Thread Locking

[mugaliens]

Originally Posted by kleindoofy

I for one would shy from the task of having to weigh the value of one member's real-world experience against another's.

Agreed, which is why only two people here on BAUT know what I really did/do for a living.

As someone else mentioned, throwing out a demand for credentials usually winds up as a competition, which is not not good. Furthermore, most credentials attest to one's ability to earn credentials, not one's ability to use them, so credential wars are themselves a bit of a logical fallacy.

I shouldn't have given in to that urge...

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!

Good for that moderator! The watchword I've always used is "praise in public, criticize in private," but there are times when bringing public attention to an issue benefits the other members. Case in point, the banned posters log. I read it every day! Helps keep me mindful of the limits.

I have composed responses to threads a few times, only to find that the thread in question had been locked while I was typing.

Argh!

I suppose this has happened to many BAUT members.

Once or twice.

While having a feeling of somehow having been jibbed, I never thought that I had been "punished," as the OP implies.

Depends on the reason for the thread closure. If it's because a mod thinks moderating the thread is too much work, then it's an injustice to the other participants. (temp closures as per Swift's comments are ok). On the other hand, some threads should be closed, and that's not an injustice at all.

Perhaps a minor inconvenience, but nothing more, and not the focus of this thread.

[pzkpfw]

Originally Posted by aastrotech

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.

...

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.

Once again we find you making claims against the moderators and refusing to back up those claims with evidence. As usual, with the "rule 17 defence".

Rule 17, paragraph 2 states: "If you disagree with a moderator action, then PM or email the moderator, a different moderator, or an administrator. We will review the case and take action as needed."

Your use of this rule as a shield is just plain silly, as by your logic, your claims would themselves be violators of that rule... before we even needed to consider the "evidence" that you refuse to supply. (And you've not yet been "fouled" for this post, so we obviously are not that quick to pull the trigger.)

We've been down this road before. You've already been asked not to do this. Either back up your claims, so we can have a proper debate about them, or stop making them.

Originally Posted by 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.

This seems a thinly veiled slight on BAUT members in general. This kind of attitude might also be best left untyped.

If you want to provide an example of gentlemanly conduct, make your claims open and debatable - don't hide behind the skirts of misinterpreted rules.

[pzkpfw]

(My colour...)

Originally Posted by mugaliens

...snip... Depends on the reason for the thread closure. If it's because a mod thinks moderating the thread is too much work, then it's an injustice to the other participants. (temp closures as per Swift's comments are ok). On the other hand, some threads should be closed, and that's not an injustice at all.

Perhaps a minor inconvenience, but nothing more, and not the focus of this thread.

It seems then that we all agree that yes, some threads do need to be closed, or at least, can be closed temporarily.

Why, then, is the "standard procedure" not acceptable? That is:
1. Report the last post in the locked thread - the one the mod made when he or she closed the thread.
2. In that report, give the reasons why the thread should be re-opened.
3. If any mod who reads the report agrees with you^*, the thread might be re-opened.

(^* some of these things are debated among the mods, and a majority decision is used.)

Could that process have been used on your example thread?

Since you are unwilling to discuss specific examples (you rejected debate about the example you raised in post 1 of this thread), is there much else to say on this topic?

[kleindoofy]

Originally Posted by mugaliens

Agreed, which is why only two people here on BAUT know what I really did/do for a living ...

Please help interpret that, I'm afraid it's slightly ambiguous.

Are you implying that your real-world experience is indeed more valuable than that of other BAUT members?

Originally Posted by mugaliens

... If it's because a mod thinks moderating the thread is too much work, then it's an injustice to the other participants. ...

Perhaps we shouldn't forget that we're talking about posting on an internet forum, a cyberspace pastime, a fleeting vanity, something that is terminated with a click of the mouse.

[ToSeek]

Originally Posted by aastrotech

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.

This is both a false and an insulting analogy. A gentleman might challenge a fellow claimant to a duel. He would not challenge a judge who ruled against him in a case - at least not if he were really a gentleman. And we moderators are the judges.

[Gillianren]

You know, I had an actual job once where, for various reasons, we ended up with only one supervisor for the entire system I was on--which was open from 5:00 AM to 11:00 PM, seven days a week. Even he had to delay decisions once in a while, and he was getting paid. As our mods are not, and the system is up twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, an occasional failing to work on a problem right away--especially since, correct me if I'm wrong, the lot of them have other jobs and certainly other responsibilities--and putting it off until it can be handled properly is quite sensible.

[mugaliens]

Originally Posted by pzkpfw

It seems then that we all agree that yes, some threads do need to be closed, or at least, can be closed temporarily.

Agreed.

Why, then, is the "standard procedure" not acceptable? That is:
1. Report the last post in the locked thread - the one the mod made when he or she closed the thread.
2. In that report, give the reasons why the thread should be re-opened.
3. If any mod who reads the report agrees with you^*, the thread might be re-opened.

(^* some of these things are debated among the mods, and a majority decision is used.)

Could that process have been used on your example thread?

As previously explained, the closure of that thread was not the topic of this thread, but merely one of, the most recent, example of many. Rather, this thread is about thread closures in general.

The "standard procedure" is perfectly acceptable after a thread has been closed. My argument remains that threads are often closed instead of punishing the offenders.

Closing threads is easy, but it's the low road. Taking time to sort through the fray and render appropriate punishment to the offdenders takes more time and is more difficult, but it's the high road.

All I've been saying, is refuse to take the easy way out. Take the high road, instead.

Since you are unwilling to discuss specific examples (you rejected debate about the example you raised in post 1 of this thread)...

I rejected debate as such a debate would have become the principal focus. I instead elected to maintain thread closures in general, and hasty/errant thread closures in specific, as the principal focus of my thread.

...is there much else to say on this topic?

Absolutely, but I have to ask why you're asking this question, as it sounds like a prelude to closing this thread!

Seriously - kleindoofy, ToSeek, and Gillianren all had more to say on this topic or in response to comments made about this topic, and I will get to each of those in just a minute.

I'm sure more will follow.

[mugaliens]

Originally Posted by kleindoofy

Please help interpret that, I'm afraid it's slightly ambiguous.

"Agreed, which is why only two people here on BAUT know what I really did/do for a living ..."

It means that I agree with the comment to which I responded (Attachment A), and cited that comment as the reason I've elected to tell only two others here on BAUT what I've done and am doing for a living.

Are you implying that your real-world experience is indeed more valuable than that of other BAUT members?

Where in the world did you get that impression? Are you implying that I am?

Some of us here talk a good talk, but are fairly low on the learning curve - that's ok, as we all help them out. Others are way beyond me in areas astrophysic, and that's ok, too, as they help me out. I am an industry-leading expert in a couple of areas, widely educated and experience in others, and a neophyte in still others (but a fast reader/learner).

Don't we all fall into this same general boat?

I think so, which is why I find you comment puzzling/troubling.

Perhaps we shouldn't forget that we're talking about posting on an internet forum, a cyberspace pastime, a fleeting vanity, something that is terminated with a click of the mouse.

Excellent diminuation, kleindoofy, but as you joined before I did yet have about 1/10th the number of posts, I can understand why you would have much less attachment to this online community as I do. I and a few others who spend our time here feel a much stronger connection.

Originally Posted by ToSeek

This is both a false and an insulting analogy. A gentleman might challenge a fellow claimant to a duel. He would not challenge a judge who ruled against him in a case - at least not if he were really a gentleman.

If all judges were as they're usually portrayed on TV and in the movies, wise, smart, upholders of the law, I would agree with your statement. Some judges, however, do not meet these standards, and I would submit one can respect the office while disagreeing with the decisions rendered by whoever happens to hold that office. It is for this reason that the appeals process exists, as judges do make mistakes, sometimes errors of process, other times errors in judgement.

Originally Posted by Gillianren

As our mods are not, and the system is up twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, an occasional failing to work on a problem right away--especially since, correct me if I'm wrong, the lot of them have other jobs and certainly other responsibilities--and putting it off until it can be handled properly is quite sensible.

I agreed to this situation in my previous response to Swift's comments, here.

[ToSeek]

Originally Posted by mugaliens

If all judges were as they're usually portrayed on TV and in the movies, wise, smart, upholders of the law, I would agree with your statement. Some judges, however, do not meet these standards, and I would submit one can respect the office while disagreeing with the decisions rendered by whoever happens to hold that office. It is for this reason that the appeals process exists, as judges do make mistakes, sometimes errors of process, other times errors in judgement.

It's not a question of disagreeing with the judge; it's a question whether you can arrange for an opportunity to stab or shoot a judge you disagree with. I think it's clear that would be a poor idea, else the judge becomes highly motivated to decide in favor of the better marksman. (Challenging a superior officer to a duel was similarly verboten back in the day and for similar reasons.)

As you note, there are other mechanisms for dealing with judges who err, as there are here for moderators who err. But these mechanisms are different from an ordinary person you disagree with.

[R.A.F.]

Originally Posted by mugaliens

My argument remains that threads are often closed instead of punishing the offenders.

Even if that were true, (and you've failed to demonstrate that) you haven't shown why this is so important to you, or to re-phrase, why it should be important to the rest of us.

Do you think it is a good thing that posters are allowed time to "cool off", or would you rather have more suspensions/bannings?

[kleindoofy]

Originally Posted by mugaliens

... I can understand why you would have much less attachment to this online community as I do. I and a few others who spend our time here feel a much stronger connection. ...

Wow.

I for one would shy from the task of having to compare the strength of one member's attachment to this online community with another's, especially when basing that judgment on the number of posts an individual has made.

[PetersCreek]

I have to agree with kleindoofy here. Gauging attachment to this community based post count is not only unsupportable...c'mon...it's inappropriate. My own post count was comparatively quite low at the time I was asked to be a moderator.

[captain swoop]

My argument remains that threads are often closed instead of punishing the offenders.

You have yest to show us an exampl,e of a thread being closed instead of punishing offenders to the detriment of other posters in a thread.

Closing threads is easy, but it's the low road. Taking time to sort through the fray and render appropriate punishment to the offdenders takes more time and is more difficult, but it's the high road.

It's better to close a disruptive thread and sort it out rather than let the disruption continjue while you are working out who said what and when. It stops further disruption and can result in warnings and advice rather than bannings which is highly desirable.

[Moose]

And I'll point out that if the mod team actually had a mission statement, "punishing bad behavior" would not be part of it.

[Neverfly]

Originally Posted by Moose

And I'll point out that if the mod team actually had a mission statement, "punishing bad behavior" would not be part of it.

Ah, so there is some good news...

[Fazor]

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Ah, so there is some good news...

Naw, they just wouldn't have room for that line amidst the "We vow to squash all opposition! We vow to use our assigned power for nothing but evil. We vow to quote Monty Python to disrupt any threads that question our authority!" rhetoric.

[HenrikOlsen]

Except some prefer Pratchett to Python.

If you haven't yet, I'd suggest reading Pratchett's Night Watch, then ponder the point made in it about keeping the peace.

Keep the peace. That was the thing. People often failed to understand what that meant. You'd go to some life-threatening disturbance like a couple of neighbours scrapping in the street over who owned the hedge between their properties, and they'd both be bursting with aggrieved self-righteousness, both yelling, their wives would either be having a private scrap on the side or would have adjourned to a kitchen for a shared pot of tea and a chat, and they all expected you to sort it out.

And they could never understand that it wasn't your job. Sorting it out was a job for a good surveyor and a couple of lawyers, maybe. Your job was to quell the impulse to bang their stupid fat heads together, to ignore the affronted speeches of dodgy self-justification, to get them to stop shouting and to get them off the street. Once that had been achieved, your job was over. You weren't some walking god, dispensing finely tuned natural justice. Your job was simply to bring back peace.

Of course, if your few strict words didn't work and Mr Smith subsequently clambered over the disputed hedge and stabbed Mr Jones to death with a pair of gardening shears, then you had a different job, sorting out the notorious Hedge Argument Murder. But at least it was one you were trained to do.

I hope the analogy is obvious.


PS do read the book, it's really good on many levels. It taught me why old soldiers cry when they sing soldier songs.
They're remembering the ones who aren't there to sing along.

[ToSeek]

Originally Posted by HenrikOlsen

Except sume prefer Pratchett to Python.

If you haven't yet, I'd suggest reading Pratchett's Night Watch, then ponder the point made in it about keeping the peace.

I hope the analogy is obvious.


PS do read the book, it's really good on many levels. It taught me why old soldiers cry when they sing soldier songs.

But read Guards! Guards! before you do. It's a prequel of sorts and probably my favorite book in the entire series.

[Gillianren]

Yeah, the Watch books are the ones where it's best to read them in order, but skipping Jingo doesn't really make a difference.

[mugaliens]

Originally Posted by ToSeek

It's not a question of disagreeing with the judge; it's a question whether you can arrange for an opportunity to stab or shoot a judge you disagree with.

Whaaaat???

As you note, there are other mechanisms for dealing with judges who err, as there are here for moderators who err. But these mechanisms are different from an ordinary person you disagree with.

Absolutely.

Originally Posted by R.A.F.

Even if that were true, (and you've failed to demonstrate that) you haven't shown why this is so important to you, or to re-phrase, why it should be important to the rest of us.

Well, R.A.F., apparently you've never been keen on contributing to a good, solid thread, only to be unable to post, not because two individuals were trading rules violations, but because a mod elected to lock it, thereby punishing the innocent standersby, instead of punish the offenders.

I don't know how to express this any more clearly, R.A.F., and this is about the fifth time I've described it, attempting to approach it from different angles so that you hopefully grasp why this would be important to most who're interested in continuing a discussion.

Sorry, but that's the last time I'll try to explain it. If it's not sinking in, yet, my spending further time on it won't help.

Do you think it is a good thing that posters are allowed time to "cool off", or would you rather have more suspensions/bannings?

The most effective system I've used had a tiered suspension system. For the heck of it, we used primes: 1, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, etc., all measured in days. Most users got the message between the first and third suspension. Those who were more hard-headed would either get the message by about the two-week suspension length (more than 80%) or they'd never get it, but we'd rarely see them again, for if they did post, it was usually something unpleasant, which would result in an immediate deletion of the post and suspension at the next higher level.

I don't recall anyone passing the 100 day mark, as they'd quit trying by then.

The reason it was effective on a highly contentious board (we talked religion and politics all the time) was because we took the time (a whopping two minutes) to explain, dispassionately, the reason for the suspension, while providing clear instruction as to how to avoid further suspension along these lines.

What can I say? It worked very well, and kept the roads rolling, er, threads wide open and humming, with minimal effort on the part of the mods.

Backroom procedures: All suspensions were looked at by all mods, were subject to reversal by a majority of the mods, or by action of an admin. They occasionally were reversed, rarely by an admin.

The thing of it was, we didn't need to ban anyone. Either they eventually got it, or they were kept in a state of suspension with ongoing/repeated opportunity for parole.

So, to answer your question: "Do you think it is a good thing that posters are allowed time to "cool off", or would you rather have more suspensions/bannings?"

Yes, both, as that's what the suspensions accomplished, and without banning.

All while leaving the threads wide open for those who could behave themselves.

Again, it worked, and very, very well.

[mugaliens]

Originally Posted by kleindoofy

I for one would shy from the task of having to compare the strength of one member's attachment to this online community with another's, especially when basing that judgment on the number of posts an individual has made.

Originally Posted by PetersCreek

I have to agree with kleindoofy here. Gauging attachment to this community based post count is not only unsupportable...c'mon...it's inappropriate. My own post count was comparatively quite low at the time I was asked to be a moderator.

Thank God I didn't do that, kleindoofy and PetersCreek, and how disingenuous of both of you to falsely assert that I did.

To reiterate from this post:

Excellent diminuation, kleindoofy...

I'll pause, in case the fact that kleindoofy diminuized my involvement on this forum, apparently to the level as he perceives his own, escaped the reader's notice.

Now, we'll continue:

Originally Posted by mugs

but as you joined before I did yet have about 1/10th the number of posts, I can understand why you would have much less attachment to this online community as I do. I and a few others who spend our time here feel a much stronger connection.

I'll reiterate the pattern for clarity:

1. I posted about strong board involvement, here.

2. kleindoofy dismissed my attachment by calling it "fleeting" and characterized it as "easily terminated with a mouse."

3. I noticed his diminuative statement, and while searching for possible reasons in his previous posts, noted his comparitively low post count, and thought that was a good reflection of his comparitively low feelings of attachment to the board.

Not the cause.

Next time, folks, don't look before you leap - don't leap at all. Leaping to conclusions leads to misunderstandings, unnecessary conflict, and a host of other problems.

Instead - just ask!

Works wonders.

So, to give kleindoofy the benefit of the doubt while ensuring I did not similarly leap to errant conclusions: How wold you rate your attachment to this forum? Low/Med/High? If Med, or High, I'd like to hear why that is when you comment indicated it was so "fleeting."

Thanks.

[HenrikOlsen]

Originally Posted by ToSeek

But read Guards! Guards! before you do. It's a prequel of sorts and probably my favorite book in the entire series.

Originally Posted by Gillianren

Yeah, the Watch books are the ones where it's best to read them in order, but skipping Jingo doesn't really make a difference.

But once you get past Vimes getting transported back in time which happens by page 27, half of which pages are foreshadowing and setting up background anyway, I think it's the one that stands most on it's own(apart from Guards! Guards! which was the first and therefore by definition can stand on its own), as the other books set up the background for things that haven't actually happened yet in the timeline of the book and therefore is only relevant for the flashbacks and remembrances that are written out in detail anyway.

[mugaliens]

Originally Posted by HenrikOlsen

If you haven't yet, I'd suggest reading Pratchett's Night Watch, then ponder the point made in it about keeping the peace.

I hope the analogy is obvious.

It certainly was! Thank you, Henrik. I particularly enjoyed the part about keeping the peace by directly addressing the two violators, rather than placing a cordon around the neighborhood and evacuating everyone, the most appropriate analogy for the practice of indiscriminant thread locking.

[mugaliens]

Originally Posted by mugaliens

...how disingenuous of both of you...

Apparently, my understanding of the term "disingenuous" has been off-target. It means "lacking in candor; giving a false appearance of simple frankness." I thought it meant something more along the lines of "hedging one's bets," or "overstating the issue."

My bad, and I do apologize to you both. As for my comment with respect to "falsely assert that I did," I dunno. Perhaps given my understanding of kleindoofy's original comment and my response, I had my own misperceptions, and couldn't fathom your responses, as I felt my comments were merely observational. They certainly weren't meant to be an affront to kleindoofy. Given the disconnect, I leapt to some conclusions of my own, and wrongly impuned motives to either kleindoofy, PetersCreek, perhaps both.

That there was a disconnect on several fronts is obvious. As to who/what/where/why/how, I'll ponder it while in the high country this weekend, and would ask that you all do the same.

Thanks.

- Mugs

[ToSeek]

Originally Posted by mugaliens

Whaaaat???

My point (that you appeared to take issue with but perhaps just misunderstood) is that it's outside the realm of gentlemanly behavior to challenge a judge who's ruled against you to a duel, and that there are good reasons for this.

[R.A.F.]

Originally Posted by mugaliens

...apparently you've never been keen on contributing to a good, solid thread, only to be unable to post...

Actually, your assumption is wrong. I've had that happen numerous times. I can recall when I've spent a good half hour composing a post only to find the thread closed when I tried to post it. I never considered it that big of deal, and I can understand why the threads were locked...so when it comes to "why should this be important to me", I find it is not. Since this is something that is not of general interest to most members of this board, it should have been "handled" by PMing the mods/admin.

The most effective system I've used...

It is irrelevant what system you utilized on another board...you are on this board. You are not "in charge" here, and fact is, your "suggestion" for how this board should be run "your way" has been rejected.

You've had suffcient time to "make your case" and it has been found wanting. Time to move on...

[ineluki]

Originally Posted by mugaliens

Whaaaat???
Well, R.A.F., apparently you've never been keen on contributing to a good, solid thread, only to be unable to post, not because two individuals were trading rules violations, but because a mod elected to lock it, thereby punishing the innocent standersby, instead of punish the offenders.l.

Have you any examples where you actually tried to get the thread reopened?
If you didn't bother to do that, your contribution appearently wasn't important, even to you.

[boppa]

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.

true

i have even put my 0.25 cents out

sometimes it seems to me that the current baut mods have lost what B.A was all about

(maybe they were all from the u.t bit??)

but i used to see things like nancys current blatherings- i found this bit wrong, what else can anyone find wrong....

jeez the binary guy has forum mods and such STARTING threads in the conspiracy theory section that break the current rules!!!!

I have seen people `ripped a new one' for starting a new thread about an old topic- at the same time others are ripped a new one for bumping a zombie thread....

one of the reasons I really dont like it here anymore- the community sense of `wanting to teach others' has well and truley gone

now its all ***** and moan-(and yes I do see the irony of *****ing and moaning while complaining about exactly that...)

now all i drop in to see is who got banned(i got a countdown i bet against) and the rare new thread that actually interests me

[boppa]

No, I'm being ordinarily sarcastic. Don't make me get very sarcastic. You wouldn't like me when I'm very sarcastic. - JayUtah



this is starting to look like my theme song.....

[Swift]

boppa,

If you see ***** in your post, it isn't because this is an astronomy forum. It means you have used words that are not allowed here. I have deleted your last two posts, as you were just apparently trying to find every banned word and justifying why they are OK.

We try to keep this a child/family friendly forum. And we don't want to became a banned site because of the net-nanny software many schools use.

The mods have long recognized the difficulties that this can mean, and in some circumstances and in some versions of English, a "bad" word can be fine. But given the number of words in English, I suspect we can always find one that is OK in all flavors of English.

Now, if you want to debate this any further, please start a new thread in Feedback, and lets leave this one for Thread Locking.