/sugg/ - Suggestions / Meta

You sound upset. <3

>>1147
Nice justification to locking the thread

>>1149
The justification to locking the thread is because it would have became a clone quick enough. Look at the content, not just the first post.

>>1153
Then you should've wrote that.

>>1154
It wasn't me who locked the thread, lol.

>>1153

Locking a thread because the community would have derailed it is not a justification at all. Would you lock all threads down if everyone steered them off-topic?

The thread wasn't a duplicate of any others nor was it against the rules in any way. Whoever closed it made a bad call. And you could use making a few good calls every once in a while

>>1157
Okay, let me explain this to you one more time.

There is already one thread on first page of the board, with 200+ replies, in which people post pictures they have never used, but had saved. It's a simple logical assumption that a thread about "pictures you don't know why you saved" would generate the exact same content. And it wouldn't be derailing, it would be posting exactly what the OP asked for - while there's a thread exactly like that a couple posts below.

Example: desktop threads and "stop whatever you're doing and take a screenshot" threads on 4chan's /g/. Even though the OP is different, the stuff that gets posted is pretty much the same.

>>1158

"pictures you want to use badly but never get the opportunity"

That is a thread meant for pictures people saved with the clear and marked intent to use later on, but never got the chance to do so. Not the same as saving a random picture for god knows what reason and then stumbling upon it and wondering why the hell that was on their computer

It's not only not the same; these definitions will make it so a picture that fits one definition can in no way fit the other. So any similarity in content would be the result of derailing. If you still think the subjects were similar then that's even worse

But even if it was a logical deduction, it would have meant nothing due to lack of proof. Simply because the thread was locked before anything was actually posted there

Most of all, even if any of that was true, it would have set a very dangerous precedent. People would not only have to watch out for duplicate threads, but also any other thread that may or may not generate content similar to their non-duplicate thread

So personally, no, I'm not ok with this. I can only hope I'm not alone

>>1156
Then assuming nothing was deleted, the previous mod just closed it without posting any reason. Which is retarded. This is why I said in the past that this site has too many mods and isn't managed well.

>>1159
You're not alone, I was annoyed and I didn't even make the thread. granted, it wasn't a very good thread idea because it wouldve generated (similar) content.

>>1160

Good to know. I'm not the thread's OP either

All I know is that we don't just have one mod acting on his/her own accord, we have two or three of them who agreed that it would be a thread producing the same general content.

>>1162

Somehow, knowing that a dumb decision was agreed upon by a number of people doesn't make me feel any better

I actually agree with OP here; the topics are not similar, and I'm not sure how that conclusion was reached by multiple mods. I'm also not sure how I feel about heavy moderation on /ot/ in the first place — note to self, board may need special exceptions.

Since there seems to also be some misinterpretation of the moderator guidelines at play, I'd like to take this opportunity to point out that I do not condone "time machine moderation". A thread can be locked when it goes to shit, not in anticipation of the possibility of it going to shit.

Unless any of the other staff can post a reasonable counter argument, I will unlock the thread in question tomorrow. Thank you for bringing this matter to /sugg/.