Mods closing interesting threads when a discussion is still going on

Esel

Trojan wrote: »

I agree with the principle that mods should leave threads open by default, and only close when there is a very strong case for doing so.

Thread closures should be as rare as permanently banning a user from a forum. I think that thread closure can be used as a crutch, as an easy solution where the correct solution may be more difficult. It's something that frustrates and aggravates users significantly, and I think that contributes massively to the "heavy-handed moderation" view of ths site.

This is a cultural issue and changing it would require buy-in from all of the site volunteers and would take time to implement.

Then change the culture! Require the site volunteers to 'buy-in'. Unflag them if they don't.

Take some/enough time, but realise that time is running out.

tl/dr I believe in Moderation. There should always be checks and balances.

When a site gets this big, it's usually all about the bottom line. When you're counting beans, it can be hard to see the big picture.

Looking at an actual van Gogh painting? Step away/back - then it moves. Up close, it looks like an apprentice plasterer job, with colour.

Or color. Depending. Hanging on, or hanging off?

That is the question.

athtrasna

Hollister11 wrote: »

What's the big deal if an old thread is brought back up?

Laws and regulations change quite frequently so in a lot of cases the information is at least irrelevant or often just wrong in the context of new laws. In A&P anyway.

The other thing that happens is that old threads tend to be bumped either to shill or to slander a company.

hullaballoo

Funny, I am off the exact opposite view and I mod legal discussion. It is not black and white at the best of times, so you will often see professionals correcting one another in threads in LD.

If an old thread is brought up and there have been substantial changes to the law since the last most correct answer, it seems to me like the perfect opportunity to provide an update.

If you don't, you end up with multiple threads on the same point (often with the same title) with varying information.

Plus, thread locking just isn't necessary except where a thread is totally out of control. Even at that stage, most can be reopened with a mod warning, unless the cost to the mods is too great as against the benefit to continuing the thread.

I hate seeing threads locked.

Trojan

Trojan wrote: »

In fact, if older threads shouldn't be bumped it would be far easier to implement that in technology than having mods deal with it.

Exactly. If it's such a big deal, do what other forums do and auto-lock after a certain period of time. But make it a per-forum option so the local mods can decide whether to use it or not.

Elmer Blooker

The lively Syria thread in the Politics Cafe was suddenly and mysteriously "closed for review" last night. I wonder why? No reason given.

LoLth

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

The lively Syria thread in the Politics Cafe was suddenly and mysteriously "closed for review" last night. I wonder why? No reason given.

the answer is in the question (oooh zen!).

Sometimes, if a thread is moving quickly and theere are a disproportionate amount of reported posts a mod will lock a thread to give them time to review if the thread has gone completely off the rails or if it requires mod intervention. Did it re-open after review?

Spanish Eyes

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

The lively Syria thread in the Politics Cafe was suddenly and mysteriously "closed for review" last night. I wonder why? No reason given.

Mod needed a break/go to bed, and no one available to step in maybe!!

I also detest it when interesting threads are locked suddenly. So disappointing.

The Hill Billy

It is being discussed by the Café mods.
As soon as there's news we'll let you know.

tHB

KERSPLAT!

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

The lively Syria thread in the Politics Cafe was suddenly and mysteriously "closed for review" last night. I wonder why? No reason given.

There was a reason, "for review".

K-9

Grave digs aren't a serious problem most of the time, it is one of the ways Boards has changed over the last few years due to user feedback. Used to be there was almost a site wide policy to lock them all. Most are judged on their merits now, but incorrect calls can happen. Best thing is to highlight them here as ye did and the mods can take account of the feedback or a C-mod or Admin can have a word.

ideally just locking a thread because it's a grave dig shouldn't be happening. Either keep the thread going if it's still relevant or help the poster start a new thread if that makes more sense. Just locking them with no explanation shouldn't be happening.

Just on temporary thread closures, sometimes it's best to have a bit of a time out if mod warnings are getting ignored. Avoids carding or banning loads of posters which is actually heavy moderation, so it can be light touch moderation given the alternative! The mods are giving posters a chance to calm down and save a thread.

Whether the thread end up permanently locked is up to the posters, not the mods.

Lovely Bloke

K-9 wrote: »

Whether the thread end up permanently locked is up to the posters, not the mods.

Only half correct.

The mods have a duty to the normal, non-disruptive posters to allow them to continue their discourse in a normal, non-disruptive manner - and there are absolutely way more normal, non-disruptive posters than there are people out to derail, act the maggot or generally disrupt discussion.

Instead of summarily shutting down discussion, the mods could just ban those people.

K-9

Lovely Bloke wrote: »

Only half correct.

The mods have a duty to the normal, non-disruptive posters to allow them to continue their discourse in a normal, non-disruptive manner - and there are absolutely way more normal, non-disruptive posters than there are people out to derail, act the maggot or generally disrupt discussion.

Instead of summarily shutting down discussion, the mods could just ban those people.

Is that not heavy touch moderation?

Lovely Bloke

K-9 wrote: »

Is that not heavy touch moderation?

No, it's the type of moderation I've been advocating on this site since my days as a mod!

Was always told "get proof of low level trolling", eventually got pissed off at that line of questioning.

LoLth

Lovely Bloke wrote: »

No, it's the type of moderation I've been advocating on this site since my days as a mod!

Was always told "get proof of low level trolling", eventually got pissed off at that line of questioning.

Fairly sure users site banned for low level trolling would like to know they were banned mistakenly on the back of some degree of evidence beyond a mod's say so.

pretty sure banning without proof is the very definition of heavy handed moderation.

K-9

Lovely Bloke wrote: »

No, it's the type of moderation I've been advocating on this site since my days as a mod!

Was always told "get proof of low level trolling", eventually got pissed off at that line of questioning.

It's a pain in the ass to prove as well!

I suppose the problem is some threads descend to 4 or 5 posters taking pot shots at each other, with nobody else contributing anything because they don't bother posting or reading anymore.

If there is still a decent discussion going on the thread should remain open.

jackofalltrades

K-9 wrote: »

Just on temporary thread closures, sometimes it's best to have a bit of a time out if mod warnings are getting ignored. Avoids carding or banning loads of posters which is actually heavy moderation, so it can be light touch moderation given the alternative! The mods are giving posters a chance to calm down and save a thread.

Whether the thread end up permanently locked is up to the posters, not the mods.

This only works though when everyone is committed to having a reasonable discussion.
There are several topics that draw posters who's goal is to troll other posters and get the thread closed.
These posters need to be banned from these threads.

Also the "we'll leave it open if you behave yourselves" style of approach only seems to apply to certain topics.
I can't see a thread on gay marriage, transgender issues or repealing the 8th amendment being closed because certain posters don't behave themselves.
Disruptive posters on these thread tend to be quickly told not to post again.

Dr Jakub

This is very frustrating. Why does a thread have to be locked because it went off topic (in the mod's opinion)?

Cookie_Monster

Dr Jakub wrote: »

This is very frustrating. Why does a thread have to be locked because it went off topic (in the mod's opinion)?

+1 conversations evolve and topics stretch out into others. IMO it's becoming more noticeable of late that threads are getting locked or directed back on topic when in reality no direction or instruction is needed. let the discussion wander...

K-9

As long as it is relatively civil and not way off topic they should be kept open imo.

Depends on the posters involved, some posters you know you could leave them for a week and there'd be no bothers. Certain others you couldn't leave them 5 minutes or there'll be pages of carnage!

The Hill Billy

Dr Jakub wrote: »

This is very frustrating. Why does a thread have to be locked because it went off topic (in the mod's opinion)?

I hate to sound like a broken record, but did you ask the Mods or CMods? Was the closure reason not given in a closing post?

We would certainly like for threads not to be closed & that necessary mod action to be taken to sort out those causing trouble in the threads. However, sometimes they become utter wrecks not worth saving.

Have a chat with the Mods/CMods first. They may be able to throw some light on the issue.

Outlaw Pete

Have to say I think the locking of the Trump thread was a mistake.

Appreciate that it was causing issues but just don't feel locking the thread was the best way of addressing those issues.

This guy is going to do at least one thing a week over the next four years that is going to result in users starting threads on and so it makes sense for a thread to be there to deal with that untold amount of outrage which he inevitably going to cause.

Besides, some people have said stuff in it that is wrong and I wanna retort it

KERSPLAT!

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Have to say I think the locking of the Trump thread was a mistake.

Appreciate that it was causing issues but just don't feel locking the thread was the best way of addressing those issues.

This guy is going to do at least one thing a week over the next four years that is going to result in users starting threads on and so it makes sense for a thread to be there to deal with that untold amount of outrage which he inevitably going to cause.

Besides, some people have said stuff in it that is wrong and I wanna retort it

I'm pretty sure it's under discussion by AH mods at the moment but for now you could try the Politics Cafe to get your fix, plenty of people wrong in there too I'm sure

InTheTrees

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Have to say I think the locking of the Trump thread was a mistake.

Inexplicable. Its the last week of the transition period between presidency's and the "moderators" lock the thread???

The mod said the thread seems to have "run its course"? Seriously? trump is only going to be inaugurated next week, how could a thread on him being president have "run its course"??

And of course the question is can we start another? Is it going to be locked too?

Save

InTheTrees

KERSPLAT! wrote: »

I'm pretty sure it's under discussion by AH mods at the moment...

Well they should communicate that to the members then and not just close the tread with the kind of reasoning one uses with ones kids.

The person who closed the thread said it has "run its course", whatever that means.

Save

Ken.

A new thread has been opened. Check the old thread for a link. As for the closing message it could have been a bit better and it's something I'll work on in the future.

InTheTrees

ken wrote: »

A new thread has been opened. Check the old thread for a link. As for the closing message it could have been a bit better and it's something I'll work on in the future.

Its not easy dealing with a bunch of random a**holes on the internet, so thanks for trying anyway.

Hollister11

FFS Stop closing good threads. Adult children paying housekeeping closed now, Plenty of discussion going on, and it's closed.

It's the most frustrating sight,seeing as good thread locked. http://touch.boards.ie/thread/2057692198/4/#post102315220

If it wasn't for the community feel around boards, I would stick with Quora and Reddit

dudara

That thread was in the Personal issues forum, which is more an advice forum than a discussion forum. By the time the thread was closed, there was very little new advice being offered to the OP, despite several mod warnings to stop sharing stories and insteaad focus on offering advice. Instead it had turned into an anecdotal thread, which is not the point of PI. In short, I believe the closure of this thread was fair.

The OP can contact the PI mods at any time to request it be reopened, should they have any updates they wish to add.

D0NNELLY

Hollister11 wrote: »

FFS Stop closing good threads. Adult children paying housekeeping closed now, Plenty of discussion going on, and it's closed.

It's the most frustrating sight,seeing as good thread locked. http://touch.boards.ie/thread/2057692198/4/#post102315220

If it wasn't for the community feel around boards, I would stick with Quora and Reddit

Pm the mod and get them to copy the discussion posts to a new thread in ah