Hay, got an extra 30 seconds?

Sage

9,507 posts

Could thread locks end with the admin who locked it stating why?

Edited, Mar 21st 2011 2:14pm by Darqflame Lock Thread: Because Lubriderm is silly...

#2 Mar 18 2011 at 11:42 AM Rating: Excellent

__DEL__1673828374677

Guru

373 posts

This is a reasonable request. Can you point me to the thread where this didn't happen?

UPDATE: Ah, you're talking about the earlier post in this forum. I'll find out what happened there.

Edited, Mar 18th 2011 12:44pm by Micajah

#3 Mar 18 2011 at 4:44 PM Rating: Good

Mazra

Ghost in the Machine

36,443 posts

Wild guess would be that it got derailed into a potential flame fest.

____________________________

Please "talk up" if your comprehension white-shifts. I will use simple-happy language-words to help you understand.

#4 Mar 18 2011 at 7:20 PM Rating: Excellent

Kaolian

Leet Haxör

29,919 posts

No flaming in the Feedback forum, at all. The initial thread topic was answered, people were starting to flame, we lock the thread. Because it was done.

____________________________

Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules

#5 Mar 18 2011 at 7:55 PM Rating: Decent

__DEL__1599438059439

Scholar

5,159 posts

I think Lubriderm means as a matter of policy, admins ought to say why they're locking a thread. I know some admins edit the OP to state why, but it's not terribly consistent. It's really annoying to see a thread has been locked with no idea why, particularly if it's only by request of the OP, which is less obvious than other reasons.

#6 Mar 19 2011 at 3:08 AM Rating: Good

__DEL__1636935913888

Sage

27,272 posts

Majivo wrote:

I think Lubriderm means as a matter of policy, admins ought to say why they're locking a thread. I know some admins edit the OP to state why, but it's not terribly consistent. It's really annoying to see a thread has been locked with no idea why, particularly if it's only by request of the OP, which is less obvious than other reasons.

I second (Or third or whatever) this.

#7 Mar 19 2011 at 6:52 AM Rating: Good

Sage

9,507 posts

Majivo wrote:

I think Lubriderm means as a matter of policy, admins ought to say why they're locking a thread. I know some admins edit the OP to state why, but it's not terribly consistent. It's really annoying to see a thread has been locked with no idea why, particularly if it's only by request of the OP, which is less obvious than other reasons.

Spot on with what I was thinking. Sometimes I'm left wondering why? A lot of us don't know all the inner rules where 'this' isn't allowed in 'that' forum and what not.

#8 Mar 19 2011 at 8:04 AM Rating: Good

Sage

9,507 posts

Micajah wrote:

This is a reasonable request. Can you point me to the thread where this didn't happen?

UPDATE: Ah, you're talking about the earlier post in this forum. I'll find out what happened there.

Edited, Mar 18th 2011 12:44pm by Micajah

Dread LÃ¶rd Kaolian wrote:

No flaming in the Feedback forum, at all. The initial thread topic was answered, people were starting to flame, we lock the thread. Because it was done.

http://war.allakhazam.com/forum.html?forum=3&mid=1300200438142928582&page=1

No flaming, it did get silly, but no flaming.

#9 Mar 19 2011 at 12:20 PM Rating: Good

Mazra

Ghost in the Machine

36,443 posts

I think the issue was with lolgaxe's post:

lolgaxe wrote:

A few years back, they invented this thing called skin. Try looking into it.

That's how a flame fest starts. Unless you're replying to someone in on the jargon - in a forum where that jargon is commonplace. Otherwise someone will take it the wrong way and you've got the aforementioned flame fest.

Edited, Mar 19th 2011 8:23pm by Mazra

____________________________

Please "talk up" if your comprehension white-shifts. I will use simple-happy language-words to help you understand.

#10 Mar 19 2011 at 1:05 PM Rating: Good

__DEL__1636935913888

Sage

27,272 posts

In before lock. Smiley: grin

#11 Mar 19 2011 at 1:14 PM Rating: Decent

__DEL__1599438059439

Scholar

5,159 posts

On a related note, could it become a matter of ZAM policy to actually reply to threads in the feedback forum? Sometimes it feels like we're just talking to ourselves over here. For example, some of these EQ threads have gone without admin attention for months, despite numerous bumps. Would it really be that hard to say "we're aware of this" or "this is a low priority for now" or something along those lines? Just let us know that some of the people on the coding side actually read this stuff.

#12 Mar 19 2011 at 1:37 PM Rating: Excellent

Kaolian

Leet Haxör

29,919 posts

We try to reply to most of them. Some of them are dev issues and need to be replied to by a dev as per current policy. Devs are also fairly busy.

____________________________

Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules

#13 Mar 19 2011 at 1:40 PM Rating: Good

Sage

9,507 posts

Just a quick blurb on why, would be cool.

#14 Mar 20 2011 at 3:14 AM Rating: Good

__DEL__1636935913888

Sage

27,272 posts

An admin saying "We've read the topic, we'll get a Dev to look at it when time permits." would be enough I think.
It's just a confirmation that the topic isn't just being ignored, even if most people can guess that the devs are too busy to do something about it right then and there it's still nice to know that it's at least on someone's to-do list somewhere.

Edited, Mar 20th 2011 11:17am by Aethien

#15 Mar 20 2011 at 10:05 PM Rating: Good

idiggory

Muggle@#%^er

20,024 posts

With the exception of the brutally obvious ones of course. Unless you'd like to edit it to just say "Guess."

____________________________

IDrownFish wrote:

Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:

Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.