Why is derailment considered a reason to lock a thread?

It's called the natural progression of a conversation.

It's stupid that threads get locked for topics changing as they're discussed.

Recently it's because it's a touchy subject.
Rules are rules.

It's called the natural progression of a conversation.

It's stupid that threads get locked for topics changing as they're discussed.

This is why that chat thread that was pinned would have worked. But we all bitched at how stupid it was remember?

I actually kind of agree. But I think the idea is that once a thread reaches the point of derailment, it becomes a topic about nothing, essentially. So you'd have pages and pages of topics made that ended up being about nothing. In other words, spam.

But I see where you're coming from.

This is why that chat thread that was pinned would have worked. But we all bitched at how stupid it was remember?

What I didn't like about the chat thread is that Cheat said he was gonna delete all of the old chat threads when new ones were made. Why? Because our post counts would get "inflated".

Like, who cares? That's just dumb.

We could do away with post counts entirely and I wouldn't mind.

It's called the natural progression of a conversation.

It's stupid that threads get locked for topics changing as they're discussed.

That's not the policy. But because that wasn't the first time the thread got derailed, and it was derailed with insults about a member, I really didn't have a choice but to lock it to keep it from happening over and over.

To be clear, I'm not against threads evolving naturally into another topic, but I am against multiple people ganging up on one user.

"Derailment of threads, or purposefully going off topic, is not encouraged and should be kept to a minimum."

That's the stated policy.

It's called the natural progression of a conversation.

It's stupid that threads get locked for topics changing as they're discussed.

That's not the policy. But because that wasn't the first time the thread got derailed, and it was derailed with insults about a member, I really didn't have a choice but to lock it to keep it from happening over and over.

To be clear, I'm not against threads evolving naturally into another topic, but I am against multiple people ganging up on one user.

This actually isn't in response to alakazam's thread, it's a thread I've been meaning to make for a while, and I was reminded by setting that one locked.

It's called the natural progression of a conversation.

It's stupid that threads get locked for topics changing as they're discussed.

That's not the policy. But because that wasn't the first time the thread got derailed, and it was derailed with insults about a member, I really didn't have a choice but to lock it to keep it from happening over and over.

To be clear, I'm not against threads evolving naturally into another topic, but I am against multiple people ganging up on one user.

Fair enough Cheat.

This is why that chat thread that was pinned would have worked. But we all bitched at how stupid it was remember?

What I didn't like about the chat thread is that Cheat said he was gonna delete all of the old chat threads when new ones were made. Why? Because our post counts would get "inflated".

Like, who cares? That's just dumb.

We could do away with post counts entirely and I wouldn't mind.

I completely agree, and every time I try to bring it up and say that I think the whole post count thing is stupid and people take theirs too seriously, I get wailed on by people like Byrne who are major post count tryhards.

Derailment is only ok if it was a thread with limited discussion value to begin with

This is why that chat thread that was pinned would have worked. But we all bitched at how stupid it was remember?

What I didn't like about the chat thread is that Cheat said he was gonna delete all of the old chat threads when new ones were made. Why? Because our post counts would get "inflated".

Like, who cares? That's just dumb.

We could do away with post counts entirely and I wouldn't mind.

I completely agree, and every time I try to bring it up and say that I think the whole post count thing is stupid and people take theirs too seriously, I get wailed on by people like Byrne who are major post count tryhards.

Just a hunch, but our community doesn't always like to go easy on one another... so in a chat thread without a topic it's hard for moderators to monitor content as efficiently.

This is why that chat thread that was pinned would have worked. But we all bitched at how stupid it was remember?

What I didn't like about the chat thread is that Cheat said he was gonna delete all of the old chat threads when new ones were made. Why? Because our post counts would get "inflated".

Like, who cares? That's just dumb.

We could do away with post counts entirely and I wouldn't mind.

Oh that's dumb. It's because Cheat wants no one to get to the rank Marty, aka Mythic ++.

Can't cheat the Cheat I guess.

This is why that chat thread that was pinned would have worked. But we all bitched at how stupid it was remember?

What I didn't like about the chat thread is that Cheat said he was gonna delete all of the old chat threads when new ones were made. Why? Because our post counts would get "inflated".

Like, who cares? That's just dumb.

We could do away with post counts entirely and I wouldn't mind.

Oh that's dumb. It's because Cheat wants no one to get to the rank Marty, aka Mythic ++.

Can't cheat the Cheat I guess.

That rank is achieved by 117 days online.

I think you already have to be mythic as well, but posting a shitload in a chat thread wouldn't be enough.

This is why that chat thread that was pinned would have worked. But we all bitched at how stupid it was remember?

What I didn't like about the chat thread is that Cheat said he was gonna delete all of the old chat threads when new ones were made. Why? Because our post counts would get "inflated".

Like, who cares? That's just dumb.

We could do away with post counts entirely and I wouldn't mind.

Oh that's dumb. It's because Cheat wants no one to get to the rank Marty, aka Mythic ++.

Can't cheat the Cheat I guess.

That rank is achieved by 117 days online.

I think you already have to be mythic as well, but posting a shitload in a chat thread wouldn't be enough.

I don't even know how close I was to Mythic to Bungie, but at least I'll know here since Cheat is nice enough to tell me. 

That rank is achieved by 117 days online.

i thought it was 117 days on top of having 17,500 posts

because oss has 125 days, but he doesn't have a custom title set

This is why that chat thread that was pinned would have worked. But we all bitched at how stupid it was remember?

What I didn't like about the chat thread is that Cheat said he was gonna delete all of the old chat threads when new ones were made. Why? Because our post counts would get "inflated".

Like, who cares? That's just dumb.

We could do away with post counts entirely and I wouldn't mind.

I completely agree, and every time I try to bring it up and say that I think the whole post count thing is stupid and people take theirs too seriously, I get wailed on by people like Byrne who are major post count tryhards.

I don't think that's ever happened, you rarely bring that up from what I've seen and a lot of people wouldn't care if post count was gone. 

I wouldn't say a natural progression of the conversation equates to derailment - there have been plenty of threads that have done that and remained unlocked.

However (using old Serious as an example) - if Meta were to make a thread on the EU, and suddenly on Page 2 Chally and Kinder are screaming about North Korea with no natural progression to connect the two topics, that would equate to a derailed thread.

I wouldn't say a natural progression of the conversation equates to derailment - there have been plenty of threads that have done that and remained unlocked.

However (using old Serious as an example) - if Meta were to make a thread on the EU, and suddenly on Page 2 Chally and Kinder are screaming about North Korea with no natural progression to connect the two topics, that would equate to a derailed thread.

Well, then, I'd like an apology for at least three warnings that I've received.

I wouldn't say a natural progression of the conversation equates to derailment - there have been plenty of threads that have done that and remained unlocked.

However (using old Serious as an example) - if Meta were to make a thread on the EU, and suddenly on Page 2 Chally and Kinder are screaming about North Korea with no natural progression to connect the two topics, that would equate to a derailed thread.

Well, then, I'd like an apology for at least three warnings that I've received.

I'm not a mod.

I'm not a mod.

I never said you were. I'm speaking generally.

I'm not a mod.

I never said you were. I'm speaking generally.

I'll pass the message along.

I'm not a mod.

I never said you were. I'm speaking generally.

I'll pass the message along.

O.o who are you?
it's so icy blue cooool.

:: mesmerized ::

I'm not a mod.

I never said you were. I'm speaking generally.

I'll pass the message along.

O.o who are you?
it's so icy blue cooool.

:: mesmerized ::

I'm your worst nightmare.

He was a bad mod.

That rank is achieved by 117 days online.

i thought it was 117 days on top of having 17,500 posts

because oss has 125 days, but he doesn't have a custom title set

My point was more that the hardest part would be the online time, not the posting.

Posts happen by themselves, online time takes forever to track up for this of is who don't leave our computer online constantly.

This is why that chat thread that was pinned would have worked. But we all bitched at how stupid it was remember?

What I didn't like about the chat thread is that Cheat said he was gonna delete all of the old chat threads when new ones were made. Why? Because our post counts would get "inflated".

Like, who cares? That's just dumb.

We could do away with post counts entirely and I wouldn't mind.

I completely agree, and every time I try to bring it up and say that I think the whole post count thing is stupid and people take theirs too seriously, I get wailed on by people like Byrne who are major post count tryhards.

I don't think that's ever happened, you rarely bring that up from what I've seen and a lot of people wouldn't care if post count was gone.

you've really never seen me giving Byrne shit for taking his post count so seriously?

But yeah, I stopped trying after the first couple of times I brought it up because of the reasons I said before.

I was very avid about it in proboards.

I'm not a mod.

I never said you were. I'm speaking generally.

I'll pass the message along.

O.o who are you?
it's so icy blue cooool.

:: mesmerized ::

I'm your worst nightmare.

You obviously don't know me too well.
Not much scares me because I am fear itself.

Spoiler

BOO!

That rank is achieved by 117 days online.

i thought it was 117 days on top of having 17,500 posts

because oss has 125 days, but he doesn't have a custom title set

My point was more that the hardest part would be the online time, not the posting.

Posts happen by themselves, online time takes forever to track up for this of is who don't leave our computer online constantly.

I leave my computer and switch to my phone.
I'm always connected to sep7.
Which is probably why threads get derailed.
This thread is getting derailed.

This is why that chat thread that was pinned would have worked. But we all bitched at how stupid it was remember?

What I didn't like about the chat thread is that Cheat said he was gonna delete all of the old chat threads when new ones were made. Why? Because our post counts would get "inflated".

Like, who cares? That's just dumb.

We could do away with post counts entirely and I wouldn't mind.

I completely agree, and every time I try to bring it up and say that I think the whole post count thing is stupid and people take theirs too seriously, I get wailed on by people like Byrne who are major post count tryhards.

I don't think that's ever happened, you rarely bring that up from what I've seen and a lot of people wouldn't care if post count was gone.

you've really never seen me giving Byrne shit for taking his post count so seriously?

But yeah, I stopped trying after the first couple of times I brought it up because of the reasons I said before.

I was very avid about it in proboards.

I probably tuned out because I didn't care.

I, too, have brought up the fact post count could go.