Why was my thread locked?

This thread was locked with no explanation: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=14327

While I value and appreciate feos' other thread, I don't see it as redundant or equivalent to the question I asked AT ALL, and I would appreciate if others were able to answer.

If there's other PAL tools/emulation that someone knows about I want to hear about it. Don't fucking lock my thread because feos has partially implemented a PAL emulation, he's not the only person who might have something relevant to say.

I'm offended he suggested the merge in the first place, but I'm more offended to be locked without any explanation from a moderator. The thread was neither abusive nor disruptive. I'm supposed to assume it's an implementation of the suggested merge, but don't just lock my thread without saying why.

FUCK.

I need to leave.

I have unlocked it.

I had locked it because another user's merge request caused me to perceive it as a duplicate topic. I thought the sentiment in the previous topic was that moderators shall handle derailments through locking, not splitting. I assumed that the same applied the other way for a duplicate topic as well, preferring a lock to a merge. I further assumed that feos's report of a duplicate topic being the final post in the topic sufficed as explanation. Whether this assumption was mistaken may be discussed.

In the future, should notice of the reason for a lock be given publicly, privately, or both?

In the future, what method should be used to seek consensus for how to handle a particular allegedly duplicate topic?

Or have I already made so many bad calls that my moderation has become toxic?

I only suggested that I think a lock is much better at preserving context than a split. I never suggested that they're appropriate for a merge. A lock is for putting out a fire.


In this case I was asking a question ("are there any PAL image tools?"). Feos' thread is not the definitive answer to my question, it is merely "i'm working on one". I don't see these as equivalent. It's relevant and helpful, but not equivalent.

I was angry because you decided to lock it minutes later, before I could even respond to feos's post in the thread. You didn't even try to find consensus, if that's what you were hoping for, but even more than this, you didn't even think that I might not consider feos's thread an adequate response to my question. What made me more angry is that you're doing this directly after that recent discussion, which basically feels like you're intentionally trying to get under my skin. That's really the way this feels to me. In good faith I have to tell myself this feeling is wrong, but this is really how it feels, and I'm trying to calm down. (Sorry.)


Even if feos' thread was the answer to my question, it is 7 months cold, and it's also 4 pages of a long and confusing discussion. Even if my question was redundant, a fresh and succinct summary answer in a new thread could have been a lot better than "NO, THIS IS ALREADY ANSWERED, FOREVER, YOU MUST READ THE 4 PAGE THREAD". And you didn't even SAY THIS, you just locked the thread silently, like it should be self evident. This reads as extremely arrogant.

This isn't fucking Stack Overflow. I need to say this again.


Suggesting a merge is fine to do. foes linked his thread, and suggested the discussion be continued there. That's actually totally fine. I completely disagree about the redundancy, but that act is still treating me with respect. By locking the thread, especially without even giving me an opportunity to answer, you're treating my like a baby who doesn't know what's good for himself.

This is what I'm saying about being sparing about using mod privelages. Every moderator act is an act of force. Don't take these actions lightly. And also you should pretty much NEVER do it silently; it always needs an explanation.

Even when someone suggests a merge, YOU DON'T HAVE TO LOCK THE THREAD. Locking is for when it gets out of control. Locking for a merge is for when someone sensibly asks "hey could you contribute to the discussion over here" and they refuse and make a mess. (Kinda like my thread would be right now if I'd responded there instead of here.)


Anyhow, all that said, I think feos had a bit of a point, though he didn't make it explicitly, in that my new thread's subject line was confusingly similar to his thread's. So, I have voluntarily changed it.

Please notice that you didn't need to change it for me. You didn't need to treat me like an invalid for this to happen.


.

Please don't do something dramatic like ban yourself. Maybe you're just "over moderating" a bit? This is normally a quiet place, we don't usually need mods controlling every little thing all the time.

Locking threads is one of those things that can be considered very rude. A very recent thread with a single reply that the OP didn't even have time to respond to and POW! Lock! Contrasting that we've had horrible threads full of questionable content going on for several days before being locked.

If everyone agrees that a particular thread is a duplicate, they'll go to the linked thread and the new thread will die naturally, eliminating the need for and actual lock. I'm of the opinion that locking should be reserved for extreme cases, when things get out of hand.

+1.

I know some other forums have much more strict policies for locking, but I'm not really a big fan of that, and this forum seems to be functioning fine without them.