Closing and Locking Threads

[Chuffy]

Welcome Chuffy. Yes, you get it completely. Perhaps I can interest you in being a mod here?! You like bamboo splints under the fingernails, yes?

I'm still trying to find needle-nosed pliers long enough to pull out the splinters from last time...

But thanks anyway!

 

[180mmCrank]

At the risk of stating the obvious here... we can't possibly read everything. I think I struggle to read more than about a third of what is posted. I used to read more but now I spend my time responding to and/or dealing with posts that get reported etc

I know this has been said before but we/I rely really heavily on people reporting posts that offend or significantly derail threads. A number of forum members are diligent and helpful in the way they report posts that need attention - I can only think of one foum member who was a little over enthusiastic with reporting facility

For what it's worth I would like to see more civil discussion of cycling and less 'he said she said' bickering and less use of bad language in general. I don't see why in principle a minor (12-14 year old) shouldn't be able to read what is posted here. Just my view.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Welcome Chuffy. Yes, you get it completely. Perhaps I can interest you in being a mod here?! You like bamboo splints under the fingernails, yes?


Actually, it's almost the same amount of time determining whether to delete a post that's OT. It's all part of the same package. That's the part I don't think you understand.

That amount of time is given because we don't want such a heavy hand that it's even more work dealing with the backlash.

To all the above since I posted - thanks for your posts, I will answer it through Alpes

Ya - I will admit, not having done your role I cannot say how much time and effort you guys put in. But as I am sure you know I appreciate that.

My point - which I admit is simplistic is by a crackdown on OT posts it reduces the volume of everything - the reported posts, the PM's, the new posts that may take a second look.
As I believe the site is going to get alot busier over the next few months - and unless there are more mods, you guys will be doing more 'work'.

As an example - I was having a difference of opinion with a poster on an OT remark, it went back and forth and then they brought up a waaay OT remark, regarding my political beliefs - so I suggested they should just deal with the topic, take the OT part to an existing relevant thread, and PM me if they wanted to know my beliefs - I did not hear from them again.

I have no doubt that if a 'crackdown' was intiated that there would be more private correspondence - but again, if a posters points were OT they have little to complain about - and are probably only here to bait people in the first place.

 

[Martin318is]

Doc,

As Terry highlighted - if you had instead just reported the OT post and moved on without responding then the high likelihood is that a mod would have walked in and Zapped it as soon as they received the email. They would have then checked the following posts and zapped any other OT responses.

The mods would also get a much better picture of a potential problem poster based upon the extra data from reportings.

Its a lot less effort for us AND a lot less effort for you, if you just click the report post button and give us a sentence explaining what the problem is.

Support your local Mod!

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Ok - I was just writing this and when I went to his post I found the thread had been closed.....

can we shut this down ?

I second that motion.

I have to enquire - why?

If someone is out of hand then they should be 'shut down' (warning, infraction, whatever) - but there is no need for the thread to be shut down.

If that happens then some might deliberatley start abusing that just to get rid of damaging threads quickly.

ADD ON: Ok, so now the thread has been closed - this is a dangerous precedent (IMO) ...I
If Polish (or someone else) does not like a thread does this mean that all they have to do is troll it until it is locked?
Also - 2 posters in agreement is hardly grounds to close a thread.

 

[tubularglue]

children were brought into the mix.

for some, that is an issue that needs no explanation.


my thoughts.


the train derailed twice prior. Out of respect i asked the question, and got an answer, followed up by an action.

this is not about forum freedom. the links to the tweets were taken down because they were inappropriate. Most of the ladder entries were butchered. The thread is therefore incomplete as written. Does this result in an argument also ?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

children were brought into the mix.

for some, that is an issue that needs no explanation.


my thoughts.


the train derailed twice prior. Out of respect i asked the question, and got an answer, followed up by an action.

this is not about forum freedom. the links to the tweets were taken down because they were inappropriate. Most of the ladder entries were butchered. The thread is therefore incomplete as written. Does this result in an argument also ?

Thanks for the response - I missed the comments bring in children - I presume it was not the LeMonds, as they are both in their 20's.

Certainly anything bringing in LA's kids etc is unnecessary and indeed in poor taste.
perhaps a temporary closure - but those who acted inappropriately should be warned/punished as closing down threads this way could be abused in future.

 

[tubularglue]

i asked a question
it was answered
it was not a winning situation
i do not view this as punishing, given the content, by having it locked


as far as warnings/i'll leave that up to the mods

jmo

 

[Martin318is]

I think I need to add an apology (although I at the same time have to ask myself, "why?")

I wrote "ask and ye shall receive" when I closed the thread.

The reason was that I didn't want to just close it without comment but also that I was so frustrated by the behavior in the thread both pre and post warnings that I frankly didn't think many in the thread actually deserved an explanation.

Doc,
We've talked about this before - yes we can apply punishments against individuals and remove their comments etc but when the topic itself lends itself to more people coming in with the same pathetic banter then it is the thread itself that needs to be hit on the head.

You talk of a precedent in this area however I didnt lock the thread in response to the requests - I just jokingly made it look that way (my mistake apparently). Moderators are more than capable of acting on their own ethics/morality/logic without excessive input from non-moderators in about 99.95% of cases.

There were repeated warnings in this thread - the last of which I wrote in a very explicit manner warning of what would happen if things continued. Rather than making mods come back to the thread every 10mins to clean it up AGAIN, it can die a death.

the thing is - it was hardly a particularly worthy thread now was it? It existed because the posts were extracted from another thread that they were starting to pollute. Perhaps I should have just knocked it all on the head there rather than let the new thread commence but hey I am a softy some times.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I was meant to post here or in the Mod thread yesterday to say as much as I don't like closing or locking threads (as I have stated here earlier) - I thought they way the Mods handled the last few difficult days and closed some threads that could be viewed as inappropriate or insensitive was an excellent call.

However today - I opened a thread to address some (broad) claims made against posters in a thread in The Clinic.


The claims made in the LA thread are off topic, so (in a perfect world) they should be removed, but if not then I don't see why I cannot query those claims.

Often this is done as a blatant attempt to bait others and make the existing thread unreadable.

So as not to keep querying off topic claims I opened a separate thread in the appropriate area.
I don't see any reason why it was closed. I asked the poster to address their claims and did not make any personal remarks.

A separate thread where off-topics claims can be queried would serve a valid purpose as it would clean up the existing threads and will only be used or viewed by those that want to engage in the off topic (or separate topic) discussion.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Can a Mod reopen the other thread?

This was the (JPMs) post from the closed thread:

However funny it is to see you two bickering (not that funny really) this is better suited for a series pm's.

Please continue in private now - and it seems it wouldn't take you too long to fill up each other's inboxes.

Thank you.

I don't see why it should go to PMs.
The claims were made on the forum (and are still there), I don't see why they cannot be questioned but I don't wish to derail the existing thread which is why I opened a new one.

 

[usedtobefast]

Can a Mod reopen the other thread?

This was the (JPMs) post from the closed thread:


I don't see why it should go to PMs.
The claims were made on the forum (and are still there), I don't see why they cannot be questioned but I don't wish to derail the existing thread which is why I opened a new one.

i am finding way too much of this,imo. overmoderation is a bit much.

 

[Cal_Joe]

Can a Mod reopen the other thread?

I thought the thread was a train wreck in the making after 3 posts. A thread about a general philosophy - OK. A thread that starts out with the typical inquisition of only one forum member - that is begging for it to be shut down, despite the disclaimers of not wanting to disrupt a thread in the clinic.

Disrupting a thread in the clinic, hmmmm, never has happened before.

Jeebuz.

 

[Francois the Postman]

Can a Mod reopen the other thread?

This was the (JPMs) post from the closed thread:

I don't see why it should go to PMs.
The claims were made on the forum (and are still there), I don't see why they cannot be questioned but I don't wish to derail the existing thread which is why I opened a new one.

I haven't looked at that thread in detail, as it was closed before I got to it, but the overall direction of the post you made, and by the look of things caused you to post the thread in the first place, was to challenge one particular poster for comments he made, in which he stated wider things about the Clinic in general.

That post in particular would require the poster in question to go done a route, naming/shaming/finger-pointing, whatever you want to call it, that, as we have clearly stated, is not the direction we want to see things develop in here.

It reinforces the splitting the Clinic up into camps, stereotyping people, or pitching people against each other, even if your intent might well be to do the opposite.

In general, regardless of what you want to do in that thread, the only way that that thread will end up, is people having yet another arena to challenge and dance with each other. In an area that is here to talk about us.

We have given a clear hint that we want to have you guys talk more about posts than posters.

This opening line flies in the face of that:

I think it will also help clean up some threads by moving personal discussions about posters to a dedicated thread


I assume you can only mean specific posters, so the moment we start to discuss them, you are swimming upstream, when we clearly flagged folk to go more down it.


There is another reason why we discourage this: some people will be misidentified for having motivation a) for doing stuff, when they are actually falling under header b). Sometimes the mods know it's b) too.

Now the only way to waylay those claims, and stop being treated when some of you guys have convinced each other it can only possible be a), is for those posters to prove it as b).

Sometimes, that is uncalled for, and not required to say the least. All the more if it some guy behind a PC demanding it, and being dead wrong for starters, and hardly showing an ability to give alternative explanations much reflection [not saying that that is you Dr].

Sometimes, the justification is really none of anyone's business.

In some cases, the mods actually do know more than you guys, but we are keeping stumm because it is appropriate. It would however be nice if some people heeded our requests to lay off a bit sometimes. We might actually have pretty good reasons, rather than agendas.

I don't think think that any of your guys are horrible people, but some of you are quicker to miss signals because of the "blind" nature of being online. I am utterly convinced that if some of you were in a pub together, some attitudes to each other would quickly temper. I suspect some of you would even be embarrassed if you knew how inappropriate some of the more sharper exchanges have been.

There are reasons why we try to avoid these open confrontations and exchanges, and ask folk to trust our judgement every now and then, even if we appear totally insane for not seeing "the obvious".

It is a tricky area, there is probably not one ideal way that is best suited to each and every case. But our general stance, that the namecalling and trollcalling is great, right up to the point that people have it oh so wrong, stands.

We discourage some debate not because we are prudes or control freaks, but because some of the issues it would raise are no-one's business except the posters in questions, and from time to time, the mods.

I already feel that even by explaining these things I lean further out than I am comfortable with, but at the same time we have done the gentle requests, the rationalizing, the argumentation, at times the threatening, which is the last thing I am here for.

I hope we can remain inclusive. I hope folk are hearing what I am saying. I can't and won't say more on that.

Everyone will be scrutinized, no-one gets a free reign. But at the same time, there is a reason why the mods are making the call what is appropriate, and why, without having to dot every i, as some stuff really does not concern you guys.

I get why you post this Dr, I honestly do. We even already started the debate about closing threads - or not- yet again, in the staff room.

Maybe what we do makes no sense to you. It is, however, done for very good reasons, or at least "the best of our abilities".

We won't make all the right calls, but at the same time, sometimes we can't be open about the "why's" either.

In this case, the thread was closed because of the direction it quickly took, without saying either one was at fault or breaking rules. Maybe guidelines, or heading against the the general hints we drop, about giving each other a bit more space to participate in.

We just closed the thread, nothing else happened. It wasn't a biggie, from our pov.

We don't welcome some discussions, no matter how well intended. Speculation follows, and assumptions, conclusions, etc. And all too apparent, at times, huge misjudgements that cannot be set right if folk refuse to take anyone else's word for it but their own.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I thought the thread was a train wreck in the making after 3 posts. A thread about a general philosophy - OK.

It wasn't a philosophy - the poster made claims and I merely asked them to back them up (or indeed they could withdraw them).

A thread that starts out with the typical inquisition of only one forum member

Well only one poster made the claim - who else should I have addressed?

Haven't you just addressed my post? Guess what, I am not offended because you are not making personal remarks - you are articulating your viewpoint.

- that is begging for it to be shut down, despite the disclaimers of not wanting to disrupt a thread in the clinic.

Am, the thread I started wasn't in the Clinic - so how could it disrupt the other thread?

Disrupting a thread in the clinic, hmmmm, never has happened before.

Jeebuz.

Are you happy with having threads disrupted with off topic remarks?

 

[Cal_Joe]

It wasn't a philosophy -<snip>

Look, Doc, I happen to agree with the mods that the discussion could easily have been carried out via PMs. With that method, you might have had all your questions answered. If that happened, you would understand where the poster you named was coming from, which is the only thing you wanted, right?

 

[Francois the Postman]

BTW, I have several times toyed with the idea of starting am experiment in the Clinic: offering a different option to thread starters: an OP can opt for a thread to be a "super-moderated thread".

ON topic only, no name calling, ****taking, humor, derailing, etc. Mods can and will delete everything that seems to be out of place, and flagrant breaches will have consequences, as the aim is to do nada. A bit like the link threads.

I am not sure it could work, mostly because of the extra demands it probably puts on us, and having to be fair when folk seem to have problems with some of our/my calls already.

But it might be a worth shot, just to see if it works. If it doesn't, at least we know.

They're gonna be boring prob, sorry, andit will be "just the meat" [pun intended].

I keep trying to get round to it, but there is always something that slips inbetween.

There are a couple of other ideas I had for the clinic, and other mods have their thoughts too. But for now, that maybe worth shot?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

.......

This opening line flies in the face of that:

I think it will also help clean up some threads by moving personal discussions about posters to a dedicated thread


I assume you can only mean specific posters, so the moment we start to discuss them, you are swimming upstream, when we clearly flagged folk to go more down it.

You don't do shorthand, do you?

I will get back to this tomorrow but the quoted above reads badly - that was not my intention, probably better if I said "moving personal discussions between posters to a dedicated thread".

I understand the dilemma I am proposing - but i don't believe there is anything wrong with addressing someone directly and if it is OT, doing so in a separate thread, as long as it remains civil - but then normal rules apply.

 

[Hugh Januss]

BTW, I have several times toyed with the idea of starting am experiment in the Clinic: offering a different option to thread starters: an OP can opt for a thread to be a "super-moderated thread".

ON topic only, no name calling, ****taking, humor, derailing, etc. Mods can and will delete everything that seems to be out of place, and flagrant breaches will have consequences, as the aim is to do nada. A bit like the link threads.

I am not sure it could work, mostly because of the extra demands it probably puts on us, and having to be fair when folk seem to have problems with some of our/my calls already.

But it might be a worth shot, just to see if it works. If it doesn't, at least we know.

They're gonna be boring prob, sorry, andit will be "just the meat" [pun intended].

I keep trying to get round to it, but there is always something that slips inbetween.

There are a couple of other ideas I had for the clinic, and other mods have their thoughts too. But for now, that maybe worth shot?

It seems like that is what you guys have been doing.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Look, Doc, I happen to agree with the mods that the discussion could easily have been carried out via PMs. With that method, you might have had all your questions answered. If that happened, you would understand where the poster you named was coming from, which is the only thing you wanted, right?

Why should I take it to PMs when their original post is (still) up on the public forum? They offered their opinion to the forum - all I did was question it.

 

[Hugh Januss]

You don't do shorthand, do you?

I will get back to this tomorrow but the quoted above reads badly - that was not my intention, probably better if I said "moving personal discussions between posters to a dedicated thread".

I understand the dilemma I am proposing - but i don't believe there is anything wrong with addressing someone directly and if it is OT, doing so in a separate thread, as long as it remains civil - but then normal rules apply.

Probably better for the spectators if it does not.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Look, Doc, I happen to agree with the mods that the discussion could easily have been carried out via PMs. With that method, you might have had all your questions answered. If that happened, you would understand where the poster you named was coming from, which is the only thing you wanted, right?

I disagree.
Other people might want to hear those answers too, or ask Doc to clarify his position, whatever. No reason to go to PM if it has been removed from the thread it was derailing. Others can tune in or out as it suits them.

 

[Francois the Postman]

Why should I take it to PMs when their original post is (still) up on the public forum? They offered their opinion to the forum - all I did was question it.

And all he did was refuse to answer it. After which we can all draw our own conclusions,

or

start another thread, have several posts with just re-establishing that there will be no answer in public, in which case a PM might offer plan b? Have that thread flagged by several members (rightly or wrongly) dragging all mods in. Then digging up another thread to ask a valid question [not sure if you tried to PM a mod about it first], ........

[don't mean to sound a bit weary, but sometimes things appear to cause chain events that are utterly disproportionate to the 2 posts that could have been 'it'. Needing to set the internet straight can trigger more fall-out and work than that the [unsubstantiated] observation that some folk in the clinic are a bit focussed, single-minded and uncompromising calls for. It is a clearly subjective opinion. All of us have experience with the Clinic and can draw our own conclusions how wide of the mark it is, or not. It is not the basis for the Bill of Rights, and hardly calls for line by line justification. IMO.]

 

[Granville57]

What Dr. Mas is suggesting seems to be very much in line with what I was leaning towards in the "Victim" thread.

I understand the dilemma I am proposing - but i don't believe there is anything wrong with addressing someone directly and if it is OT, doing so in a separate thread, as long as it remains civil - but then normal rules apply.

Other people might want to hear those answers too, or ask Doc to clarify his position, whatever. No reason to go to PM if it has been removed from the thread it was derailing. Others can tune in or out as it suits them.

So why not have a "Challenge" thread, an "Arbitration" thread of sorts? And keep it in The Clinic along side whatever thread spawns it? History seems to indicate that opposing sides are more than glad to jump in. I could see a problem occurring if two different "debates" were taking place simultaneously, but mostly these things seem to erupt one at a time.

 

[Granville57]

BTW, I have several times toyed with the idea of starting am experiment in the Clinic: offering a different option to thread starters: an OP can opt for a thread to be a "super-moderated thread".

ON topic only, no name calling, ****taking, humor, derailing, etc.

But it might be a worth shot, just to see if it works. If it doesn't, at least we know.

I think it's definitely worth a shot. What's to lose?

Only two things I would point out:
Such a condition may arise after the OP is put in place—threads often evolve in unexpected ways. So you may want to have other options for imposing such rules besides leaving it to the OP.

The "humor" aspect may have to be dealt with somewhat liberally. Any thread that legitimately includes FLandis/Manrod quotes is bound to have humor woven into it. Not to mention Fabiani. His quotes are often even more comical.