On the subject of locking threads

I have seen a number of threads be locked on this forum lately, and this saddens me. The topics that get people the most riled up, are the most contentious and the most interesting. No one will get upset about mild topics or threads that don't matter. But the threads on the edge, that should garner the most discussion, are also the threads that will cause people to become most upset.

This is a game that appeals to teenagers, or early twenties. Lots of hot tempers abound in this age group, and flareups are bound to occur.

However, it doesn't mean that the topic in question should be shut down. It requires the people that can't hold their temper in check and that are insulting, derogatory, and mean to be held out of the conversation. The conversation itself is still valid.

How I handle these things on other forums is to issue a public warning of what was wrong with the post, with instructions to carry it to me privately without polluting the thread if they disagree. After that, it ramps up to instituting a temporary ban of half a day to a day for repeat offender, and gradually ramp it up.

The best, most interesting discussions are those with people with different viewpoints and in different camps. It is up to the individuals to discuss things in a civil manner, and the topic as a whole shouldn't be punished, along with all the people that are behaving, because a handful of people got upset and started flaming each other.

My 0.02.

That's a great idea.

Then give me a rep already

Edit: obviously joking.

Of the threads I've seen I've appreciated that they were locked, and when they were locked. They let it go pretty far before shutting them down. There's a **** ton of other ways the admins could improve, but this isn't one of them, imo.

Indeed. As well this method could seem a bit too confrontational to some, as well it may make them feel persecuted for having their views. Not saying it's ineffective, just that it has its downsides as well. I'd say their method seems to work, though I do believe they should give private warnings more often through PM's. Again this is just my opinion, it's their site that they run, and they run it very well in my opinion. I can see where you are coming from with this though Mark, there have been a lot of locked threads lately as you said.

If anything of theirs needs to be improved, it would be their Rodese. Considering in the Star Wars universe it is a dead language, I'd hate to hear those who know nothing of it try to pronounce those words.

A thread should be locked when there is nothing left to discuss (ran it's natural course) or when the topic becomes irrelevant. If it is neither of these, I can't think of another example to lock a discussion.

The topics were locked because people were flaming each other. The topic itself did not run it's course, and I could have still debated it. If people are flaming each other, then deal with those people. Don't lock down every single person that's discussing the topic.

Tolvo, I think people flame each other because there are no consequences; sometimes people are out of line and it's OK to be out of line; it happens. Pointing out the error is fine as well. I understand what you're saying, if you just pick one person out of an escalating situation they feel like a scapegoat, and would get upset (sometimes rightly so).

Admins also make mistakes. If there are multiple people involved, then issue a warning to those involved. If the admins don't know, and just use the lock hammer, then they should say that as well. But I don't want interesting topics that should be discussed locked because people can't hold their tempers in check.

If people know that they will get in trouble for making insults, they will be less prone to do it. By not targeting individuals, they will crop up with the same tone and comments again.

They've locked threads that have interesting discussions because one teenager didn't shut the f**** up. Usually happens in the morning, and I don't get to post my opinion.

And that is what I mean with people feeling singled out. Suddenly they feel like perhaps their side isn't being presented, they feel that they might be locked out while others are allowed in merely because they have a view that isn't frowned upon. It can be effective, it can cause more problems. I'm just saying no system is perfect.

Some people will leave a forum that allows flaming. Me, for instance.

I think he means making it so that those who are flaming, are locked out of the thread, so they cannot continue to flame.

Didn't realize you could lock individuals from a thread. If you can then I agree, Mark, that might've been a better option for a couple of those threads.

That's what I mean. I don't want flaming or insults on any forum I frequent, but it happens. But its' individuals making these mistakes, not an entire thread.

Normally you can't lock someone from a thread. So when someone posts something rude, an Admin says that's not OK. Eventually people will get it. If they continue, issue a temporary ban. Warnings first of course.

Hopefully people will bite their tongue and think harder before posting up something rude.

I'm not actually sure if this site will allow them to do that or not, outside of just banning them for a set amount of time.

Of course, if you locked a pissed off guy from a thread how many times out of 100 do you think he'll start his own new pissed off thread in retaliation?

90.3337%, repeating of course. I think only so much of this can be discussed though without the actual moderators, as well this is probably something they would only really openly speak about among themselves. That doesn't mean they would ignore this though, probably just read it and take into consideration ideas. As well as plotting up ways to devise obvious useful navigation tools that I will ignore for 9000 posts.

If you warn them, then temporarily ban them, and then they retaliate... well obviously they're not getting it. So increase the ban time. If they keep at it, then ban them permanently.

Differing views are OK. Insults aren't.

This does require more admins to review threads though, since 1 or 2 people can't look over every thread.

But what I do is get a few mature people, and assign them responsibilities to sections. If they're not sure about warning someone, have a private mod section that things can be discussed and a consensus can be reached.

The last thing you want is the viewpoint that mods are arbitrary, spiteful, or capricious. You want fairminded.

I'd say, insults are okay if they are silly in nature with the intent of joking around, in which case they aren't really insults.

You'd realize this if you had half an egg you marble floored cottage.

Though I suppose to people who don't know common English phrases, they might believe it is an actual insult.

Insults are ok if they're not insults? You don't say...

Well exactly Tolvo, common sense. Don't try to actively piss someone off; insult. Whether actual or implied. Be courteous and respectful. Keep in mind the person posting might not have a strong grasp of English, might be 13 years old, might be having a horrible day. Give them the benefit of the doubt, and don't read too much into their posts.

Your thread is losing its edge.

Do something.

Or they could just be a liverless trout trying to filter the toxins that are your opinions!

Actually that one sounds like it could be a real insult.

See it always does seem odd because of Freedom of speech, but it is their forum so their rules apply. I suppose people could argue that they should be able to blow off steam, but it's sort of hard to argue the right to being a ****.

I've said most of what I've had to say on this subject.

I think my stance is clear, and people are free to agree or disagree with me. I hope people actively agree, and interesting threads can be discussed without fear of being locked out. So if you're for it cal, say so, if you have reservations, say so as well, and if you disagree do so as well.

I don't really agree or disagree. Just that I think this system could work, it could not work. I suppose I'm too much on the fence to really be of too much use.

The locking is easier and requires less time. The method I use is more intensive.

Looks like that other thread was locked as well, but I think it had run it's course. I just wish good threads wouldn't be polluted by garbage posts of disagreements. Take it outside the thread so that the interesting bits can still be found.

That's why I love the structure of Stack Overflow; the good stuff is readily available.

We are all ears when it comes to suggestions, that open and organic spirit is what elevated the site to what it is today. Feel free to PM any one of the admins with your ideas and concerns. We do have a private mod section where we make decisions, despite any impressions of arbitrary behavior.

Is open suggestions like this frowned upon? I prefer to have an open discussion, as the ideas can be better formed if everyone can pitch in a say.

And was not implying decisions were arbitrary, but sometimes they can appear to be. Also, sometimes mods can make a bad decision or a mistake, and that's ok too. Everyone's human, and mods can be of any age and background. They will make errors in judgement, and everyone should be fine with that as well.

Everyone should keep in mind their goal is to have the best site possible.