main
side
curve
  1. In Memory of LAJ_FETT: Please share your remembrances and condolences HERE

Should we lock fewer threads in this forum?

Discussion in 'Communications' started by Raven, May 16, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Raven

    Raven Administrator Emeritus star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Oct 5, 1998


    It may be just me, but it seems to me that we (the Mod Squad) are locking topics in this forum a bit more often than we used to. Short-term locks followed by a reopening after people had a chance to cool down used to be semi-regular, but it seems to me that topics that we locked because we decided that everything that needed to be said had said were few and far between. Perhaps I?m looking back with rose-colored glasses on.

    Are we being premature in locking threads, and locking them before people have truly had a chance to weigh in? Further to that, when we?re sure and set on a course of action and certain that we won?t change our policy in the near future, is it then appropriate for us to lock a thread? Is there ever an occasion that warrants a discussion thread n this forum being permanently locked other than the case in which we lock it so it can be restarted fresh?

    Are we being too quick and brusque in locking threads?
     
  2. Jedi_Learner

    Jedi_Learner Jedi Knight star 5

    Registered:
    Jul 10, 2002
    "Are we being too quick and brusque in locking threads?"

    I know when DarthSapient posts his thoughts, it usually means the topic is going to be locked soon. :p
     
  3. GriffZ

    GriffZ Manager Emeritus star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    May 27, 2001

    Yes, too many threads are being prematurely locked. Take the VIP title thread as an example. That debate wasn't over; people were still weighing in. Even if the MS is absolutely-positively set on one course of action, there's no harm in allowing regular users to weigh in on the issue. Comms is a low-traffic forum and it's not like that VIP thread was bumping important topics off the first page.

    Ideally, most topics should remain open forever. If no one is interested in them, they will fade away on their own.

     
  4. KnightWriter

    KnightWriter Administrator Emeritus star 9 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Nov 6, 2001
    Are we being too quick and brusque in locking threads?

    Yes, I think so.

    There seems to be a bias against lengthy debate by some, with a preference for keeping discussion/debate limited only to things that haven't been officially decided on, or "important" things (with a "point").

    If you look back through old Communications threads (particularly from 2001-03), it's striking to see how much more free and spirited much of the discussion was here. Threads went on for a good while sometimes, even if the discussion was occasionally circular. In my view, unless a thread is getting out of hand or is otherwise inappropriate, it should be allowed to stay open. Simply because something has been ruled on or doesn't seem to have a "point" is no reason to close down discussion. If one or a few people are misbehaving, deal with them, rather than closing down the entire thread. Or, as Raven mention, just temporarily close down the thread to let things cool off.

    There ought to be more flexibility, freedom and respect given to debate in this forum. Once people aren't interested in an issue anymore, they'll stop discussing it and the thread will fade away. Until then (barring repeated inappropriate behavior or discussion of a very small number of forbidden subjects), let things go and moderate at the post level.

    Discussion is good, as is dissent. Let it go.
     
  5. Genghis12

    Genghis12 Manager Emeritus star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Nov 18, 1999
    Due to the nature of the forum and threads within, Comms generally warrants "a response," "decision" or "conclusion."

    The threads posted just for the hell of it are generally few and far between.

    Because of that, responses from all levels - users and mods - are not merely desired, but required. And they ought to be required until the point in time that they are no longer required (which admittedly, is heavily dependent on whichever issue it might be).

    Sure, we can keep threads open indefinitely, but there has to be a point in time where threads requiring any sort of finality have it. And after that point, it should be clear that further discussion is pointless and beating a dead horse.

    And if people want to beat that dead horse, go for it.

    I don't have any problems with not locking threads. I have a problem with having to follow irrelevent or obsolete threads just because somebody still feels the need to express themselves after a conclusion has been finalized.
     
  6. KnightWriter

    KnightWriter Administrator Emeritus star 9 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Nov 6, 2001
    I don't have any problems with not locking threads. I have a problem with having to follow irrelevent or obsolete threads just because somebody still feels the need to express themselves after a conclusion has been finalized.

    What harm does it do to continue discussion, even after something has been finalized?
     
  7. Kimball_Kinnison

    Kimball_Kinnison Jedi Grand Master star 6

    Registered:
    Oct 28, 2001
    Honestly, one of the biggest complaints I have gotten from users is that Comms threads are not locked quick enough, that instead we allow then to go on and on in a vicious circle.

    Take the VIP thread for example. Both sides had explained their views for well over 100 posts, and yet it still boiled down to the same argumetns being repeated ad nauseum.

    Discussion is good, as is dissent. Let it go.

    This is only true to a point.

    For example, nothing at all is served by constantly repeating over and over that a previous mod/admin/SC decided an issue one way when the issue has since been revisited.

    Similarly, there is nothing whatsoever to be gained by repeating over and over again that "the mods are ignoring the rules", especially when several moderators have replied showing that an issue was revisited and/or revised.

    It also does no good to make vague claims that every little item is "indicative of a larger problem". It gets old when almost every issue is blown completely out of proportion.

    What harm does it do to continue discussion, even after something has been finalized?

    It actually does a lot of harm.

    First, by allowing people to go on and on about an issue, even after it is decided, or they are told with whom to discuss the issue, you create a false impression that anything more they say will have any impact on the discussion.

    Consider the "slash" issue. No amount of begging, pleading, complaining, whining, crying, hostage-taking, or nuclear extortion is going to change the fact that the owners decided to disallow slash on the boards. Allowing that discussion to continue only serves to upset those who disagree with the decision (as they get more frustrated and feel that they aren't being listened to), and wastes the time of those who answer comments. Similarly, if the comments are not answered, then it creates the impression that the users are just ignored.

    What good does either result do?

    Second, it wastes the time of everyone involved. I honestly don't have the time right now to answer every point that every user makes, especially when you get 3-4 users posting at the same time. If I were to do that, and allow every thread to keep going after the matter is handled, I would have no time whatsoever to deal with the Senate (my primary forum) or even enjoy time as a normal user. That becomes a recipie for moderator burnout, real quick.

    Having multiple threads on already decided issues also takes away from the newer issues and creates a distraction.

    Kimball Kinnison
     
  8. carmenite42

    carmenite42 Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Jul 21, 2003
    Threads that ask a quick question that have a simple answer should be locked.

    Threads that have a definite answer (ie the slash rule) should be locked.

    Threads that require discussion should not. With the example of the VIP thraed, it was stated that the decision lied with Sape, but the thread was locked before he could weigh in. To me, that makes no sense. Saying he's the one that makes the decision, but not allowing the people who question that decision to discuss it with him in squelching discussion, and makes the MS look like it's locking threads because they don't want to talk.
     
  9. KnightWriter

    KnightWriter Administrator Emeritus star 9 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Nov 6, 2001
    Honestly, one of the biggest complaints I have gotten from users is that Comms threads are not locked quick enough, that instead we allow then to go on and on in a vicious circle.


    Strange that I don't see those sentiments expressed publically. If they have been, could you point out a few examples? If they're PMs, perhaps you could give a specific number, or reprint some sample comments here.

    Also, just because people complain doesn't mean they're automatically valid or correct.


    Take the VIP thread for example. Both sides had explained their views for well over 100 posts, and yet it still boiled down to the same argumetns being repeated ad nauseum.


    In your view. In my view, debate was still worthwhile, and points were being raised by both sides. What harm does it do to let it go on for 500 posts, if that's what people want? None at all. It's interesting that you say that the arguments had been repeated ad nauseum, given that you moderate the Senate, where views are repeated in that manner for thousands of posts (and are allowed to continue on).

    This is only true to a point.

    For example, nothing at all is served by constantly repeating over and over that a previous mod/admin/SC decided an issue one way when the issue has since been revisited.


    So?

    Just because nothing concrete has been "served" doesn't mean people don't get something of value from it. You also can't say that things might not change in the course of discussion. Maybe someone will bring up new points, and those points end up changing people's feelings on the matter.


    It also does no good to make vague claims that every little item is "indicative of a larger problem". It gets old when almost every issue is blown completely out of proportion.


    It's not a vague claim. Dismissiveness is as specific a claim as can be, as is a lack of understanding of membership, disagreement and dissent. Things were very good here in 2002 and 2003 because people were able to have their say, even if it disagreed with the administration and even if it went on and on. I don't recall hearing any complaints about that at the time.

    Something that's "blown out of proportion" to you might be important to others, and it also might be that you're not seeing what others are.

    First, by allowing people to go on and on about an issue, even after it is decided, or they are told with whom to discuss the issue, you create a false impression that anything more they say will have any impact on the discussion.


    So make it clear that the given issue has already been decided on. People can choose whether they still want to post about it or leave it alone. If the circumstances are made clear, that's all you can do.

    Again, consider the "slash" issue

    As I mentioned in an earlier post, there are a few "forbidden" subjects, with one of them the slash issue. That pretty much covers your concern.

    Second, it wastes the time of everyone involved. I honestly don't have the time right now to answer every point that every user makes, especially when you get 3-4 users posting at the same time.

    Your time and responses are neither needed or required to that extent. A lack of time on your part should not somehow mean that debate in Communications should be minimized or shut down. When you go on break for your wedding and honeymoon, does that mean that debate here will be entirely shut down, since you won't have time to respond to anything at all? I should hope not.

    If I were to do that, and allow every thread to keep going after the matter is handled, I would have no time whatsoever to deal with the Senate (my primary forum) or even enjoy time as a normal user

    You don't need to respond to every post here, or be responsible to that extent. More to the point, I think the main objective is to allow for the flow of debate to continue here, in an environment that's free of flaming and other rule breaking. If that's done, you've done your job.
     
  10. DVeditor

    DVeditor Manager Emeritus star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Dec 21, 2001
    IMHO it should be taken on a case-by-case basis. For example, if people were still adding input to the VIP Titles topic then perhaps it should have been left open. However, I think some of the topics lately like this one were right to be locked when they were if not sooner. Just my two cents.
     
  11. YodaJeff

    YodaJeff Manager Emeritus star 7 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Oct 18, 2001
    I think it's lame to lock threads simply because discussion is ongoing in the MS. Wasn't one of the reasons behind disbanding the AC so that more dicussion could take place in Comms? I've yet to see that. How can you expect to get opinions from regular users if you lock threads simply because things are being discussed elsewhere?

    It'd also be nice to see more than the same 6 or 8 mods taking part in Comms, but I realize that isn't likely to happen.

     
  12. Kimball_Kinnison

    Kimball_Kinnison Jedi Grand Master star 6

    Registered:
    Oct 28, 2001
    Threads that require discussion should not. With the example of the VIP thraed, it was stated that the decision lied with Sape, but the thread was locked before he could weigh in. To me, that makes no sense. Saying he's the one that makes the decision, but not allowing the people who question that decision to discuss it with him in squelching discussion, and makes the MS look like it's locking threads because they don't want to talk.

    As I explained via PM, Sape is perfectly capable of unlocking that thread. He has every last one of the admin functions that I have.

    However, nothing was being served by leaving it open where wild accusations (such as claiming that the administration was "willfully ignoring a long-standing rule") and innuendos (of a non-sexual variety) continue.

    Nothing is served at all by allowing such stuff to continue.

    It also only increases the accusations. Such things tend to feed on each other, and grow almost exponentially.

    In your view. In my view, debate was still worthwhile, and points were being raised by both sides. What harm does it do to let it go on for 500 posts, if that's what people want? None at all. It's interesting that you say that the arguments had been repeated ad nauseum, given that you moderate the Senate, where views are repeated in that manner for thousands of posts (and are allowed to continue on).

    First of all, and no offense intended, but I have both the authority and the responsibility to exercise my judgement in such matters. So yes, in my view, nothing further would be served by leaving that thread open. That's why we have moderators and administrators, to exercise their judgement in such matters. You should know that, considering that you held my position and made many such judgement calls yourself on such issues.

    However, there is a difference between Comms and the Senate. In the Senate, almost no harm at all is done by allowing such discussions to continue for long periods of time. However, in Comms, if an issue continues, it implies that it has not yet been resolved, that it is still possible to change the outcome, or that the administration is ignoring what people think. Such consequences do not exist in leaving a Senate thread open.

    I see now that it is simply a catch-22. If we leave the thread open, we either have to respond (which becomes pointless after a while) or we are ignoring the users. If we respond and don't change our minds, then we are simply stubborn and elitist. If we lock the thread, we are stifling discussion.

    Just because nothing concrete has been "served" doesn't mean people don't get something of value from it. You also can't say that things might not change in the course of discussion. Maybe someone will bring up new points, and those points end up changing people's feelings on the matter.

    When I was younger, I would ask my mother a lot of "What if..." questions. She would always respond with "What if the sky fell in and killed all the birds?"

    There's an important principle in there. You have to balance the here-and-now with the possibility that things will change in the future. In the case of the VIP issue, nothing news was being said about it. The matter resides with Sape, and no one else. Any user is free to contact him via PM at any time to express their opinions, and request that the thread be reopened.

    It's not a vague claim. Dismissiveness is as specific a claim as can be, as is a lack of understanding of membership, disagreement and dissent. Things were very good here in 2002 and 2003 because people were able to have their say, even if it disagreed with the administration and even if it went on and on. I don't recall hearing any complaints about that at the time.

    Something that's "blown out of proportion" to you might be important to others, and it also might be that you're not seeing what others are.


    KW, take off the rose-colored glasses for a moment.

    The same sort of things and issues came up in 2002 and 2003 as come up today. I seem to recall regular
     
  13. DarthSapient

    DarthSapient Jedi Youngling star 10

    Registered:
    Jun 26, 2001
    It's always a tough call. As an admin, you also have to make a determination if discussion has become destructive or circular. We really don't like to lock threads.
     
  14. Quixotic-Sith

    Quixotic-Sith Manager Emeritus star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Jun 22, 2001
    Threads that ask a quick question that have a simple answer should be locked.

    Threads that have a definite answer (ie the slash rule) should be locked.

    Threads that require discussion should not. With the example of the VIP thraed, it was stated that the decision lied with Sape, but the thread was locked before he could weigh in. To me, that makes no sense. Saying he's the one that makes the decision, but not allowing the people who question that decision to discuss it with him in squelching discussion, and makes the MS look like it's locking threads because they don't want to talk.


    I agree with 66% of this post. ;)

    The only question I would raise in response is at what point is discussion no longer required. Who gets to decide when the horse is dead? Is it worth keeping a thread open when a resolution or deadlock has been reached? Leaving it open for the sake of hearing new voices is all well and good, but what if this new voice doesn't carry new information or a new perspective with it? Should a thread be left open for glorified 'ditto' posts?

    I think that the rate of thread closure is about the same as when I last modded, and I don't necessarily think that the recent closure of threads was all that unreasonable. This may raise a few hackles (but then, of course, this *is* Comms), but I don't think that the title issue was all that important in the grand scheme of these boards, and I don't think the discussion was going anywhere, so I wasn't put off by its lock.
     
  15. droideka27

    droideka27 Manager Emeritus star 7 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    May 28, 2002
    DISCLAIMER: I AM TALKING ABOUT THE BODERLINE THREADS THAT RAVEN IS MORE TALKING ABOUT, NOT THE CLEAR CUT STUFF, OR THREADS THAT DECAY INTO FLAME FESTS.

    I remember being so frustrated as a regular user to come back to comms to see a thread I was involved in locked. Even now, I am sometimes shocked to see threads locked. Two examples that immediately come to mind are the VIP title, and the "retarded" thread.

    I understand your point about not wanting to read every single post, but SOME mods do.

    And no offense meant, but someone who is "communications mod" and not just admin should be reading every post. there aren't that many. Maybe comms needs another mod. But seems to me in EVERY discussion there are some mods that totally follow it. Isnt that enough to keep it open?

    Shutting down threads says to users "we don't care what you think anymore, we're off to discuss this on our own."
     
  16. DarthSapient

    DarthSapient Jedi Youngling star 10

    Registered:
    Jun 26, 2001
    Part of my job is to try my best to leave threads open that are still working through issues while deciding when nothing can be gained by a thread being opened. Take the religious zero-tolerance thread from today. The suggestion was to not allow anything religious discussed anywhere outside the Senate. That's impossible and not realistic to enforce. I understood the context under which that thread was created and Star Wars is a myth partly based on religion. What could be gained by leaving it open? Not much. The suggestion of a zero-tolerance policy was not going to happen per me.
     
  17. KnightWriter

    KnightWriter Administrator Emeritus star 9 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Nov 6, 2001
    As I explained via PM, Sape is perfectly capable of unlocking that thread. He has every last one of the admin functions that I have.

    There's no need to put him in a position to do so.

    Nothing is served at all by allowing such stuff to continue.

    People being allowed to continue discussion is served, which is almost always a good thing. Whether it culminates in something with a "point" isn't the point at all.

    However, nothing was being served by leaving it open where wild accusations (such as claiming that the administration was "willfully ignoring a long-standing rule") and innuendos (of a non-sexual variety) continue.

    How does a simple opinion become a "wild accusation"? Simply because you disagree with something doesn't make it a "wild accusation".

    You should know that, considering that you held my position and made many such judgement calls yourself on such issues.

    Not like you, Richard. Not like you. I was much more open about the amount of discussion allowed in Communications, and rarely (if ever) shut down discussion that was ongoing, regardless of whether anything was "served" by it. The judgement calls I made tended to be about edits and bans, rather than wholesale locking of ongoing discussions.

    However, there is a difference between Comms and the Senate. In the Senate, almost no harm at all is done by allowing such discussions to continue for long periods of time. However, in Comms, if an issue continues, it implies that it has not yet been resolved, that it is still possible to change the outcome, or that the administration is ignoring what people think.

    So tell people that the issue has been officially resolved.

    If you (in your role as an administrator) make it clear that discussion won't change the administration's conclusions or decisions, you've done what you can. If people still want to talk, let them. They've been told that things have already been decided.

    There's an important principle in there. You have to balance the here-and-now with the possibility that things will change in the future. In the case of the VIP issue, nothing news was being said about it. The matter resides with Sape, and no one else. Any user is free to contact him via PM at any time to express their opinions, and request that the thread be reopened.

    Again, why force him to make that decision? Just let it go, Richard. As long as people aren't breaking any rules in the thread, there's no harm being done. I'm afraid that the JC isn't like your job, and all of life isn't analogous to engineering.

    The same sort of things and issues came up in 2002 and 2003 as come up today. I seem to recall regular complaints (especially from former mods) that moderators were abusing their powers. There were former mods who disagreed with current actions. There were users who didn't like the rules. Threads got locked in Comms. Issues like Slash, WT* and others were brought up.


    If you look more closely, you'll see that discussion was allowed to go on for much longer than it is now (generally speaking).


    All that has really changed now is that many of those who were in the administration then, and dealt with those complaints, are making complaints of their own.


    That's simply not true.


    This is nothing new.


    Definitely not.

    However, it is far, far more common.

    but I don't think that the title issue was all that important in the grand scheme of these boards, and I don't think the discussion was going anywhere, so I wasn't put off by its lock.

    Again, the title issue itself is not the main concern. The main concern (for me, at least) is listening to the membership and understanding the concerns it has, along with allowing people to voice their opinion.

    Just because something isn't important in the "grand scheme of things" (something that's hig
     
  18. Jesina_Dreis

    Jesina_Dreis Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Nov 8, 2004
    I was planning on posting in reply to this, then I saw Carmen say:

    Threads that ask a quick question that have a simple answer should be locked.

    Threads that have a definite answer (ie the slash rule) should be locked.

    Threads that require discussion should not.


    and droideka say

    Shutting down threads says to users "we don't care what you think anymore, we're off to discuss this on our own."

    and I realized that my opinion had already been voiced.

    It's rare to see comms threads left open now... I've gone back and read old discussions in comms and they were left open until they locked automatically. Now, a good half (or more) of the threads on page one are usually locked (right now seems to be the exception to the rule), and the message that sends is exactly what droideka pointed out.
     
  19. YodaJeff

    YodaJeff Manager Emeritus star 7 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Oct 18, 2001
    I realize some mods look down on Comms, and probably specifically on having to deal with some of the ex-mods. I won't even begin to argue that mods should have to participate in Comms, because frankly, if they don't want to post here, I don't want them posting just to meet some sort of monthly quota.

    Instead of seeing Comms and ex-mods as a liability, the administration needs to realize that most of us are here because we care, and our thoughts and opinions should be treated like the asset that they actually are.

    What happened to all the old "Comms reforms"? Remember, the rules were getting tightened, then loosened, and then it was supposed to be open for discussion, and people were supposed to participate... Whatever happened to those things? I'm tired of trying to communicate my thoughts in the Communications forum, only to have this dismissed - by the Comms Admin, no less - as "making a mountain out of a molehill".

    "Shutting down threads says to users "we don't care what you think anymore, we're off to discuss this on our own.""

    Exactly, especially when they're locked because "it's being discussed in the MS".
     
  20. DarthSapient

    DarthSapient Jedi Youngling star 10

    Registered:
    Jun 26, 2001
    I hope people on these boards know that I'm always open to hear new points of view and ideas. Just because something is locked doesn't mean it's forever.
     
  21. Quixotic-Sith

    Quixotic-Sith Manager Emeritus star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Jun 22, 2001
    Again, the title issue itself is not the main concern. The main concern (for me, at least) is listening to the membership and understanding the concerns it has, along with allowing people to voice their opinion.

    I agree with what you're saying, KW, but I think people are still able to voice their opinion. Threads can be reopened if there is popular desire (or compelling individual desire), and PMs are always available. I'm not sure that any principal is really being violated here.

    Just because something isn't important in the "grand scheme of things" (something that's highly subjective) doesn't mean debate about it shouldn't be allowed. In the grand scheme of things, Star Wars (nor just about anything else here) isn't terribly important. We talk about it anyway.

    I'm not talking about RL importance, because that's a given. I think there *are* larger issues for the boards at stake (e.g., the future of this site after ROTS, the impending rush of newbies following Wednesday/Thursday, etc.), and I don't see locking a thread about titles (again, not even necessarily a permanent action) as being more important than them.
     
  22. YodaJeff

    YodaJeff Manager Emeritus star 7 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Oct 18, 2001
    "Just because something is locked doesn't mean it's forever."

    Yet, that's exactly how things appear to regular users when you lock a thread. We don't have the priviledge of going to the MS to discuss things further.

    If mods want to continue to discuss things in the MS, they should realize that users also want to continue to discuss them in Comms, and should act accordingly by not locking as many Comms threads.
     
  23. KnightWriter

    KnightWriter Administrator Emeritus star 9 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Nov 6, 2001
    I agree with what you're saying, KW, but I think people are still able to voice their opinion. Threads can be reopened if there is popular desire (or compelling individual desire), and PMs are always available. I'm not sure that any principal is really being violated here.

    And yet they pretty much never are.

    How can popular desire be gauged? If many people are participating in a discussion (and behaving themselves), that seems like the best indicator of "popular desire" demanding that debate be allowed to continue. PMs are nice, but people can't see what others have to say, and it's a limited form of communication.

    I think there *are* larger issues for the boards at stake

    There are definitely larger issues at stake. But does that mean smaller ones shouldn't be discussed? There's nothing stopping anyone from starting new threads to discuss those larger issues here. Those larger issues might just take away from debate on something like the title thread, and render it obsolete.

    Just because a thread can be locked doesn't mean it will. Looking over the time since March of 2004, I think most would agree that thread reopenings are very rare indeed.

     
  24. DarthSapient

    DarthSapient Jedi Youngling star 10

    Registered:
    Jun 26, 2001
    But YJ, some threads in Comms have to be locked. It's a forum just like any other forum in that regard. Sure it happens less, but judgment calls must be made and some absolutes set. I'm not talking about the VIP thread in particular, only in generalities.
     
  25. KnightWriter

    KnightWriter Administrator Emeritus star 9 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Nov 6, 2001
    But YJ, some threads in Comms have to be locked.

    Of course. The technical and routine question threads should be locked pretty quickly. But issues important to many people ought to be allowed to go on.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.