Thread Locking

[captain swoop]

SOmetimes as PetersCreek posts it's a lot of work to untangle a thread and work out who said what first and divide up the blame, some threads are best just closed

[kleindoofy]

Originally Posted by mugaliens

... My point is based on decades of experience. ... I'm curious as to what experience you're bringing to the table ... if you have real-world experience ... please lay them on the table! ...

Hmm. I think we can safely assume that the moderators and, in fact, the vast majority of BAUT members have a good deal of real-world experience. I for one would shy from the task of having to weigh the value of one member's real-world experience against another's.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

And when a Mod enforces "constructive criticism" on a poster, that poster is supposed to take it well, not talk back, not voice any opinion whatsoever where (horrors) anyone might SEE it... Or they face a suspension. ...

A few months ago, a moderator objected to my somewhat forward method of voicing opinions and criticized the subject of a post I had written. He did that in the thread in question, using my handel and listing the offences.

When I responded to him, in the thread, I was told in a PM that I should not have answered him in the thread and that I should have sent him a PM instead.

My response was that if he had sent me a PM in the first place, I would have left it at that level. If, however, he wanted to reprimand me in a thread, then that is exactly where I would answer him.

Lo and behold: he agreed!

Originally Posted by mugaliens

... They're usually locked by the time I arrive to participate. ...

Is that the real reason for this thread?

I have composed responses to threads a few times, only to find that the thread in question had been locked while I was typing. I suppose this has happened to many BAUT members. While having a feeling of somehow having been jibbed, I never thought that I had been "punished," as the OP implies.

[Gillianren]

Originally Posted by kleindoofy

I have composed responses to threads a few times, only to find that the thread in question had been locked while I was typing. I suppose this has happened to many BAUT members. While having a feeling of somehow having been jibbed, I never thought that I had been "punished," as the OP implies.

Shoot, I had that happen last week. I was kind of annoyed, because I thought I had a really valid point--but I quite agree that everyone else did, too, and no one was going to back down or even, mostly, see the other person's side. Locking the thread (briefly) to let it get back on track was a good idea.

[captain swoop]

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Whining... Ok.

I guess that's like R.A.F. using quotations around "bothered." If it's in quotes, it doesn't count.


This seems like a very good possibility.

To the mods, they are not perceiving that threads are not being closed unusually- but they are also privy to the behind the scenes. So it makes sense that they would not see it in the same light.

And it may even be better to lock a thread down, at first, even if it is something that's increased.

Do not respond to Moderation in a thread, pleae use the Reporting Triangle or send a PM.COnsider this a warning

[captain swoop]

If, however, he wanted to reprimand me in a thread, then that is exactly where I would answer him.

Lo and behold: he agreed!

I wouldn't have agreed, I would have reprimanded for respondiong to moderation in a thread, it is a very big 'No, no' Never respond to Moderation in a thread.

[Fazor]

Originally Posted by Gillianren

Shoot, I had that happen last week. I was kind of annoyed, because I thought I had a really valid point--but I quite agree that everyone else did, too, and no one was going to back down or even, mostly, see the other person's side. Locking the thread (briefly) to let it get back on track was a good idea.

And of course, if you really want your point heard you can send the post to a Mod. Okay, so you have to trust the mods, but my experience is that so long as your post wasn't furthering whatever problem caused the thread to be locked, they'll post it for you (or unlock it just long enough for you to post. . . don't know what the protocol is there).

I've always just felt "eh, my point's moot now" and not bothered.

[Neverfly]

Originally Posted by captain swoop

I wouldn't have agreed, I would have reprimanded for respondiong to moderation in a thread, it is a very big 'No, no' Never respond to Moderation in a thread.

This strongly presents the appearance of, "It's ok for me to do it but not for you to do it."
Especially considering that you state this right after warning me, officially.

[HenrikOlsen]

Originally Posted by Neverfly

See, this is why it's hard to bring up issues about anything on this board. You get treated as badly as an ATM'er for voicing out.

I, too, have noticed that thread locking seems to have become the quick and convenient method for dealing with something.

It didn't used to be.

It used to be the discussion was let run until one or more of the participants had to be suspended, was that preferable?

[Neverfly]

Originally Posted by HenrikOlsen

It used to be the discussion was let run until one or more of the participants had to be suspended, was that preferable?

Well, now- I'm confused.

So far, moderator response has been that there is no increase in thread locking.

Your post suggests that there was a decision made to halt discussions.

[Fazor]

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Well, now- I'm confused.

So far, moderator response has been that there is no increase in thread locking.

Your post suggests that there was a decision made to halt discussions.

Locking a thread before someone gets banned and then the thread gets locked does not necessitate an increase in locked threads; just a decrease in bannings.

[Neverfly]

Originally Posted by Fazor

Locking a thread before someone gets banned and then the thread gets locked does not necessitate an increase in locked threads; just a decrease in bannings.

Has there been a decrease in bans?

And it's also been pointed out that a thread (Not Swifts that one time, which was understandable and I'd have probably done the same) won't necessarily be unlocked unless people request that it be... in which case the Mods have a discussion as to whether or not it should be...

So, yes, it can mean an increase in locking has occurred.

I do not quite agree with Mugaliens OP.

If it's a better system to lock more often and sort things out- that's fine. Then that's the response Mugaliens could have gotten.

Peters Creek suggested there's been a rash of behavior lately. That's possible too- it leads to a perception that may not be accurate.

But then Henrik suggested the hint that it's a better way and keeps suspensions lower.
I'm not sure if suspensions are increasing or decreasing.

But it threw me for a loop.

[Moose]

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Has there been a decrease in bans?

Yes. Both in terms of raw numbers and in durations.

[01101001]

Originally Posted by Swift

I guess I should be following a lesson I learned a long time ago, but which I see to forget from time to time: if the complaints on both sides of an issue are about equal, you're probably doing something right.

There are insufficient thread lockings these days. What happened? This forum could be of a much higher quality if more threads were locked.

Moderators, please quick slacking and do your (volunteer) jobs.

[Neverfly]

Originally Posted by Moose

Yes. Both in terms of raw numbers and in durations.

Is it directly related to locking threads?

[Moose]

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Is it directly related to locking threads?

Yes. The whole point of temporary thread lockdowns in cases of mutual overheat situations is specifically to let participants cool off before we have to suspend people.

Actually, for the activity we see, suspensions are down in nearly every category we have. Where we do have to suspend someone, it's mainly because someone chose to ignore the warning (frequently many warnings) they've gotten.

[aastrotech]

I agree there are unfounded (in my opinion idea repressive and well founded dispute repression) thread closures. Though I doubt mugaliens appreciates my agreement with him on this issue. I will not pander to the moderators with a "you do a great job" platitude. Straight up. I do not trust the moderators. In my opinion they repress ideas they disagree with and repress well founded disputes of who they consider "respected". (Seems sometimes "respected" is just a matter of post count).

Why am I here then? Another unprincipled question. I'm here because I like the members and the concept (albeit unfulfilled) of Bad astronomy (Not UT) and not because I like the moderators. And I will not leave just because i dislike and don't trust the moderators. I hope that my influence here can make a change (though I expect plenty of commentary that it won't) I see that it has. Though I know there is resistance to my efforts in my opinion the resistance is the definition of Bad Astronomy.

[PetersCreek]

Originally Posted by 01101001

There are insufficient thread lockings these days. What happened? This forum could be of a much higher quality if more threads were locked.

Moderators, please quick slacking and do your (volunteer) jobs.

This is funnier because it's not far from the truth. We do get quite a few "Hasn't this gone on long enough?" reports. I'd even hazard a guess that they outnumber the reports asking "Why'd you lock that/my thread?"

[Gillianren]

Originally Posted by aastrotech

I agree there are unfounded (in my opinion idea repressive and well founded dispute repression) thread closures. Though I doubt mugaliens appreciates my agreement with him on this issue. I will not pander to the moderators with a "you do a great job" platitude. Straight up. I do not trust the moderators. In my opinion they repress ideas they disagree with and repress well founded disputes of who they consider "respected". (Seems sometimes "respected" is just a matter of post count).

Why am I here then? Another unprincipled question. I'm here because I like the members and the concept (albeit unfulfilled) of Bad astronomy (Not UT) and not because I like the moderators. And I will not leave just because i dislike and don't trust the moderators. I hope that my influence here can make a change (though I expect plenty of commentary that it won't) I see that it has. Though I know there is resistance to my efforts in my opinion the resistance is the definition of Bad Astronomy.

You know, the moderators are an important part of the community. Several of them, in fact, were people I considered friends even before they became moderators, and nothing (so far) has happened to change that fact. The fact is, it isn't an "unprincipled" question to ask why you're still here if you think you're being repressed. It isn't even an irrelevant question. It's perfectly reasonable. What good do you think will do by complaining a lot about the moderators if you don't trust them to change? I see that you've changed things--you've annoyed some people, and you've created a lot of discussion that mostly boils down to "I think the mods are doing a good job."

I actually do think the mods are doing a good job. I think that, for one thing, trying to make ATM as a species work within the rules is an uphill battle and one of the reasons I won't take the job. (On my bad days, I would be exactly what mods are accused of being.) The same with CT. And, yes, I do think there are people in those fora who are rude and not ATMers or CTs. And when that happens, I report them. And when that happens, they are often warned to cut out their inappropriate behaviour, even suspended.

[mike alexander]

I, for one, welcome our Moderator Overlords.

Oh, someone has to pipe in the haggis.

Anyhow, if lockings are truly random then some clumpiness is more representative than an even distribution through time (which would not be random).

[Arnold Layne]

Originally Posted by Swift

if the complaints on both sides of an issue are about equal, you're probably doing something right.

Well now, that gives everyone an incentive to complain then, doesn't it

[Spoons]

May I ask - can we say we are in general agreement then that the "cooling off" thread closures (temporary or otherwise) are a reasonable tactic for the mods to use?

If there are other cases of thread closures that you feel are unreasonable, wouldn't it be fairer to raise the example/s so that the issues can be discussed & assessed, rather than ambiguous and unsupported statements?

(Please don't take this as an attack or anything, I just don't think it's fair to say something is happening and it's a problem when you can't/won't present an example of it. Raise an example, and there could be some value in the discussion. Something may even be achieved, past blowing off steam.)

[aastrotech]

Originally Posted by Spoons

May I ask - can we say we are in general agreement then that the "cooling off" thread closures (temporary or otherwise) are a reasonable tactic for the mods to use?

Absoulutly not when thread locking is used as a tactic to repress well founded disputes of moderator, moderator favorites or moderator prejudice, ignorance or mistakes.

Originally Posted by Spoons

If there are other cases of thread closures that you feel are unreasonable, wouldn't it be fairer to raise the example/s so that the issues can be discussed & assessed, rather than ambiguous and unsupported statements?

(Please don't take this as an attack or anything, I just don't think it's fair to say something is happening and it's a problem when you can't/won't present an example of it. Raise an example, and there could be some value in the discussion. Something may even be achieved, past blowing off steam.)

No, (as you well know) posting evidence (examples) would be violation of rule 17 paragraph 2. (Though the way it's written does not indicate that to do so violates anything. The banned list makes clear that to do so will be punished)
You, as well as anyone else who follows this topic, know that this issue is occuring and your demands for evidence that could result in moderator fouling (warning, banning for "rule 17" violations) are disingenuous.

[Spoons]

Ah, then we've hit a stumbling block.

A link was posted earlier, and I thought that was useful in the discussion.

Besides, I personally do not see thread-locking as a problem, so I have not paid extreme attention to the cases. I suppose we could all go away and do separate searches for the string "thread locked" and then come back and discuss various different threads with each other, but if they feel it is acceptable in this case, could a mod maybe wish to state it is allowable on this occasion?

[aastrotech]

In the code duelo "you have me at a disadvantage sir" was considered to be a most deplorable statement to be immediately rectified or to the permanant discomendation of the one with advantage. As one has a sword and the other does not. Of course the code duelo only applies to gentlemen. One does not accept a challange from a lesser. The lesser has nothing to lose. Of course a lesser does not care if he has a gentleman at a disdvantage. He just wants the cash.

Seems to me that some here prefer to have some at a disadvantage. According to the gentlemen's code you who do would be considered unprincipled. You're not hard to recognise. In the old days such people would not even be afforded a letter of credit.

[Spoons]

That seems like an evasive post. Would you like to clarify what you are saying? It seems like you're trying to make a statement without tying yourself down with having to backing it up, using a veil of ambiguity.

[mike alexander]

Originally Posted by Spoons

That seems like an evasive post. Would you like to clarify what you are saying? It seems like you're trying to make a statement without tying yourself down with having to backing it up, using a veil of ambiguity.

I trhink you're supposed to challenge aastrotech to a duel.

[Spoons]

Heheh, thanks Mike. It did seem like he was having a go to me, but I thought he may want to make it clear.

I'll pass.

Though it does point out how sometimes threads can easily jump from the OP discussion to an organ measuring contest.

[Tobin Dax]

Originally Posted by mike alexander

Anyhow, if lockings are truly random then some clumpiness is more representative than an even distribution through time (which would not be random).

I'm not sure about lockings, but clumpiness definitely happens with bannings/suspensions. Based on moderator comments earlier in the thread, there is apparently a correlation between these and thread locking, but now I'm starting to speculate.

As an aside, I'm now considering watching some Firefly before bed.

[Neverfly]

Originally Posted by Tobin Dax

As an aside, I'm now considering watching some Firefly before bed.

That is always a good idea.

[mugaliens]

Originally Posted by Swift

You know what mugs, I'll be honest here. I feel that no matter what I do as a moderator, someone will complain about it.

You ain't kidding! My Dad used to tell me, "You can please some of the people most of the time, or most of the people some of the time, but you'll never please most of the people most of the time."

Wise man.

I guess I should be following a lesson I learned a long time ago, but which I see to forget from time to time: if the complaints on both sides of an issue are about equal, you're probably doing something right.

Wise lesson!