#Link to Cricket Chat forum#

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

The peasant has a point.

 

[NZTailender]

The peasant has a point.

 

[benchmark00]

Hmmm, both parties raise interesting issues.

 

[Hoggy31]

 

[steds]

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

 

[andyc]

Lads.

Had a bit to drinky tonight.

 

[Nate]

Re: Why?

I`ve got an idea. If something controversial comes up that could possibly prove us wrong, we`ll just lock the thread, making further progression through discussion impossible.

Nady, your strongest lemonade thanks mate. This could take a while.

 

[Nate]

Why II = The funniest one-page thread ever.

 

[benchmark00]

Re: Why?

I`ve got an idea. If something controversial comes up that could possibly prove us wrong, we`ll just lock the thread, making further progression through discussion impossible.

Nady, your strongest lemonade thanks mate. This could take a while.

Hahaha you don't know how right you are.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

**** this, let me reply without closing the thread.

I'm going to do it here, hope James see's it.

The reason is given here:
http://forum.cricketweb.net/showpost...6&postcount=51

This is the end of it as far as I'm concerned.

That's the start of a reason as far as I'm concerned, as you make a statement with no backup. Where does it actually insult anyone seriously? Sarcasm is used in bounds here by so many users that it's hard to tell what is and what isn't, but as soon as Darren uses it you deem it as offensive? That's a crock.

Anyway, it was an enjoyable thread, and I'm sure Darren would've happily edited out the lines deemed by your esteemed self (see, sarcasm, don't close TF plz) to be offensive so the thread could continue on. The majority of your members would've appreciated that, at least.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

It's really disappointing that James is refusing to allow people to discuss the thread closure without closing the threads. A quick glance over the Why thread shows that the majority of OT readers disagreed with the thread closure, just like everyone enjoyed the original thread. There's no doubt at all that if it was someone else who made the thread, it wouldn't have been closed due to one reported post.

 

[Burpey]

TF Boycott is on in my books.


Who's marching with me?

 

[James]

If you want to discuss it with me in a reasonable fashion, do so via email or MSN/GT.

 

[NZTailender]

It's really disappointing that James is refusing to allow people to discuss the thread closure without closing the threads. A quick glance over the Why thread shows that the majority of OT readers disagreed with the thread closure, just like everyone enjoyed the original thread. There's no doubt at all that if it was someone else who made the thread, it wouldn't have been closed due to one reported post.

While I agree with whats been said here, unfortunately posts discussing locked threads often spiral into immaturity and distracts from the real issue. I've seen it happen on CW and plenty of other forums and nearly all of them get locked...

IMHO, we should form a Member/Posters Union. Non-staff posters who discuss (and I stress, intelligently) thread closures, bannings and such like on the forum. I think it should also be limited to, say, 6-12 members.
This Union then takes any issues up with the moderating staff to try and resolve any problems or get the to bottom of something unexplained.

 

[Jamee999]

I whole-heartedly endorse that idea.

 

[Pratters]

Fraz is kool.

 

[superkingdave]

let's all calm down and make rockets

 

[Burpey]

Oops.

 

[ash chaulk]

Oh no the blast has discovered Bebop