Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Much as I hate to admit it, Wilbur is right about this.
USMB Rules and Guidelines
USMB Site Guidelines and Regulations List of Current Active Moderators: AyeCantSeeYou Dont Taz Me Bro Coyote katsteve2012 White 6 Registration Guidelines: Individuals are allowed only one (1) account. Anyone found to be in violation risk having all accounts banned. Site Wide Rules And...www.usmessageboard.com
"When starting a new Thread, please first check and confirm that there are not Current Threads, on the Same Topic, This will Avoid Merges. "
If you had followed the rules, there would have been no reason to close your thread.
I generally merge 4-5 threads before I start locking them. (I can't speak for the other mods).
How many threads should we merge, before we start closing them?
I think merging 4-5 threads is sensible and no more IF you were merging 6-10 or 6-15 etc then what we would have would be a MASSIVE thread that would be a nightmare to navigate.
So basically, you want mods to spend a whole lot of extra time do a lot of busy work, when you don't want to take the time to do the searching yourself?After the discussions in the past weeks, I understood that duplicate threads would be merged. Lately, several threads were locked versus merged - even when the duplicate threads had no recent posts. Mods are locking the active threads so no one can respond to those posts.
Is the intent to stop discussion on a topic they don't like? If not, why lock the active one instead of the dead one? If a topic has been discussed once, can it never be discussed again?
. . . interesting.
I am sure it is way more easy to lock a thread than it is to merge shit, that sounds like a pain in the ass if you would only look to see if there is already a thread on it. . .
So basically, you want mods to spend a whole lot of extra time do a lot of busy work, when you don't want to take the time to do the searching yourself?After the discussions in the past weeks, I understood that duplicate threads would be merged. Lately, several threads were locked versus merged - even when the duplicate threads had no recent posts. Mods are locking the active threads so no one can respond to those posts.
Is the intent to stop discussion on a topic they don't like? If not, why lock the active one instead of the dead one? If a topic has been discussed once, can it never be discussed again?
. . . interesting.
I am sure it is way more easy to lock a thread than it is to merge shit, that sounds like a pain in the ass if you would only look to see if there is already a thread on it. . .
No; I actually don't want them to do a darn thing about duplicate threads. The highest quality thread will win out. It's like thread capitalism. Threads don't cost anything; they take a single row of data - considering that if all the posts were in one thread or in 100 threads, the post count is the same - besides, post count is how forums get viewers which exposes more advertising.
No YOU just close the ones that are actually active.Good question. I've seen some threads locked recently that could've easily been merged. Strange sh*t indeed.After the discussions in the past weeks, I understood that duplicate threads would be merged. Lately, several threads were locked versus merged - even when the duplicate threads had no recent posts. Mods are locking the active threads so no one can respond to those posts.
Is the intent to stop discussion on a topic they don't like? If not, why lock the active one instead of the dead one? If a topic has been discussed once, can it never be discussed again?
Nothing strange about it....just typical behavior of someone who does not like a thread and decides to get rid of it.
Comes under the rule of 'discretion' ....translation....mods allowed to do whatever they want. As in no one is moderating the mods.
Nothing strange about it....just typical behavior of someone who does not like a thread and decides to get rid of it.
You might have a point, if we closed ALL threads on the topic.
We don't
No YOU just close the ones that are actually active.
IF I close one that is active, it's because there are other threads on the topic, very likely already merged, and the OP failed to do a search before starting their thread.
How hard is it to copy and past "quote function" over discussions from the active thread that is being discussed that gets locked, over to the thread that is not locked?
Why do you folks want to make our mods do all the work for you?
If you weren't lazy in the first place, I honestly don't see where this would be an issue?
So basically, you want mods to spend a whole lot of extra time do a lot of busy work, when you don't want to take the time to do the searching yourself?After the discussions in the past weeks, I understood that duplicate threads would be merged. Lately, several threads were locked versus merged - even when the duplicate threads had no recent posts. Mods are locking the active threads so no one can respond to those posts.
Is the intent to stop discussion on a topic they don't like? If not, why lock the active one instead of the dead one? If a topic has been discussed once, can it never be discussed again?
. . . interesting.
I am sure it is way more easy to lock a thread than it is to merge shit, that sounds like a pain in the ass if you would only look to see if there is already a thread on it. . .
Well when a thread about Biden saying something stupid on the campaign trail is entitled "Look at this crazy shit" or something like that, how the hell are we supposed to find that shit? Mods let threads have stupid titles that have ZERO resemblance to the OP of the thread and then get mad at posters when they start a thread with the same subject matter.
I'd say make a rule that the title of the thread MUST be the title of the article linked in the OP like another political forum I'm a member of does. Makes for a very clear forum with almost zero duplicate threads.
After the discussions in the past weeks, I understood that duplicate threads would be merged. Lately, several threads were locked versus merged - even when the duplicate threads had no recent posts. Mods are locking the active threads so no one can respond to those posts.
Is the intent to stop discussion on a topic they don't like? If not, why lock the active one instead of the dead one? If a topic has been discussed once, can it never be discussed again?
Well some OPs are nearly identical and that is why I think they get locked instead of merged into an existing thread.
How hard is it to copy and past "quote function" over discussions from the active thread that is being discussed that gets locked, over to the thread that is not locked?
Why do you folks want to make our mods do all the work for you?
If you weren't lazy in the first place, I honestly don't see where this would be an issue?
We are told something like "Theres already a thread on this topic"Good question. I've seen some threads locked recently that could've easily been merged. Strange sh*t indeed.After the discussions in the past weeks, I understood that duplicate threads would be merged. Lately, several threads were locked versus merged - even when the duplicate threads had no recent posts. Mods are locking the active threads so no one can respond to those posts.
Is the intent to stop discussion on a topic they don't like? If not, why lock the active one instead of the dead one? If a topic has been discussed once, can it never be discussed again?
Nothing strange about it....just typical behavior of someone who does not like a thread and decides to get rid of it.
Comes under the rule of 'discretion' ....translation....mods allowed to do whatever they want. As in no one is moderating the mods.
Nothing strange about it....just typical behavior of someone who does not like a thread and decides to get rid of it.
You might have a point, if we closed ALL threads on the topic.
We don't
After the discussions in the past weeks, I understood that duplicate threads would be merged. Lately, several threads were locked versus merged - even when the duplicate threads had no recent posts. Mods are locking the active threads so no one can respond to those posts.
Is the intent to stop discussion on a topic they don't like? If not, why lock the active one instead of the dead one? If a topic has been discussed once, can it never be discussed again?
Well some OPs are nearly identical and that is why I think they get locked instead of merged into an existing thread.
After the discussions in the past weeks, I understood that duplicate threads would be merged. Lately, several threads were locked versus merged - even when the duplicate threads had no recent posts. Mods are locking the active threads so no one can respond to those posts.
Is the intent to stop discussion on a topic they don't like? If not, why lock the active one instead of the dead one? If a topic has been discussed once, can it never be discussed again?
Well some OPs are nearly identical and that is why I think they get locked instead of merged into an existing thread.
I've seen duplicate threads, with one locked, where there was just a single minute of time difference between the two threads - where there were several posts in both. Clearly when OP2 started writing his thread, OP1 hadn't posted yet; OP1 got the the Post first but it doesn't mean OP2 was negligent.
How hard is it to copy and past "quote function" over discussions from the active thread that is being discussed that gets locked, over to the thread that is not locked?
Why do you folks want to make our mods do all the work for you?
If you weren't lazy in the first place, I honestly don't see where this would be an issue?
Just curious; do they have a form you filled out to request to be a mod and you're waiting for an answer? Or are you just auditioning?
I find myself not responding to a lot of threads, especially if there are multiple, because my work will likely be wasted and I have no way of knowing which thread will get locked and which will be allowed to continue.
Your work would wasted if you had to rummage thru "100 threads as you suggest" to MAKE a specific point on USMB.. Tell me it wouldn't happen.. Because WE SEE FOLKS doing that with even 2 or 4 threads on the same topic/issue running from thread to thread arguing the SAME ARGUMENTS.
Hysterical to watch, but it's no way to have topical discussions..
. . . but don't you know? Everything Levant has to say must be archived and stored on open threads, because what HE has to opine on any topic is so very, oh very important...... with the SAME folks they just argued with in the OTHER 2 threads..
How hard is it to copy and past "quote function" over discussions from the active thread that is being discussed that gets locked, over to the thread that is not locked?
Why do you folks want to make our mods do all the work for you?
If you weren't lazy in the first place, I honestly don't see where this would be an issue?
Just curious; do they have a form you filled out to request to be a mod and you're waiting for an answer? Or are you just auditioning?
lol.Another good thread, one about communism, was closed because the OP posted too much about communism for the mods. That's pretty much it for me. I've only been a member a few months but the site has gone from fantastic to crazy-over-moderation in that time.
