[Discussion/Announcement] NSG's "Wing" Megathreads

[Souseiseki]

One post has been deemed to be bad faith, and has thusly been removed per [violet]'s directive.

it seemed like a pretty good post tbh and was pretty clearly in good faith. it had some harsh language, but harsh language does not equal bad faith. if i did not know any better i would suspect it was removed over a dislike of the tone and language rather than actually being a bad faith post. which, while perhaps understandable, means there is a question as to whether some of the posts being removed are being knowingly or unknowingly mislabeled as bad faith.

[Forsher]

[That's not how it works.

I'll tell you... it's that with the seven threads, you get a new thread when there's something new... you get opportunities to join in and learn what NSG is like instead of getting shut out by hundreds of pages of pre-existing discussion among cliquey and, clearly, defensive existing posters.

Those megathreads were chat threads that stopped other threads from being created. Want to talk about, say, legalising prostitution? Why bother making a thread about it? Just stick it in whichever megathread you and your buddies posted in and hoard the topic to the privileged few who use the thread.

You're bitter about something. What is it?

How is this not also Bad Faith posting Kat? There's no content except vaguely flamebaiting attempts to needle me... using posts they've mostly already quoted.

[Cekoviu]

One post has been deemed to be bad faith, and has thusly been removed per [violet]'s directive.

it seemed like a pretty good post tbh and was pretty clearly in good faith. it had some harsh language, but harsh language does not equal bad faith. if i did not know any better i would suspect it was removed over a dislike of the tone and language rather than actually being a bad faith post. which, while perhaps understandable, means there is a question as to whether some of the posts being removed are being knowingly or unknowingly mislabeled as bad faith.

We knew this was happening already. A number of my posts yesterday were removed as "bad-faith" despite being clearly good-faith in nature. The mods are simply tone-policing, they don't care about content.

[Katganistan]

One post has been deemed to be bad faith, and has thusly been removed per [violet]'s directive.

it seemed like a pretty good post tbh and was pretty clearly in good faith. it had some harsh language, but harsh language does not equal bad faith. if i did not know any better i would suspect it was removed over a dislike of the tone and language rather than actually being a bad faith post. which, while perhaps understandable, means there is a question as to whether some of the posts being removed are being knowingly or unknowingly mislabeled as bad faith.

It was initially removed because the poster pretty much came in saying, "Yes, I've left, and yes, I'm not coming back, so have some gratuitous criticism", but after discussion has been restored.

[Torrocca]

it seemed like a pretty good post tbh and was pretty clearly in good faith. it had some harsh language, but harsh language does not equal bad faith. if i did not know any better i would suspect it was removed over a dislike of the tone and language rather than actually being a bad faith post. which, while perhaps understandable, means there is a question as to whether some of the posts being removed are being knowingly or unknowingly mislabeled as bad faith.

It was initially removed because the poster pretty much came in saying, "Yes, I've left, and yes, I'm not coming back, so have some gratuitous criticism", but after discussion has been restored.

None of it was gratuitous but, like I said in my previous post, thanks for restoring it.

[Questarian New Yorkshire]

Can we get Cekovius original post restored too

[Sedgistan]

it seemed like a pretty good post tbh and was pretty clearly in good faith. it had some harsh language, but harsh language does not equal bad faith. if i did not know any better i would suspect it was removed over a dislike of the tone and language rather than actually being a bad faith post. which, while perhaps understandable, means there is a question as to whether some of the posts being removed are being knowingly or unknowingly mislabeled as bad faith.

We knew this was happening already. A number of my posts yesterday were removed as "bad-faith" despite being clearly good-faith in nature. The mods are simply tone-policing, they don't care about content.

Given your participation in the thread started with the words "Great work, morons!" directed at the Moderation team, I don't think you're fooling anyone with your claim to have been acting in "good faith".

[Questarian New Yorkshire]

You're bitter about something. What is it?

How is this not also Bad Faith posting Kat? There's no content except vaguely flamebaiting attempts to needle me... using posts they've mostly already quoted.

No I'm being 100% serious.

Your args and posts are laced with bitterness. I think it's really interesting. It doesn't appear in the official justifications and I'm curious why it appears in yours.

[Cekoviu]

We knew this was happening already. A number of my posts yesterday were removed as "bad-faith" despite being clearly good-faith in nature. The mods are simply tone-policing, they don't care about content.

Given your participation in the thread started with the words "Great work, morons!" directed at the Moderation team, I don't think you're fooling anyone with your claim to have been acting in "good faith".

I'll admit that my first post here was made rashly and was not in wholly good faith, but I proceeded to make actual reasoned arguments in later posts and those were also deleted.

[Sedgistan]

Your posts were not in good faith. I've read them; several other Moderators have too. Move on and either contribute to this discussion in good faith, or quit posting here.

[Luminesa]

We knew this was happening already. A number of my posts yesterday were removed as "bad-faith" despite being clearly good-faith in nature. The mods are simply tone-policing, they don't care about content.

Given your participation in the thread started with the words "Great work, morons!" directed at the Moderation team, I don't think you're fooling anyone with your claim to have been acting in "good faith".

Cekoviu was exasperated, no more or less than Torra, if Ceko actually broke any rules you should have red-texted. At the very least we’d know what the line was, since it took back-door discussion to get Torra’s post back, and she raised good points. Moderation might get rid of the posts, but they’re not gone forever, and people aren’t forgetting about them. “Bad faith” has never been defined well by moderation, though all of the players know when they’ve intended badly or not.

[Cekoviu]

Your posts were not in good faith. I've read them; several other Moderators have too. Move on and either contribute to this discussion in good faith, or quit posting here.

You realize the posts in question have been preserved and a number of posters here have seen them, yes? They can tell exactly how unfounded this accusation is -- the fact that the moderation team is blatantly and observably lying about this does not make you come out looking good.

[Forsher]

How is this not also Bad Faith posting Kat? There's no content except vaguely flamebaiting attempts to needle me... using posts they've mostly already quoted.

No I'm being 100% serious.

Your args and posts are laced with bitterness. I think it's really interesting. It doesn't appear in the official justifications and I'm curious why it appears in yours.

I am not the topic of this thread. No matter how much you want me to be.

I repeat... how is this line of questioning not bad faith posting?

[Questarian New Yorkshire]

Because I'm being serious and honest (perhaps too honest).

I think you support the announcement because you're personally bitter about megathreads. I'm really curious as to why.

There's a huge disparity between what the administration posts about the official reasons for closing the threads, and what the people who support the administration say about those threads. I want to know why.

Which is why I asked if I could have conversation with admins or at least see more closely their decision process, but of course I accept we are dictatorship and I have no right to this information.

[The New California Republic]

The RWDT was far more guilty of that though. And note that much of what is said in the OP did not apply to the LWDT. Cliques? Didn't apply to the LWDT. Encouraging non-reporting? Didn't apply to the LWDT. General patterns of rulebreaking that causes that problem in the first place? Didn't apply to the LWDT.

Make no mistake, the LWDT died in the crossfire here.

There was drama in LWDT, trust me. Nobody is saying that RWDT was a perfect place, Questers surmised this better than me. But LWDT wasn’t some happy utopia either.

And I'm not saying there wasn't shit happening in the various iterations of the LWDTs, but it was nowhere near the same levels. And it generally managed to stay on issues concerning the Left. I don't buy the reasoning that it had turned into a chat thread.

[Katganistan]

Given your participation in the thread started with the words "Great work, morons!" directed at the Moderation team, I don't think you're fooling anyone with your claim to have been acting in "good faith".

Cekoviu was exasperated, no more or less than Torra, if Ceko actually broke any rules you should have red-texted. At the very least we’d know what the line was, since it took back-door discussion to get Torra’s post back, and she raised good points. Moderation might get rid of the posts, but they’re not gone forever, and people aren’t forgetting about them. “Bad faith” has never been defined well by moderation, though all of the players know when they’ve intended badly or not.

Bad Faith: It is expected that players post with the intent of making the site a better, more enjoyable place to be - this is good faith posting. Bad faith posting is when a person is no longer interested in this goal, and instead seeks to score points, contributes nothing useful, or is deceitful.

This standard is enforced in the Moderation forum by default as well as Got Issues, and may be declared as applicable by the Moderation Team in other threads elsewhere when said threads involve policy discussions, mechanics discussions, discussions of potential additions/modifications to the game or forum, or other pertinent announcements. These threads, like Moderation "discussion threads," are meant to gauge the opinions of the community and otherwise help better player experience; posting in bad faith in such is detrimental to this process. Please note, in the instance a post is removed for being in bad faith, it is not deleted, but instead moved to the "Evidence Locker" where it may be reviewed if necessary.

[South Odreria 2]

RWDT was a chat thread a third of the time, but for the time it discussed right wing political thought and theory, it was actually civilized and polite conversation, without any of the snark and bad faith concern trolling and virtue signaling that’s in every other thread. RWDT also had quite a few leftists on it, so it wasn’t like an echo chamber or anything for the most part.

Again this isn't my experience reading through or participating in the thread.

There were just as many cheap shots and bait as the rest of NSG, if not more because people there knew that nobody in that thread would report you for it unless the regulars really didn't like you. So who would get caught?

The only people willing to report on the RWDT weren't people with very much attachment to it and weren't ardent participants. I also don't think that lurkers stalked the thread for the first slip-up, considering the lack of report threads (if only in recent weeks alone).

Not true

[Katganistan]

[That's not how it works.

I'll tell you... it's that with the seven threads, you get a new thread when there's something new... you get opportunities to join in and learn what NSG is like instead of getting shut out by hundreds of pages of pre-existing discussion among cliquey and, clearly, defensive existing posters.

Those megathreads were chat threads that stopped other threads from being created. Want to talk about, say, legalising prostitution? Why bother making a thread about it? Just stick it in whichever megathread you and your buddies posted in and hoard the topic to the privileged few who use the thread.

You're bitter about something. What is it?

*** Warned for Trolling *** Now knock off the fake concern trolling and get on with the topic of the thread.

[The Church of Satan]

A couple things worth keeping in mind:

1.) NS Moderation does not answer to any of us because while transparency is nice for a government, it is a terrible idea for a website's moderation team. It is their job to enforce the rules of this website, not to appease the the players that complain when they feel like a decision by the mods to end a thread riddled with toxicity is wrong because Player A liked the thread.

2.) It is very easy to criticize NS Moderation from your comfortable lack of responsibility on a website with several thousand users. So no, your criticism is nowhere near as valid as you think it is.

3.) With the previous two points in mind, if you don't like that then you are welcome to refrain from talking and go about your business or you are free to leave.

That being said, I have no opinion on the two megathreads in question. Can't say I've ever posted in NSG before (but I did catch wind of this anyways) but I know all too well the burden of moderating a place where tons of people are acting like children (or worse.) And another thing; to those who have the audacity to demand that the moderation team be replaced with new people, just stop right there. It's a horrible job and I can say from experience that anyone who wants it should not have it.

[Cekoviu]

Cekoviu was exasperated, no more or less than Torra, if Ceko actually broke any rules you should have red-texted. At the very least we’d know what the line was, since it took back-door discussion to get Torra’s post back, and she raised good points. Moderation might get rid of the posts, but they’re not gone forever, and people aren’t forgetting about them. “Bad faith” has never been defined well by moderation, though all of the players know when they’ve intended badly or not.

Bad Faith: It is expected that players post with the intent of making the site a better, more enjoyable place to be - this is good faith posting. Bad faith posting is when a person is no longer interested in this goal, and instead seeks to score points, contributes nothing useful, or is deceitful.

This standard is enforced in the Moderation forum by default as well as Got Issues, and may be declared as applicable by the Moderation Team in other threads elsewhere when said threads involve policy discussions, mechanics discussions, discussions of potential additions/modifications to the game or forum, or other pertinent announcements. These threads, like Moderation "discussion threads," are meant to gauge the opinions of the community and otherwise help better player experience; posting in bad faith in such is detrimental to this process. Please note, in the instance a post is removed for being in bad faith, it is not deleted, but instead moved to the "Evidence Locker" where it may be reviewed if necessary.

It is expected that players post with the intent of making the site a better, more enjoyable place to be - this is good faith posting.

In my third (fourth?) post, I outlined a specific set of suggestions as to how you could improve user-mod relations and avoid the situation that occurred in the RWDT, which would clearly improve the website. You removed the post. How does this square with this definition?

[Asherahan]

Why were the the Right and Left Megathreads closed they literally were the only places I visited on this site regularity for fun.

Now I am sad.

[Forsher]

I don't understand this.

Yes, that is correct. You have fundamentally failed to understand the point being raised.

RWDT did not prevent anyone else from making their own threads, it did not brigade other threads,

Do you know how exhausting it would be to create a thread every time you want to have a conversation? You have made literally 0 threads (maybe 1 if you're this poster too... excluding any you may have made on Jolt or outside of General). I have made dozens.

What the megathreads do is very, very simple. What used to happen is I would come to NSG and I'd find a bunch of different topics. I'd read the titles and see what I might be interested in. That's not everything. Let's grab some threads I did post in way back when...

• Australasia (Political Union, thereof... seemingly unprompted)
• Aboriginal protestors burn Australian flag (news thread)
• My problem with feminism. (what it says on the tine... seemingly unprompted)
• Animal rights groups do more harm than good. (let's talk about this think piece I read)
• Flag Burning (same inciting incident as the other thread, same day in fact... but about the concept, not the news)
• Will Europe Come Back from the Brink? (seemingly unprompted discussion of the Eurozone crisis)
• It's About Time Germany Pays for its Own Defense (Trump's first foray into politics... no, just kidding... it's a prompted discussion about the thread title)

You would have me make OPs for all these topics, potentially. They were all made over the same few days and, as you can see, drew from a variety of sources. Of the prompted ones, the only ones I think I would have found naturally are the two flag ones. It's so much easier and nicer to come to the forum, look at the first few pages and choose what seems interesting.

How many of those topics would've been buried in megathreads? With their potential contributors busy having random chats with each other and their potential creators perhaps deciding to bring their "hey I had an idea to talk about X" ideas to their mates in the discussion threads? I can't see those thread titles since they don't exist. I'd have to go dive into the megathreads and see what's going on in those threads. They move quickly and I'd need to follow potentially pages long quote chains to see how a conversation started. It's hard work and it's exhausting.

And some of these megathreads are mandated black holes. This is exactly what happens in the Feminist Megathread when (usually) Ostro or Gallo find something interesting. Into the megathread it has to go. Sometimes Gallo writes things along the lines of "I considered making this its own thread" because, honestly, it's the feminist megathread... who knows if it'd actually be forced in or not? Want some examples? Well, did you know the Amber Heard/Johnny Depp saga had a discussion on NSG? I doubt it. Even I have only come across it accidentally and the Feminist Megathread I check semi-regularly since, you know, I was a big part of the whole Feminist Thread Scene in 2012-13.

it did not crowd out discussions. This perception that it prevented other conversations from happening is just wrong. You could have had your debate or discussion separately in another thread and nobody was preventing you. There's another reason you wanted to tear the RWDT down, which you aren't saying, and I'm trying to figure out what it is, which is why I'm still reading.

So, no, this is just completely wrong. And it's a huge claim that proceeds from a fundamental misunderstanding of what you've been reading.

Look, you don't convince or persuade people on the internet. It's rare.

Not what I'm talking about and it's such a blindingly obvious point I have talked about it at length in the past... actually that might have been off site. Here I've repeatedly mentioned the idea. There is a hypothetical observer, the lurker. They're not party to the conversation. They don't give a shit about the fucked up stuff Poster A did in some other thread. They don't care about why someone's bitter. All that matters to the lurker is whether or not one side has the better story or, if they're in a different mood, who seems cool.

I have long since given up on anyone who doesn't give as much a shit about doing things the right way as me. But my younger self was 100% and unquestionably right. We don't have conversations to convince the guy in front of us of our rightness. We have conversations to convince the next guy.

And I'm not talking about my abilities to persuade - even those of people more intelligent and eloquent than me. It juts doesn't happen that often - and loads of "logical fallacies" that internet debaters think are intelligent are actually very stupid ways to look at discussions.

Congratulations... why do you think I wrote: "sure, maybe people screaming "strawman" wildly and expecting links and work behind posts, isn't actually better discussion".

I don't know how it works where you lot are, but if I write words I want people to, you know, consider the meaning of my posts in light of those words.

In many times I've seen on NS in the past people demand "sources" then carry on to break the source down. Which is just stupid — if the source was authoritative enough to be posted then its authoritative enough that some random 17 year old can't take it apart.

Process matters. Trying matters.

The best thing to be had are conversations. Conversations with people who you don't agree with and conversations with people who you do agree with. Then, you get to refine your world view and your position and learn something new about yourself and the world. "Having an argument but with latin terminology instead of calling people out for being dumb" isn't more intelligent, you don't learn more, and it isn't more civilised.

Not claims anyone made (in the 21 pages of this thread that I've read). And certainly not claims that are viable in light of the post you're ostensibly replying to.

Any conversation with someone who doesn't care that they're not reading what I'm saying, that they're blithely responding to whatever they think I mean or are more interested in looking cool in front of their mates? That's not a conversation. It's not even debate. It's hot air. It's brain dumping. It's bants. It's really pants.

It is entirely possible to hold intellectually honest conversations. I have them with my friends all the time. Well, not lately since I'm about as sociable as a hibernating bear even without Covid, but when I do see people I know.

What was good about RWDT was we could just have conversations. Who has the mental energy to constantly debate? I just want to talk about interesting things with interesting people. I dont want a constant argument man.

Make those threads, dude. If it's that easy.

The megathreads are not the only place where you find "non-debates". Never have been. Never will be. All they've created is a culture of elitist snobbery about the megathreads which were, you know, chat threads. Except the Feminist Megathread which is just shit.

Hey, look, it is that easy.

Of course, not every thread's a winner (four pages is a fine little discussion, I'd prefer longer, of course, but it's fine). Sometimes no-one else wants to talk about the Human Family Tree, the Ethics of Advice or any of my numerous other topics that failed in the great proving ground of the front page to demonstrate fitness. You take it on the chin and move on, like an adult. Why? Because it's not only not personal but shouldn't be made personal either.

It's just I can't, I don't think anyone can, do it (make the OP) every time. But that's the situation created by the megathread tyranny.

[Valrifell]

Again this isn't my experience reading through or participating in the thread.

There were just as many cheap shots and bait as the rest of NSG, if not more because people there knew that nobody in that thread would report you for it unless the regulars really didn't like you. So who would get caught?

The only people willing to report on the RWDT weren't people with very much attachment to it and weren't ardent participants. I also don't think that lurkers stalked the thread for the first slip-up, considering the lack of report threads (if only in recent weeks alone).

Not true

That people stalk the thread is an exceptional claim that requires at least a modicum of effort to prove, otherwise I can't help but roll my eyes when someone puts forward that claim.

[Pangurstan]

What is going to happen to the Libertarian Discussion Thread? Because the authleft & authright threads were locked, is the libertarian one going to be locked as well?

[Greater vakolicci haven]

I don't understand this.

Yes, that is correct. You have fundamentally failed to understand the point being raised.

RWDT did not prevent anyone else from making their own threads, it did not brigade other threads,

Do you know how exhausting it would be to create a thread every time you want to have a conversation? You have made literally 0 threads (maybe 1 if you're this poster too... excluding any you may have made on Jolt or outside of General). I have made dozens.

What the megathreads do is very, very simple. What used to happen is I would come to NSG and I'd find a bunch of different topics. I'd read the titles and see what I might be interested in. That's not everything. Let's grab some threads I did post in way back when...

• Australasia (Political Union, thereof... seemingly unprompted)
• Aboriginal protestors burn Australian flag (news thread)
• My problem with feminism. (what it says on the tine... seemingly unprompted)
• Animal rights groups do more harm than good. (let's talk about this think piece I read)
• Flag Burning (same inciting incident as the other thread, same day in fact... but about the concept, not the news)
• Will Europe Come Back from the Brink? (seemingly unprompted discussion of the Eurozone crisis)
• It's About Time Germany Pays for its Own Defense (Trump's first foray into politics... no, just kidding... it's a prompted discussion about the thread title)

You would have me make OPs for all these topics, potentially. They were all made over the same few days and, as you can see, drew from a variety of sources. Of the prompted ones, the only ones I think I would have found naturally are the two flag ones. It's so much easier and nicer to come to the forum, look at the first few pages and choose what seems interesting.

How many of those topics would've been buried in megathreads? With their potential contributors busy having random chats with each other and their potential creators perhaps deciding to bring their "hey I had an idea to talk about X" ideas to their mates in the discussion threads? I can't see those thread titles since they don't exist. I'd have to go dive into the megathreads and see what's going on in those threads. They move quickly and I'd need to follow potentially pages long quote chains to see how a conversation started. It's hard work and it's exhausting.

And some of these megathreads are mandated black holes. This is exactly what happens in the Feminist Megathread when (usually) Ostro or Gallo find something interesting. Into the megathread it has to go. Sometimes Gallo writes things along the lines of "I considered making this its own thread" because, honestly, it's the feminist megathread... who knows if it'd actually be forced in or not? Want some examples? Well, did you know the Amber Heard/Johnny Depp saga had a discussion on NSG? I doubt it. Even I have only come across it accidentally and the Feminist Megathread I check semi-regularly since, you know, I was a big part of the whole Feminist Thread Scene in 2012-13.

it did not crowd out discussions. This perception that it prevented other conversations from happening is just wrong. You could have had your debate or discussion separately in another thread and nobody was preventing you. There's another reason you wanted to tear the RWDT down, which you aren't saying, and I'm trying to figure out what it is, which is why I'm still reading.

So, no, this is just completely wrong. And it's a huge claim that proceeds from a fundamental misunderstanding of what you've been reading.

Look, you don't convince or persuade people on the internet. It's rare.

Not what I'm talking about and it's such a blindingly obvious point I have talked about it at length in the past... actually that might have been off site. Here I've repeatedly mentioned the idea. There is a hypothetical observer, the lurker. They're not party to the conversation. They don't give a shit about the fucked up stuff Poster A did in some other thread. They don't care about why someone's bitter. All that matters to the lurker is whether or not one side has the better story or, if they're in a different mood, who seems cool.

I have long since given up on anyone who doesn't give as much a shit about doing things the right way as me. But my younger self was 100% and unquestionably right. We don't have conversations to convince the guy in front of us of our rightness. We have conversations to convince the next guy.

And I'm not talking about my abilities to persuade - even those of people more intelligent and eloquent than me. It juts doesn't happen that often - and loads of "logical fallacies" that internet debaters think are intelligent are actually very stupid ways to look at discussions.

Congratulations... why do you think I wrote: "sure, maybe people screaming "strawman" wildly and expecting links and work behind posts, isn't actually better discussion".

I don't know how it works where you lot are, but if I write words I want people to, you know, consider the meaning of my posts in light of those words.

In many times I've seen on NS in the past people demand "sources" then carry on to break the source down. Which is just stupid — if the source was authoritative enough to be posted then its authoritative enough that some random 17 year old can't take it apart.

Process matters. Trying matters.

The best thing to be had are conversations. Conversations with people who you don't agree with and conversations with people who you do agree with. Then, you get to refine your world view and your position and learn something new about yourself and the world. "Having an argument but with latin terminology instead of calling people out for being dumb" isn't more intelligent, you don't learn more, and it isn't more civilised.

Not claims anyone made (in the 21 pages of this thread that I've read). And certainly not claims that are viable in light of the post you're ostensibly replying to.

Any conversation with someone who doesn't care that they're not reading what I'm saying, that they're blithely responding to whatever they think I mean or are more interested in looking cool in front of their mates? That's not a conversation. It's not even debate. It's hot air. It's brain dumping. It's bants. It's really pants.

It is entirely possible to hold intellectually honest conversations. I have them with my friends all the time. Well, not lately since I'm about as sociable as a hibernating bear even without Covid, but when I do see people I know.

What was good about RWDT was we could just have conversations. Who has the mental energy to constantly debate? I just want to talk about interesting things with interesting people. I dont want a constant argument man.

Make those threads, dude. If it's that easy.

The megathreads are not the only place where you find "non-debates". Never have been. Never will be. All they've created is a culture of elitist snobbery about the megathreads which were, you know, chat threads. Except the Feminist Megathread which is just shit.

Hey, look, it is that easy. Not every thread's a winner. Sometimes no-one else wants to talk about the Human Family Tree, the Ethics of Advice or any of my numerous other topics that failed in the great proving ground of the front page to prove their fitness. You take it on the nose and move on, like an adult. Why? Because it's not only not personal but shouldn't be made personal either.

It's just I can't, I don't think anyone can, do it (make the OP) every time. But that's the situation created by the megathread tyranny.

That's less a problem with those two threads as others though. We have the trans thread which swallows up other tangentially related thread (the two genders thread being the most obvious example) and the magathread which eats up anything related to American politics that isn't directly related to the election. These two were more general discussion threads.

I wish we could get rid of megathreads, especially mod-enforced ones. I think the last thread asking to get rid of them was made by me: the two that were locked though were not the sort that are the problem.