The role of the OP in a thread lock.

[skitee 555]

This is sort of a complaint, sort of not. I posted it here anyway, to get more views.

 

In my topic ("Weapons") in FAQ, it has been locked, after some useless spamming underneath. It was locked after jhjkhljlkhjklhjl (name spelled wrong, but you know who i mean) asked for a lock. Then a mod locked it. I don't really want this to happen, and I have a few issues with this:

 

1. The mod didn't say that they locked it, it was just locked, so if I (the OP) want an un-lock, I don't know who to ask.

2. I didn't say anything about a lock

3. The people spamming could have all been warned and the thread could remain unlocked.

4. I clearly put a lot of work into the thread. Now it has been locked and anyone appreciating it cannot reply, thus depriving me of a lot of gratitude given by other people.

 

But all of this all boils down to one thing: the role of the OP in a thread lock. Now, if the OP, me in this case, was unimportant in a thread lock, then who cares? The mod had every reason to lock it. However, if the OP has a say in whether the thread should be locked, then the lock was unjustified. So should the OP have a say in whether a thread is locked? Can you please answer whether you think the lock was justified and whether the OP should say if the thread should be locked.

 

Of course, if the original question asked by the OP is answered, or the thread breaks the rules, then the thread should be locked. But in this case, I see no reason for this.

[r_Pin4er1630 25]

In the FAQ, there should be no topics created by users .But, unfortunately, administrators did not have time to do it. I leave only the useful topics. Your topic was closed because it has already exhausted itself. Also people started to flood up there. You posted pictures of weapons - the theme can be closed.

Next time you should write me by PM rather than creating a new topic. Public discussions of the moderator actions are prohibited.