Thread Locking

[mugaliens]

Thread Locking punishes everyone, rather than the one or two individuals responsible for the melee'. It is appropriate when other measures, such as punishing individual violators of a forum's rules, fail to achieve their desired effect, or when the topic itself is beyond acceptable forum limits.

Until BAUT, I had never seen it used as a means of punishing one or two individuals, as doing so doesn't punish one or two individuals - it punishes everyone, both contributors and readers alike. Quite frankly, the last time I observed this tactic outside of BAUT was in a movie, when Private Pyle was allowed to eat his jelly donut while the rest of his platoon did pushups as punishment for his mistake.

We are not in the military. We do not live in barracks, much less the same barracks. We are not in boot camp.

So why does BAUT's management lock threads instead of punishing those who break the rules?

I'm starting this thread to raise awareness of this behavior, and to track it, in the hopes that BAUT's management will judiciously apply forum rules to those who break them, rather than using a grenade to break up a knife fight.

First up, this thread, locked because one (repeat: 1) poster's comments were politically charged.

As a result, the other dozen contributers have been locked out. The fifty or so viewers no longer have anything to view.

This approach, this practice of locking threads hurts eveyone, and does nothing to stop the behavior of the offender, for one simple reason: They just don't care. They're not going through basic with us, so there's no peer-to-peer repercussions.

Bottom line, it's a bad idea. It's ineffective, misguided, and the collateral damage caused by depriving the rest of us from contributing to or reading decent content, has no effect whatsoever, except harm.

I didn't start this thread to rail against the mods - they do a wonderful job, here. But not perfect.

I started this thread to track these closures, their justifications, their successes, and their failures.

Nothing more, nothing less.

[Tobin Dax]

Originally Posted by mugaliens

First up, this thread, locked because one (repeat: 1) poster's comments were politically charged.

It was locked because two other posters were going at it, and that apparently had been going on for a couple pages.

Did you report the post and bring your concerns to the moderation team before you started this thread?

[peter eldergill]

Mugs, I thought it was pretty clear that the thread could easily be reopened. What's the issue? It's just a measure to let people calm down and start again without resorting to suspensions. Would you prefer a closure or suspension?

Pete

[mugaliens]

Originally Posted by Tobin Dax

Did you report the post and bring your concerns to the moderation team before you started this thread?

That specific thread isn't the issue (just a symptom). The title is the issue: Thread Locking

Did you report the post and bring your concerns to the moderation team before you started this thread?

Yes, several times.

Purpose of this section: "Introduce yourself, then criticize, compliment, or discuss how we do things."

I am criticizing the use of thread locking in these situations, and am discussing how the BAUT staff does things.

I think I even added a heartfelt comment in my previous post! Since most of you already know me, right now I'm right on target with the purpose of this section.

Originally Posted by peter eldergill

Mugs, I thought it was pretty clear that the thread could easily be reopened. What's the issue?

The use of thread locking, which impacts everyone, in lieu of the more normal, highly effect, and less collaterally damaging: notice / warning / censure / suspension / banning.

Would you prefer a closure or suspension?

Those are but two of the six choices available. Thread locking is appropriate when many are involved in a melee'. Again, because of the collateral damage, it's not an appropriate response for dealing with a few unruly individuals.

Thanks for your responses, fellows. From now on, however, let's skip the second-guessing and get to the thead OP: Thread Locking.

[pzkpfw]

Originally Posted by mugaliens

That specific thread isn't the issue (just a symptom). The title is the issue: Thread Locking


...snip...


Thanks for your responses, fellows. From now on, however, let's skip the second-guessing and get to the thead OP: Thread Locking.

You only gave one example (closed thread) to support your claim.

Anyone reading the last two posts of that thread would easily give the first two responses you got for this thread.

If you want people to get your point (which may or may not be valid), you'll need to give better examples, and not get haughty when people rebut your examples.

[pzkpfw]

Originally Posted by mugaliens

Yes, several times.

To clarify the question: did you report post #169 (of your example thread) and make a case to have the thread re-opened? (A course of action suggested in post #169).

[mugaliens]

Originally Posted by pzkpfw

You only gave one example (closed thread) to support your claim.

I have no claim, pzkpfw. Mine is an observation of BAUT administrators' repeated thread-closing actions in light of the governing guidelines for this thread: "Introduce yourself, then criticize, compliment, or discuss how we do things."

As per this section's charter: 1) You know me. 2) My criticism is in my OP. 3) My compliment in is my OP. 4) I've discussed how you do things in my OP.

Please refocus your efforts on the OP i.e. the practice of thread locking in lieu of more appropriate action, as I clearly outlined in my OP.

Thank you.

If you want people to get your point...

My point is based on decades of experience. It's changed many times throughout the years, but the more years that pass, the greater the hurdles it takes to suade my mind.

...and not get haughty...

There was no haughtiness present in my response. Please do not wrongly impune the confidence that comes with experience as "arrogance."

I'm curious as to what experience you're bringing to the table on the Thread Locking issue. This isn't a challenge, pzkpfw - if you have real-world experience and rational arguements as to why BAUT's current practices are best, please lay them on the table!

I might learn a thing or three!

Back to your original comment: "You only gave one example..." This board, of which you are both a member and a mod has given many examples. You have more resources at your disposal for verifying this than I. Please use them.

[mugaliens]

Originally Posted by pzkpfw

To clarify the question: did you report post #169 (of your example thread) and make a case to have the thread re-opened? (A course of action suggested in post #169).

To reiteratethe the perfectly appropriate Post #4 response I'd previously given, pzkpfw, "That specific thread isn't the issue (just a symptom)."

To put it succinctly, the ongoing practice is the issue, not any particular example.

As I asked you previously, please focus on the issue.

[Swift]

I lock threads pretty rarely, compared to other actions I take (PMs with either gentle reminders or hard warnings, public warnings, suspensions). A lot of those actions are invisible to the membership.

I do it for a variety of reasons, but they probably boil-down to two or three main reasons: threads that are becoming too ugly, which may be shutdown for a short cooling-off or permanently, threads that are banned topics (politics, religion, etc.) and will just never go forward, CT or ATM threads where the OP is not doing what they should and lose their priviledge to put forth their idea.

I have, on occasion locked a thread for a short period (it often revolves around one of those reasons listed), where I mostly locked it because I just couldn't cope with it at that time (like it was past my bedtime).

As pzkpfw said, you can always Report it and it will be discussed.

[Fazor]

I see thread locking most in CT (and probably ATM, though I don't frequent that section). These threads most often get locked when a) the OP doesn't defend the proposed idea, b) the OP doesn't follow the rules of the section (i.e., address questions, civility, etc), or c) the OP gets suspended/banned.

Yes, sometimes the discussions were interesting even sans OP and sans topic-defense, but if they don't follow the rules they have to be locked. You can't say, "Threads in these sections must follow the rules, unless we don't feel like it."

Locked threads in other sections, such as OTB, can result from one or two posters disobeying the rules, but the theory is that a mod or mods feel that the thread is heading down the wrong track, or doomed to spark those types of conversations. They do us a service by allowing discussion to continue as long as it can, but usually an infraction from one or two members is an overall indication that the line is quickly approaching. I think they do a good job of using their judgment, usually. There's times where I might not agree, but if I disagree strongly enough, there's always PMs or the little triangle button.

[Tobin Dax]

Originally Posted by Tobin Dax

It was locked because two other posters were going at it, and that apparently had been going on for a couple pages.

Ok, Mugs, how exactly do you think that the situations that actually got the thread locked should be resolved? You have conveniently avoided responding to that situation even though it fits the topic of your OP.

[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.

[Swift]

Originally Posted by Neverfly

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

I don't particularly seen any significant change over time. But as I already said, yep it sometimes is. But with the economy, we're not allowed to put any more overtime on our timecard, so.... oh well.

[Fazor]

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.

And what qualifications do you have to determine how badly you get treated?

. . . sorry, I couldn't resist. People disagree, sometimes vehemently, but it's still worthwhile.

This thread for instance; while I don't necessarily agree with the OP statement, it lets me see the arguments for and against it, which does help me better form my own opinion. In turn I can post my opinion so that others may weigh it as well.

Now *my* opinion doesn't mean anything anyway. But I'd like to assume the effect is similar for the mods and admins.

Maybe these threads get a little heated, but that's not surprising. Saying something negative about a forum that so many people love is kinda like going into someone's house and saying the drapes don't match the living room's design scheme. It's hard not to take it personally, sometimes.

[Neverfly]

Originally Posted by Swift

I don't particularly seen any significant change over time. But as I already said, yep it sometimes is. But with the economy, we're not allowed to put any more overtime on our timecard, so.... oh well.

Ok, we get it. You're volunteer, not paid.

I guess that makes the perfect excuse.

[R.A.F.]

Originally Posted by mugaliens

...the ongoing practice is the issue, not any particular example.

It might be an "issue" to you, but you've failed to demonstrate why it should be an "issue" to anyone else.

In other words, if you can't be "bothered" to follow what I consider "standard procedure" (using the report button and requesting that the thread be re-opened) then what are you complaining about?

[Buttercup]

If anyone locks my Pumpkin Poll thread, I will have a fit!

[Swift]

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Ok, we get it. You're volunteer, not paid.

I guess that makes the perfect excuse.

Yes, it is.

In my 10 months as a mod, I can think of one time I closed a thread where a big part (but not the only part) of the reason was because of expedience. It happened within the last month. It was about 11:30 at night, I really should have gone to bed, but I did a quick look in at BAUT and found a huge pile of reported posts and a big squabble in some thread, and I was the only moderator on at that moment. I decided not to take an hour or so and try to figure it all out so I just closed the thread. The following morning, not even 12 hours later, there was a discussion among the moderators, that stretched out over several hours, and some final decision on it was made (I don't recall what that was).

As I said, it is relatively rare reason for me, and as best as I can tell, just as rare for the rest of the moderators. But it does happen.

And I'm sorry if that is not acceptable to you or mugs or anyone else, but you know....

[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.

It's either against the rules or if in the rare circumstances as in threads such as these, allowed by the rules, met with "Well, we're not getting paid, anyway" or sarcasm.

First:

Reporting a post-- Get's lost in the committee.

Second:
Requesting that a post is reopened-- No guarantee it will be and will probably also get lost in the committee...

So what we get told:
Trust the Moderators.

You know what? I tried that once. It didn't work out so hot for me.

[captain swoop]

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.

Who has been treated badly in this thread?

Thread locking is rare, if a thread is locked because a couple of members are misbehaving it's usualy a temmporary measure to stop the bad behaviour while the Mod concerned seeks advice from other Mods about a situation or to let people cool down before they get themselves suspended. Such lockings are usualy temporary, or in the case of a thread that just has a couple of posters having a go there is always an option to PM and ask it to be opened again. Threads that have gone seriously off topic or into banned subjects will usualy be closed with a note to say why and again there is the option to PM and put forward a case for the thread to be reopened.

I still don't see any examples of this over the top thread locking that Mugs seems to see. Show us some examples and tell us why you think they were wrong.

[Nereid]

As has already been pointed out, there are circumstances where locking a thread in the ATM section is by far the best thing to do.

For example, if the sole proponent of the ATM idea which is the focus of said thread is no longer around - for whatever reason - it is unfair to allow the thread to remain open ... and unfair to everyone, not just said proponent.

Perhaps you might consider carving out this exception, mugs?

[captain swoop]

OK I am going to go all 'Mod' on people. Lets try to keep this to the subject of the OP and not degenerate into ageneral 'Whine' about moderation again

[R.A.F.]

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Requesting that a post is reopened-- No guarantee it will be...

If no request is made, I can guarantee it won't be re-opened...

[mugaliens]

Originally Posted by Swift

I have, on occasion locked a thread for a short period (it often revolves around one of those reasons listed), where I mostly locked it because I just couldn't cope with it at that time (like it was past my bedtime).

This makes sense. Perhaps along with a note to the mod pool to let someone in a different time zone deal with the offenders before unlocking the thread.

As pzkpfw said, you can always Report it and it will be discussed.

They're usually locked by the time I arrive to participate. I see the offenses, but disagree that locking everyone out of the thread is the best way to handle one person who is goading another, and the other who is becoming offended.

Originally Posted by Fazor

They do us a service by allowing discussion to continue as long as it can, but usually an infraction from one or two members is an overall indication that the line is quickly approaching.

I think that is a disservice, and that it would be better to deal with the problem early, and directly, rather than wait until it gets out of hand and lock the thread thereby spoiling the situation for all.

I do not agree that one or two members getting out of hand indicates it's a bad thread. I've seen (elsewhere) members enter the ring over a nursury rhyme thread, while observing well-behaved discussions on politics and religion.

There are certainly appropriate times to lock a thread. ATM/CT threads which reach one month maturity, or any time the fur continues to fly among posters (more than a few).

Several mods here do a great job of posting purple in a thread. Usually, it's heeded. Sometimes it's not.

..if I disagree strongly enough, there's always PMs or the little triangle button.

I use both as required.

Originally Posted by Tobin Dax

Ok, Mugs, how exactly do you think that the situations that actually got the thread locked should be resolved? You have conveniently avoided responding to that situation even though it fits the topic of your OP.

That's an incorrect accusation, Tobin. I stated how in post 4, here. Swift shared his responses, here.

Originally Posted by Fazor

People disagree, sometimes vehemently, but it's still worthwhile.

I agree! As do the rules: " Of course, we expect to have spirited debates! That’s fine, as long as the people involved extend one another basic respect. Disagreements are inevitable, but even in those situations you must still be nice."

Saying something negative about a forum that so many people love is kinda like going into someone's house and saying the drapes don't match the living room's design scheme. It's hard not to take it personally, sometimes.

I understand. If I didn't also live in that house, however, I wouldn't say a thing. Because I do frequent BAUT, I'd like to see continue to grow and become better.

Originally Posted by R.A.F.

In other words, if you can't be "bothered" to follow what I consider "standard procedure" (using the report button and requesting that the thread be re-opened) then what are you complaining about?

As I previously stated in detail and on more than one occasion in this thread, R.A.F., I do follow "standard procedure."

As I also stated previously, "standard procedure", according to this section's header, also includes raising issues here if the report button and PMs aren't achieving their desired effect.

Originally Posted by Buttercup

If anyone locks my Pumpkin Poll thread, I will have a fit!

LoL, I think that one's safe, Buttercup! Unless Trebuchet gets involved - he seems to have a knack for making pumpkins fly...

[PetersCreek]

My impression is that we don't close threads much (if any) more frequently than in the past. I subscribe to the "rash theory" myself, so perhaps it seems that way from time to time when we get a rash of closures. It seems that we're also experiencing a rash of other problematic behaviors, so maybe I'm on to something...or maybe I'm just fooling myself. Anyway, since my thread closure is the exemplar here...

Sometimes closing a thread...either temporarily or permanently...is more efficient and less heavy-handed than sorting out who gets warned, suspended, or banned for what. Sometimes the discussion just needs a break. I don't think I do it all that often myself but it is a tool I keep in the bag next to the "hammer".

Just as there are plenty of examples of thread closures for such reasons, there are examples of threads having been reopened by request. As I write this, I have received no reports or PMs asking for the closed thread to be reopened.

[Fazor]

Originally Posted by mugaliens

I do not agree that one or two members getting out of hand indicates it's a bad thread. I've seen (elsewhere) members enter the ring over a nursury rhyme thread, while observing well-behaved discussions on politics and religion.

I don't agree that "one or two members getting out of hand indicates it's a bad thread."

However, that's not what I said. I said it can be an indication of that, and that moderators much use their judgement to make that determination. I've seen plenty of threads where two or more people have gotten out of hand, and only warnings have been issued. Sometimes bans result. Sometimes the conversation has devolved too much and the thread gets locked.

Do I personally always agree with the moderator's judgement? No. But I feel they do a great job overall. And one always has the option to contact the mods for dispute. Will a decision always be overturned? No. But I can tell from things that have been said in various threads that the mods do seriously discuss these situations. Just because it's invisible to us doesn't mean they don't occur.

[Neverfly]

Originally Posted by captain swoop

OK I am going to go all 'Mod' on people. Lets try to keep this to the subject of the OP and not degenerate into ageneral 'Whine' about moderation again

Whining... Ok.

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

Originally Posted by PetersCreek

My impression is that we don't close threads much (if any) more frequently than in the past. I subscribe to the "rash theory" myself, so perhaps it seems that way from time to time when we get a rash of closures. It seems that we're also experiencing a rash of other problematic behaviors, so maybe I'm on to something...or maybe I'm just fooling myself. Anyway, since my thread closure is the exemplar here..

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.

[Moose]

Just a note, not pointing fingers, but if your report basically reads like an objection for the necessity of the thread closure, the result will basically be that we review the need for the closure, then we move on.

If you're looking to get a closed thread reopened because you have something to say, you should tell us that (preferably with a summary of what you would like to say). No promises (depending on why the thread was closed), but we'll hear you out.

[Swift]

Originally Posted by mugaliens

<snip>

I think that is a disservice, and that it would be better to deal with the problem early, and directly, rather than wait until it gets out of hand and lock the thread thereby spoiling the situation for all.

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. If I deal with it "early on" by posting some sort of warning, I'm "over-moderating" or I get complaints that I'm embarrassing someone publicly, when it would be better done by PM (and I'm infringing on the free exchange of ideas). If I deal with it early on with PMs, we get 20 Reported posts from people who don't know I've PMed someone (or someones) and it is already handled. If I just let things go, then warfare breaks out.

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.

[NEOWatcher]

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...

There he goes explaining himself again...jeesh.

Originally Posted by Swift

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

Excellent thought for the day.