Out of the harshest flames sometimes comes the greatest insight

I know LL has an obligation, self-inflicted or not, to stand sentry over threads making sure that we do not break the "rules", but really some of the most flame riddled threads have in the end validated themselves. These threads force us to question our beliefs, convictions and preconceived notions. Though the content may seem brutal the outcome is usually beneficial to all concerned.

So why lock down threads? The majority will show hands as to whether or not a thread is serving the community. Let's get some freedom of speech going on in here. We need adversarial threads in order to grow as an online civilization. We are only harsh with one another because to all concerned the topics are real and pertinent to this world in its infancy. Without antagonists how do we grow? How do we test our convictions and boundaries?

I suppose we do so in an alternative forum.

I would guess that since in the past some of these threads have spiraled into RL threats, folks impersonating lawyers, threats of litigation against LL or other SLers, etc. that they would like to quash them before they get to that point. Their lawyers may well advise them to do so to avoid possible legal culpability. In this age of sue happy people I wouldn't be surprised if this were the case.

Then, there is the issue of certain forum personalities who, when they feel slighted in the least, start ringing LL's phone off the hook.

I am not saying I agree with the policy of locking threads, just tossing out some ideas as to why this occurs.

I agree that we should be able to say what we want. However, this is LL's forums and they can do as they please. I just hope they show a little more consistency in which forums they lock down.

That's IT Nolan! You will be hearing from my layer! Then I will show up at your front door and beat you severely in the fist with my face!

Devlin, I just called my attorney to consult with your attorney regarding this situation. Although I must warn you Nolan and many others have already beaten their own fists regularly against walls while reading these forums. So be prepared for a callous adversary.

point taken though Nolan and understood. Despite posters who litigate, which I hope are the minority, I am firm in my belief that censorship does nothing to aid the growth of the community.

Agreed, but you know the old addage about the squeaky wheel...

They usually get the grease- at everyone else's expense...

Nuh Uh! I have an anti-lawyer/anti-cherub security system from Spinks.. err Brinks. Spinks is that guy with no teeth. Wonder if he pissed offf a psychotic SLer?

Threads that stay somewhat on topic without personally attacking individuals dont get locked. It gets ugly watching the personal attacks and gets to a point where it is no longer constructive views being discussed. Threads that stay on topic fade away on their own once everyone has had their say. Simple arguements and personal attacks need to be closed. I see it as a public service, not a threat to freedom of speech.

> Threads that stay somewhat on topic without personally attacking individuals dont get locked. It gets ugly watching the personal attacks and gets to a point where it is no longer constructive views being discussed. Threads that stay on topic fade away on their own once everyone has had their say. Simple arguements and personal attacks need to be closed. I see it as a public service, not a threat to freedom of speech.

How about threads that were actually created specifically to attack an individual, disguised as advice to others or such-and-such? Isnt it a little ironic that as the thread begins to get closer to the nub of the matter that it becomes locked? And what about the Right to Reply for the individual concerned?

Azelda

Please elaborate. How does the public benefit from stopping an argument before it has come to a resolution?

Personal arguements need to be settled among those involved, in world, via email, whatever, not in full view of everyone. Petty he said, she said, benefit no one. If it an issue is important to the community, then it will run its course. But if it is just two or three hard headed individuals just fighting with each other over who did what when, who cares. They need to be locked to save themselves. Sure, you could let those run their course too, but the people involved just get smaller and smaller and no resolution comes from it. Most of the threads that dwindle into being locked are just smear campaigns, the ones arguing dont really want a resolution.

With regards to the world as a whole, I agree that most entangled in the web of argument do not want resolution. But, and maybe this is just me, those in SL seem to be of a different bent. I am not talking about the so and so stole my woobie threads, but the universally beneficial threads where most parties are objective in thought though they may have opinions slanted one direction or another. The smears are normally the minority, sprinkled in like a bit of lye in the big basin of banter. Leveler heads eventually predominate or the thread dies on its own out of boredom with irrelevant protestation.

I personally believe threads should only be locked when they are attacks from outside sources. Like spamming the boards with yucky links or profanity.

Other than that I always preferred for people to just get as nasty as they wanted to.

Go ahead tell em what an asshat donkey sucker you think they are. Just remember that it wont disappear and will still be hanging there a week from now. MUAHAHAHAHAHHA

Same with locked threads.