|
Posted Oct 8, '10 at 4:11pm
samy
4,257 posts
|
I'm curious if we'll be able to have more control over the threads that we create in 3.0 or if it will remain largely unchanged.
Or if you aren't sure yet.
|
|
|
Posted Oct 8, '10 at 4:15pm
cormyn
2,865 posts
|
In what sense? We've already have several suggestions (check the master suggestion list thread)
|
| |
|
Posted Oct 8, '10 at 4:45pm
samy
4,257 posts
|
Sorry my OP wasn't very descriptive.
Basically the ability to lock your own threads if they go away from what you wanted the thread to be (especially in the WEPR forum). Or having the ability to edit your original post to include new information.
|
| |
|
Posted Oct 8, '10 at 5:51pm
Asherlee
5,098 posts
Moderator
|
Well, editing posts has been pretty well covered. On locking your own threads...I could see where this would pose a problem. Here is an example:
John Doe creates a topic in WEPR about Christianity. John gets upset with the posts in his topic. So, John closes it. Then I come back behind John and re-open the topic. Then John comes back and closes it again.
"Regular" members would not abuse this power, but some others would.
At least, that is the problem I see with it.
Instead, you can just get a mod to lock a topic.
|
| |
|
Posted Oct 8, '10 at 7:53pm
ulimitedpower
1,603 posts
|
Then I come back behind John and re-open the topic.
Why would you close it? Because you see no fit reason why he should have done it? I just want to see your perspective...
"Regular" members would not abuse this power, but some others would.
Mmh, maybe trying to exclude users by opening and locking the thread at certain times.
|
| |
|
Posted Oct 8, '10 at 7:57pm
Kyouzou
3,995 posts
|
Or they would lock the thread when they leave so no discussion happens without them. I think that overall this would be a terrible idea. Mostly just for the reason that you know that there are people who will abuse it.
|
| |
|
Posted Oct 8, '10 at 7:58pm
Cenere
12,940 posts
|
Why would you close it? Because you see no fit reason why he should have done it? I just want to see your perspective...
It could be a legitimate discussion with good arguments and generally have a good feel about it.
But John got butthurt because people are disagreeing with him, so he locks it to get the last word on the matter, thus stopping the discussion.
A legitimate thread that is on topic and doesn't break any rules should be left open.
(I actually have the same annoyance about a possible block feature, but that is for another thread)
|
| |
|
Posted Oct 8, '10 at 8:09pm
cormyn
2,865 posts
|
I doubt we'd allow users to lock their own threads.
|
| |
|
Posted Oct 8, '10 at 8:10pm
samy
4,257 posts
|
So, no on locking your own threads.
Still what about being able to add to your OP? You wouldn't be able to delete anything you've previously said, to prevent people from completely changing their ideas, but you would be able to present more information.
|
| |
|
Posted Oct 8, '10 at 8:17pm
DaRkNe5s
312 posts
|
Also a delimited number of threads by day, because many users do a lot of them
|
| |
|
Posted Oct 8, '10 at 8:18pm
cormyn
2,865 posts
|
I kinda like the idea of changing your posts over time no matter what, and just added an "edited by Cormyn on 2010-10-08 17:19:22", maybe give them a chance to describe in one sentence what they changed, so it might look like:
This is my new post text, hope you like it
edited by Cormyn on 2010-10-08 17:19:22
reason: needed to updated some incorrect information
|
| |
