Usually the mods have theirs set to the maximum. My "page" might not be the same as your "page". For example a thread locked at 230 posts is only 6 pages for me. Waiting until a topic reaches 11 pages for me would really push it over the 200 post limit.