The reason why I think this is because, while this thread most likely gone downhill, I don't want a precedent being set that simply allows any thread to be locked on the basis of something that hasn't occurred yet. Think about if this were to happen on a thread that wasn't so blatantly going to cause issues.
It would almost certainly be taken as abuse since the reason for locking could easily be taken as bias or some other reason. Besides, there are not forum rules that the thread broke.
In short, while it may be argued that locking that thread in particular was a good idea, I would not like for future threads to be locked simply as a precautionary measure against something that is not certain to happen.
Yes, while that may be true, I don't think that it should have been locked immediately. It would have been better to let the flame start and then lock it. That way, the locking was absolutely justified. However, there is always the chance that flame would not have started.
While this is doubtful for this thread, a future thread may be locked on similar grounds where it might not have been so clear whether locking immediately was necessary.
The only reason why I am bringing this up is because I believe that it would be safer for the staff to lock after flame has started so as to preserve their reputation. Doing so before hand opens the door to speculation as to whether or not the thread should have been locked.
Comments on Profile Post by randomcitizen1