thread locking

[Octopus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is a vast difference between a post with a specific question about stats vs. a "20k, how am I doing?". The latter is lock-worthy imo.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think if you would take time to review the OP's original (locked) post - you'd see that there was more content in that post above and beyond just some stats analysis.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. I fear that post was locked due to a poor choice of subject line. If he had not asked about his stats, the post would have been quite reasonable. (Not that this hasn't been discussed before, but that is true of most everything here.)

[crunchy1]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is a vast difference between a post with a specific question about stats vs. a "20k, how am I doing?". The latter is lock-worthy imo.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think if you would take time to review the OP's original (locked) post - you'd see that there was more content in that post above and beyond just some stats analysis.

[/ QUOTE ]
My response is not in regard to the OP's stat post, but in general.
I've not yet seen his post.

[/ QUOTE ]
I didn't mean for that response to be attacking you (or any of the mods) personally. I meant it more as an open-letter to all the mods that subject lines shouldn't be the deciding factor in locking a thread.

It seems like this is what happened in this case.

[QTip]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is a vast difference between a post with a specific question about stats vs. a "20k, how am I doing?". The latter is lock-worthy imo.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think if you would take time to review the OP's original (locked) post - you'd see that there was more content in that post above and beyond just some stats analysis.

[/ QUOTE ]
My response is not in regard to the OP's stat post, but in general.
I've not yet seen his post.

[/ QUOTE ]
I didn't mean for that response to be attacking you (or any of the mods) personally. I meant it more as an open-letter to all the mods that subject lines shouldn't be the deciding factor in locking a thread.

It seems like this is what happened in this case.

[/ QUOTE ]

Certainly possible.

My purpose in posting in this thread was to see if anyone felt there was any redeeming value in the standared "20k stats" post.

[crunchy1]

[ QUOTE ]
My purpose in posting in this thread was to see if anyone felt there was any redeeming value in the standared "20k stats" post.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't. I hate stats posts. I think players try to hard to mold their games to certain statistical parameters instead of learning how to "play poker".

That being said - these threads - the entire post/thread, not just the subject line - should still be carefully evaluated on a case by case basis. Furthermore - any thread that gets locked should have a final post in the thread from the locking moderator so that the public can see the reasoning behind the lock.

Locking threads may have some affect on cutting down the signal-to-noise ratio of bad posts. Explaining WHY the thread will locked will have a MAJOR effect.

[QTip]

crunchy:

Agreed on all accounts.

[W. Deranged]

Hi all,

I think the major point is this:

As moderators, our job is going to make sure that we:

1. Maintain the highest level of interesting, enlightening, and energetic strategy discussion we can. This, generally speaking, involves keeping the largest number of interesting "hands post" and interesting, specific strategy questions on the first page of the board.

2. Help to answer more straightforward questions (which are certainly welcome here) to be answered efficiently. This means, for example, directing players with statistical questions to the CMI stats post, which, in my opinion, is still far and away the best answer that can be given to 95% of posts concerning playing statistics.

3. To make sure that discussion remains on topic and does not become personal or devolve into flame wars. One of the major problems with certain types of posts (not necessarily stats posts, but posts of the "I just can't seem to beat this game" or "they keep calling with anything how high do I have to play to get them to respect my raises") is that they tend to only encourage negative discussion. Playful insults are fine, though I really don't like seeing flame wars and I really don't like the ideas of new members of the forum with naive questions always getting discouraged because they get negative responses here.

4. To make sure the content on the board is inoffensive and appropriate, both from a general social point of view (no racist or otherwise ignorant comments) and a 2+2 point of view (no discussion of affiliates where inappropriate, no discussion of things of vague legality like poker bots, etc...)



So, with that in mind, the threads that are subject to locking by myself or any of the other SS mods are threads that are particularly threatening to any of those four goals, viz:

1. Threads that are extremely unlikely to generate ANY interesting discussion, can be best answered by a single link, and should not take up spots from more valid threads.

2. Threads that are particularly likely to only generate negative responses, and particularly any thread that already has become a flame war. (I'm not opposed to the idea of locking good strategy threads that have become flame wars and reopening them as new threads particularly for strategy discussion.)

3. Any thread where the OP contains offensive or inappropriate material.

-Will