Give users the ability to lock their own threads.

Simple request. It seems arbitrary that a lot of OPs will end up asking mods to lock threads for them after heavy derailment, and mods aren't always online. Giving users the ability to lock their own threads would solve this problem--and I've seen this done on a number of forums I've been to.

However, make it so if a user locks his or her own thread, he or she cannot then unlock it. They'd have to request a higher-up to do it for them (namely a monitor).

Ultimately, if a user creates a thread, I think it should be up to him and the mods as to how long the discussion can go.

Well for now Monitors have the ability to lock threads. and you'll notice we are usually online if no Ninjas are.

If it still becomes problematic we can discuss giving you that ability.

Given that mods seem to lock any thread at the OP's request, I really don't see why this shouldn't just be a thing.

Given that mods seem to lock any thread at the OP's request, I really don't see why this shouldn't just be a thing.

Yea. All it takes is a PM.

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

I have no issue with this. Sometimes I don't see the PM because I'm busy at work until an hour or two after it's sent and I'm sure other mods have had the same thing happen and because of this things sometimes spiral out of control and the OPs thread gets locked because of the actions of only a couple individuals.

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

I really don't see why this would be a problem and I've yet to see the staff give any good reason why it shouldn't be a thing

The only problem I see with it would be giving the OP the power to essentially stop the conversation prematurely. Sometimes threads take off and if the OP happens to be a troll, they could easily just lock their own thread.

The requestable lock creates a barrier so that doesn't happen. And really, with so many Ninjas and Monitors online all the time, you're not going to have to wait very long. You could also just make a post saying "lock please" and then report it; that'll send an alert to all the Ninjas and they'll take care of it.

I really don't see why this would be a problem and I've yet to see the staff give any good reason why it shouldn't be a thing

The only problem I see with it would be giving the OP the power to essentially stop the conversation prematurely. Sometimes threads take off and if the OP happens to be a troll, they could easily just lock their own thread.

The requestable lock creates a barrier so that doesn't happen. And really, with so many Ninjas and Monitors online all the time, you're not going to have to wait very long. You could also just make a post saying "lock please" and then report it; that'll send an alert to all the Ninjas and they'll take care of it.

Exactly. Now with Monitors having this ability, there truly is no reason for implementing such a function

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

I really don't see why this would be a problem and I've yet to see the staff give any good reason why it shouldn't be a thing

The only problem I see with it would be giving the OP the power to essentially stop the conversation prematurely.

I don't see why the OP shouldn't be allowed to do that.

Now with Monitors having this ability, there truly is no reason for implementing such a function

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

I really don't see why this would be a problem and I've yet to see the staff give any good reason why it shouldn't be a thing

The only problem I see with it would be giving the OP the power to essentially stop the conversation prematurely.

I don't see why the OP shouldn't be allowed to do that.

Now with Monitors having this ability, there truly is no reason for implementing such a function

Uh yes, I actually saw your opinion the first time.

There are enough staff members to where requesting a thread lock function for the OP is simply pointless.

Yeah, sure that's a good idea. I say yes.

Nah it's redundant and opens up more opportunities for shitposters.

What's worse than shitposters flooding the entire forum with spam threads?
Shitposters flooding the forum with locked spam threads.

If only we banned shitposting.

Fine, let's not have this perfectly acceptable and convenient idea just to protect the shitposters.

Cheat's issue with the idea seems frivolous. I think the OP should have the right to end his threads prematurely if he so chooses. It's his thread. If people start spamming?

Fucking ban them.

Cheat's issue with the idea seems frivolous. I think the OP should have the right to end his threads prematurely if he so chooses. It's his thread. If people start spamming?

And it's Cheat's website.

OT: I don't see a problem with this, so long as Mod's can unlock threads.

And it's Cheat's website.

And Cheat is a reasonable, non-tyrannical person who has shown himself to be very receptive of the community's opinion. You have no point.

I will never understand the mods' pussyfooting around when it comes to discipline. Any issues involving spam would and should result in disciplinary action. I shouldn't have to say this.

And it's Cheat's website.

And Cheat is a reasonable, non-tyrannical person who has shown himself to be very receptive of the community's opinion. You have no point.

Indeed - and he's already stated that there are reasons (OP being a troll) for why this isn't a feature and that the number of staff ensures a thread can be locked if requested.

I will never understand the mods' pussyfooting around when it comes to discipline. Any issues involving spam would and should result in disciplinary action. I shouldn't have to say this.

Alright?

I will never understand the mods' pussyfooting around when it comes to discipline. Any issues involving spam would and should result in disciplinary action. I shouldn't have to say this.

Alright?

So, don't speak for Cheat. I already responded to Cheat's trifles with the proposal. If you have no response, don't respond. I'm glad you don't personally see any issues with the idea, but that's really all that you needed to say. As if I needed "Cheat owns the website" pointed out to me.

I will never understand the mods' pussyfooting around when it comes to discipline. Any issues involving spam would and should result in disciplinary action. I shouldn't have to say this.

Alright?

So, don't speak for Cheat. I already responded to Cheat's trifles with the proposal.

You did? I didn't see the response in this thread - my bad.

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

Verb's giving way better points to his argument than you guys are. Basically your only argument has been "But we can't do that because then we would actually have to ban people for spam *gasp*!" I mean fucking come on. A user has certain rights to the threads they create, one of those being if they want to end a thread prematurely then let them fucking do so. It is their thread.

No, the argument is we have enough staff available to negate the need for such a feature.
Monitors can lock threads now too. That's 4 more people you can talk to about getting your thread locked by request.

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

Verb's giving way better points to his argument than you guys are. Basically your only argument has been "But we can't do that because then we would actually have to ban people for spam *gasp*!" I mean fucking come on. A user has certain rights to the threads they create, one of those being if they want to end a thread prematurely then let them fucking do so. It is their thread.

No, the argument is we have enough staff available to negate the need for such a feature.
Monitors can lock threads now too. That's 4 more people you can talk to about getting your thread locked by request.

But I can just lock my thread quicker if I can do it myself. Its more efficient, your point is invalid.

Send a PM to someone online, in less than a minute your thread is locked.
That happened today actually. So my point has merit.

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

Verb's giving way better points to his argument than you guys are. Basically your only argument has been "But we can't do that because then we would actually have to ban people for spam *gasp*!" I mean fucking come on. A user has certain rights to the threads they create, one of those being if they want to end a thread prematurely then let them fucking do so. It is their thread.

No, the argument is we have enough staff available to negate the need for such a feature.
Monitors can lock threads now too. That's 4 more people you can talk to about getting your thread locked by request.

But I can just lock my thread quicker if I can do it myself. Its more efficient, your point is invalid.

Send a PM to someone online, in less than a minute your thread is locked.
That happened today actually. So my point has merit.

But locking it myself is STILL quicker

And as Nuka pointed out in this thread, that ability can be abused.
People could spam locked threads.

The current method is barely slower, and much more effective.

People could spam locked threads.

Ban. Them.

It shouldn't be a monitor's or moderator's job to lock threads on request. It should be their job to lock threads when things get out of hand. That's it.

The OP of the thread ought to have some discretion to that end.

Verb's giving way better points to his argument than you guys are. Basically your only argument has been "But we can't do that because then we would actually have to ban people for spam *gasp*!" I mean fucking come on. A user has certain rights to the threads they create, one of those being if they want to end a thread prematurely then let them fucking do so. It is their thread.

No, the argument is we have enough staff available to negate the need for such a feature.
Monitors can lock threads now too. That's 4 more people you can talk to about getting your thread locked by request.

But I can just lock my thread quicker if I can do it myself. Its more efficient, your point is invalid.

Send a PM to someone online, in less than a minute your thread is locked.
That happened today actually. So my point has merit.

But locking it myself is STILL quicker

And as Nuka pointed out in this thread, that ability can be abused.
People could spam locked threads.

The current method is barely slower, and much more effective.

Why are you arguing against making your job easier in the first place? Instead of having to go out of your way to go lock a thread, the OP can do it himself, which like / said is much more efficient. And if people start spamming locked threads? Just ban them, it's that simple.

Just ban them, it's that simple.

"muh activity"