I'm using my own experiences at vgchartz as an example. Recently locked threads of mine:

Free PSN Access for PS3 Owners This Weekend! (Got a warning for this one, too)

Your Way to Hurt Sony

Shocking: More PS3s Suffering from GLoH than 360s from RRoD!

All of those were clearly humorous and quite harmless. What good did it do the community to lock them?

Next, PS3 will almost certainly beat 360 was locked; that one (while a little light on content) was a serious ongoing thread (and a response to a similar thread about 360 supposedly beating PS3, which by the way wasn't locked). Surely it's just a co-incidence that only my threads in favour of Sony were locked while the pro-Microsoft thread wasn't, and neither were any Sony-critical threads I created (PSP Go - It only does Everything WRONG and PS3 - Big Brother is Watching You - Data Mining PSN Style ).

Now, I am totally in favor of banning disruptive people who don't know how to behave. But a 1-day ban for stating that someone is a virgin? It happened to me, while the very same mod who banned me said to that same guy (in that same thread) that he should sell his PS3/360 so "I wouldn't have to read your threads about Sony and MS that make me want to reach through the computer screen and smash your fingers so you can't type out anything so annoying to read anymore." So ad hominem is ok as long as you are a mod? Don't get me wrong, I think both my virgin remark and the finger smashing statement were warranted; we are talking about a guy who lives alone with his cat, works in a game store and in order to support his favorite company tries to sell only used copies of PS3 and Xbox 360 games while selling only new copies of Nintendo games to his customers). But I disgress...

Calling a spade as spade is a good thing at times. As a whole, I think many people here should lighten up a bit. Accusations like "flamebait" and "trolling" are used way too liberally around here, and a remark like "I'm reporting this tread!" is something I'd rather expect from someone who was brought up in some kind of orwellian society, and not users of a video game discussion forum. There is no need to instantly lock threads that could potentially be controversial, or at the very first sign of trouble. A little controversy is good (and I don't mean threads like "Company X sucks!"), it makes people think. Uber-PC-ness like in teletubbie-land is boring and, at the end of the day, quite unfruitful.

Sorry if I stepped ony anyone's toes with this, but I felt it needed to be addressed.

because they were very misleading

Post another 10,000 times, and then make those threads again. You'll get very different results.

The first and third thread are obvious flamebait in which you are trying to rile people up. Hence the lockings. I woulda left the second one, but even that is iffy.

The difference between my statement and yours is that you were insulting the person, I was talking about how dumb his argument was. One is ok and the other isn't.

The first thread was no more flamebait than any of Rol's threads.

The first thread made one or two users cry, everybody else could see it was the best joke of the week.

Your threads were funny...up to a point. But three threads all with really short flame inducing jokes are not a good thing for the forum. At least Rol Puts a lot of effort into his flame threads.

The first one is funny, that I wouldnt lock, then you went to the MS forums to post something about the PS3. Only Rol can do this stuff here.

Yeah, but that first thread in the OP is funnier than anything Rol's posted since Sebastian Kramer.

Thats the price of popularity

you get special treatment in the end

imo the first thread was nowhere enar the rol threads though....you just wanna see someone "funnier" than rol as rol is untouchable in that regard kantor & carl

Rol puts effort into his threads (afaik)

He made me laugh... Quite a bit... From one line of text.