Locking threads

[Bubblesofearth]

A thread on current affairs that I was contributing to has now been locked because of some comments becoming too personal. I think it's a shame as IMO the issue is an important one at the moment and merits discussion. But my wider concern is that it seems anyone can now get a thread locked by making it personal, i.e don't like thread, make a few personal comments, get thread closed.

For my part I would prefer to see some personal comments enter the discussion (let's face it, we're all humans not robots) than have the discussion aborted prematurely. I would also be disappointed if posters are effectively being handed the power to get threads closed down if they don't happen to like them.

BoE

[BobbyD]

A thread on current affairs that I was contributing to has now been locked because of some comments becoming too personal. I think it's a shame as IMO the issue is an important one at the moment and merits discussion. But my wider concern is that it seems anyone can now get a thread locked by making it personal, i.e don't like thread, make a few personal comments, get thread closed.

For my part I would prefer to see some personal comments enter the discussion (let's face it, we're all humans not robots) than have the discussion aborted prematurely. I would also be disappointed if posters are effectively being handed the power to get threads closed down if they don't happen to like them.

BoE

That's been going on for years, with certain posters making it in to an artform whenever they can't compete on facts or logic.

[XFool]

I would also be disappointed if posters are effectively being handed the power to get threads closed down if they don't happen to like them.

That has been a background 'worry' for some time, but one just doesn't really know...

[gryffron]

Hi,
I can assure you no one individual has the power to get threads shut down. When single offensive posts are isolated, moderators will simply delete the offensive post. When this occurs there may sometimes be a mod warning box. But often it occurs invisibly to other users, with just a warning sent to the offender. Continuous repeat offenders can and do get a ban. The lockdown issue usually occurs when there has been a considerable interchange which makes removing just the offensive bits difficult.

All users can do their bit to help by simply reporting offensive posts, and not responding to them.

Merry Christmas

Gryffron as moderator.

[Lootman]

my wider concern is that it seems anyone can now get a thread locked by making it personal, i.e don't like thread, make a few personal comments, get thread closed.

For my part I would prefer to see some personal comments enter the discussion (let's face it, we're all humans not robots) than have the discussion aborted prematurely. I would also be disappointed if posters are effectively being handed the power to get threads closed down if they don't happen to like them.

That's been going on for years, with certain posters making it in to an artform whenever they can't compete on facts or logic.

I cannot say I have noticed that myself. I think you are inferring motives to others that you cannot reasonably claim to know for sure. Besides, political debates do not usually hinge on facts and logic, but rather on values and preferences i.e. much more subjective factors.

I don't know which topic Bubblesofearth is referring to here. But I suspect what sometimes happens is that the Lemon who starts a new topic often has an agenda behind doing so. They are coming from a particular point of view (e.g. opposition to Brexit, criticism of the government etc.) and they desire that the conversation goes in that direction, bolstering their own view.

Then when instead there are some robustly delivered counter-arguments, they get upset because things aren't going the way they had planned. They react by getting personal. So my contention is that it is often ironically the OP who contributes to the locking of their own topic.

And as Gryffron indicates, it is unlikely that an isolated post can get a topic locked. It takes two or three people dragging a topic downhill for that to be necessary: "All users can do their bit to help by simply reporting offensive posts, and not responding to them."

One question raised by that is the extent to which an OP owns and controls a topic that he/she started? Are they entitled to demand that the debate goes in the manner they hoped for? And that the scope is only whatever they intended it to be? Or does an OP have no such special rights and just has to allow the conversation to go where it will?

[Alaric]

"

One question raised by that is the extent to which an OP owns and controls a topic that he/she started? Are they entitled to demand that the debate goes in the manner they hoped for? And that the scope is only whatever they intended it to be? Or does an OP have no such special rights and just has to allow the conversation to go where it will?

Personally I think it better if debates are allowed to wander wherever. That also includes not placing restrictions on what can be mentioned or debated on particular forums.

[csearle]

"

One question raised by that is the extent to which an OP owns and controls a topic that he/she started? Are they entitled to demand that the debate goes in the manner they hoped for? And that the scope is only whatever they intended it to be? Or does an OP have no such special rights and just has to allow the conversation to go where it will?

Personally I think it better if debates are allowed to wander wherever. That also includes not placing restrictions on what can be mentioned or debated on particular forums.

That would IMO be a recipe for disaster. Every thread flying would be hijacked by one of a small number of Lemons who like to make almost all discussion about their uncompromising view of things. It would be hell.

Only a very few boards (because of their fundamental reason for existence) have restrictions beyond the site rules. Just avoid those. Simple. If you can't avoid those then expect to have your provocative posts removed.

Chris

[Lootman]

"One question raised by that is the extent to which an OP owns and controls a topic that he/she started? Are they entitled to demand that the debate goes in the manner they hoped for? And that the scope is only whatever they intended it to be? Or does an OP have no such special rights and just has to allow the conversation to go where it will?

Personally I think it better if debates are allowed to wander wherever. That also includes not placing restrictions on what can be mentioned or debated on particular forums.

That would IMO be a recipe for disaster. Every thread flying would be hijacked by one of a small number of Lemons who like to make almost all discussion about their uncompromising view of things. It would be hell.

Only a very few boards (because of their fundamental reason for existence) have restrictions beyond the site rules. Just avoid those.

Yes, my question was really only about the CAN board. Obviously if you try discussing Tesla on a HYP board, that is blatantly off topic.

But with CAN it is trickier to know where the line is drawn. The OP might have hoped that the discussion would take one fork but in fact the debate takes a different fork. Is that OP legitimately entitled to cry foul? Or is that just the way that particular cookie crumbled?

I have generally taken the view that just because I start a topic does not mean that I can expect to micro-manage its trajectory thereafter. Then again I rarely top post to CAN anyway.

[AsleepInYorkshire]

That would IMO be a recipe for disaster. Every thread flying would be hijacked by one of a small number of Lemons who like to make almost all discussion about their uncompromising view of things. It would be hell.
Chris

I say ... I say ... hold on thur ... have you carried out a survey ... how do you know it's only a small number

I'm not compromising on this ... I want proof

Rubbish jokes aside, Merry Christmas Chris and many more

AiY(D)

[csearle]

But with CAN it is trickier to know where the line is drawn. The OP might have hoped that the discussion would take one fork but in fact the debate takes a different fork. Is that OP legitimately entitled to cry foul? Or is that just the way that particular cookie crumbled?

Generally where the topic of the thread isn't blatantly clear from the thread subject then it is taken from the original post. I tend to lend a bit of ownership to the OP for the thread, especially if he/she reports the thread as going off-topic. Don't know about the others but I tend to apply this to CAN too.

If no-one reports a thread as going off-topic then unless it somehow comes to special attention it will probably go unnoticed. Usually if it's just an off-topic report it will be simply be dealt with with a mod-box re-stating the topic and a request to comply. Subsequent off-topic posts are then summarily deleted. If the moderator get's annoyed at the lack of compliance then the thread might be locked I suppose.

To the OP: If one suspects that a thread has resulted in being locked because that was the deliberate intention of an individual then one could try PMing a moderator, who can pass it on to the one who locked it. Maybe with a sufficiently reasonable plea the thread could be reopened somehow.

Chris

[kiloran]

That would IMO be a recipe for disaster. Every thread flying would be hijacked by one of a small number of Lemons who like to make almost all discussion about their uncompromising view of things. It would be hell.
Chris

I say ... I say ... hold on thur ... have you carried out a survey ... how do you know it's only a small number

I'm not compromising on this ... I want proof

Rubbish jokes aside, Merry Christmas Chris and many more

AiY(D)

I think "Merry Christmas" is a bit off-topic for this thread

--kiloran

[csearle]

I say ... I say ... hold on thur ... have you carried out a survey ... how do you know it's only a small number

In a way we did. When Polite Discussions vanished the usual argumentative contributors moved their "discussions" all over the place on these boards, hence the creation of CAN, to can the stuff (especially overtly political) not allowed elsewhere.

Thanks, happy Christmas to you too!

C.

[tjh290633]

The main reason why I lock threads is when the argument between two posters, with opposing views, has gone round in several circles with no signs of resolution. It's really to put them out of their misery. If they want to argue between themselves they can do it via private messages without inflicting acres of uncut quotes on the rest of us.

Might I propose a New Year's Resolution? Cut down your quotes to the thing on which you are commenting.

Thank you and a Happy New Year.

TJH

[TUK020]

That would IMO be a recipe for disaster. Every thread flying would be hijacked by one of a small number of Lemons who like to make almost all discussion about their uncompromising view of things. It would be hell.
Chris

I say ... I say ... hold on thur ... have you carried out a survey ... how do you know it's only a small number

I'm not compromising on this ... I want proof

Rubbish jokes aside, Merry Christmas Chris and many more

AiY(D)

I think "Merry Christmas" is a bit off-topic for this thread

--kiloran

Happy New Year

[TUK020]

A thread on current affairs that I was contributing to has now been locked because of some comments becoming too personal. I think it's a shame as IMO the issue is an important one at the moment and merits discussion. But my wider concern is that it seems anyone can now get a thread locked by making it personal, i.e don't like thread, make a few personal comments, get thread closed.

For my part I would prefer to see some personal comments enter the discussion (let's face it, we're all humans not robots) than have the discussion aborted prematurely. I would also be disappointed if posters are effectively being handed the power to get threads closed down if they don't happen to like them.

BoE

That's been going on for years, with certain posters making it in to an artform whenever they can't compete on facts or logic.

True, but the last thing you want to do is lock the thread that they have turned into their very own playpen - this would drive them to mess up lots of other stuff. Besides, it is more fun than 'Laughing Lemons'.

[BobbyD]

my wider concern is that it seems anyone can now get a thread locked by making it personal, i.e don't like thread, make a few personal comments, get thread closed.

For my part I would prefer to see some personal comments enter the discussion (let's face it, we're all humans not robots) than have the discussion aborted prematurely. I would also be disappointed if posters are effectively being handed the power to get threads closed down if they don't happen to like them.

That's been going on for years, with certain posters making it in to an artform whenever they can't compete on facts or logic.

I cannot say I have noticed that myself. I think you are inferring motives to others that you cannot reasonably claim to know for sure.

Fair enough, you would know their motivations better than I.

[chas49]

Moderator Message:
Try and stick to discussing the issue raised by the OP, or at least making suggestions to improve the site. (chas49)

[Lootman]

my wider concern is that it seems anyone can now get a thread locked by making it personal, i.e don't like thread, make a few personal comments, get thread closed.

For my part I would prefer to see some personal comments enter the discussion (let's face it, we're all humans not robots) than have the discussion aborted prematurely. I would also be disappointed if posters are effectively being handed the power to get threads closed down if they don't happen to like them.

That's been going on for years, with certain posters making it in to an artform whenever they can't compete on facts or logic.

I cannot say I have noticed that myself. I think you are inferring motives to others that you cannot reasonably claim to know for sure.

Fair enough, you would know their motivations better than I.

I have no more idea about peoples' motivations than you. Which is why I think it is best to refrain from ascribing motives to others and instead assume people here are in good faith.

Without knowing specifically which locked topic the OP is referring to, I can only make the more general observation that I think the moderation here works fairly well. Some minor bickering is tolerated but when things go downhill due to more than one bad actor, then remedial action is taken. So I have no suggestion about the alleged problem as I am not sure there is really a problem here.

Whatever that topic was, there is always the possibility of top posting a new and related topic, wording it more specifically so that tangential discussions are less probable.