MODS: Threads closed - I disagree

[hiero2]

I just had two threads closed. After 3 responses. Both by the same mod - Parrulo - and I don't think the closing in either case was the correct response.

In the first instance, http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=18086
there might be other Saxo-Tinkoff threads, but not about this news item. I looked. This is a unique topic - it is not something to bury on page 359 of an existing topic that now has all of 6 viewers.

In the 2nd instance, http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=18087I could see MOVING the thread to a different forum, but not closing it. The thread has a point! A very definite point! Was the reporter correct, or not! It might have been more appropriate to post this comment here, in this area, but not to close it! If the reporter is wrong, they need to correct it, and the editor needs to know! If the reporter is correct, I want to know some supporting evidence!

Thank you for listening. I look forward to your answer(s).

 

[ElChingon]

Yes, and then if you add it to another thread you'll be warned for going off topic

They're getting totally ambiguous now, in the rider specific threads if you mention they're racing at race X its considered off topic... so what about a rider can we talk about in the rider specific threads?

Where is our jovial mod who wants jovial banter? Humm.. maybe they closed him off?

 

[The Hitch]

I remember there was a thread about pros doing triathlon which was closed by the same mod on the basis that he thought trolls might at some point in the future hijack the thread, so why make them work for it,rolleyes:

And then to taunt the non troll posters finished his post with "so all in all, i would call this a pretty good day at the office"

Never got a response to my question of where i could discuss the issue if any thread about it was to be closed on such flawed logic.

 

[180mmCrank]

I remember there was a thread about pros doing triathlon which was closed by the same mod on the basis that he thought trolls might at some point in the future hijack the thread, so why make them work for it,rolleyes:

And then to taunt the non troll posters finished his post with "so all in all, i would call this a pretty good day at the office"

Never got a response to my question of where i could discuss the issue if any thread about it was to be closed on such flawed logic.

This is the right place 'About the Forum' to discuss anything to do with Moderation.

Thank you for the feedback these are the kinds of things we try to discuss in the back ground. We don't always get it right but most of the time we do ok. We don't always agree but most of the time we do. The biggest challenge is as volunteers spread across a number of time zones it's not always easy to find the time to get together but we maintain a good healthy dialogue.

T

 

[Boeing]

I just had two threads closed. After 3 responses. Both by the same mod - Parrulo - and I don't think the closing in either case was the correct response.

In the first instance, http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=18086
there might be other Saxo-Tinkoff threads, but not about this news item. I looked. This is a unique topic - it is not something to bury on page 359 of an existing topic that now has all of 6 viewers.

In the 2nd instance, http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=18087I could see MOVING the thread to a different forum, but not closing it. The thread has a point! A very definite point! Was the reporter correct, or not! It might have been more appropriate to post this comment here, in this area, but not to close it! If the reporter is wrong, they need to correct it, and the editor needs to know! If the reporter is correct, I want to know some supporting evidence!

Thank you for listening. I look forward to your answer(s).

Dude you are only 400 posts in. they are personality policing until you are on everyone's ignore list

 

[Parrulo]

I just had two threads closed. After 3 responses. Both by the same mod - Parrulo - and I don't think the closing in either case was the correct response.

In the first instance, http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=18086
there might be other Saxo-Tinkoff threads, but not about this news item. I looked. This is a unique topic - it is not something to bury on page 359 of an existing topic that now has all of 6 viewers.

In the 2nd instance, http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=18087I could see MOVING the thread to a different forum, but not closing it. The thread has a point! A very definite point! Was the reporter correct, or not! It might have been more appropriate to post this comment here, in this area, but not to close it! If the reporter is wrong, they need to correct it, and the editor needs to know! If the reporter is correct, I want to know some supporting evidence!

Thank you for listening. I look forward to your answer(s).

the point of having a saxo bank thread or a thread about something at all for that matter, is that all the new items about it can go there so information isn't spread over several threads.

 

[patricknd]

the point of having a saxo bank thread or a thread about something at all for that matter, is that all the new items about it can go there so information isn't spread over several threads.

or how about two threads:

1.) cycling

2.) not cycling

 

[ElChingon]

How about N number threads like everything else? Not every thread needs to be tacked on to one with one degree of relevancy or common word.

If its about thread count then just merge them all into one cycling thread and be done with it.

 

[BroDeal]

Mega threads suck. That is all.

 

[ElChingon]

Mega threads suck. That is all.

Its seems the mods are the only ones who cannot distinguish between the different thread titles. They complain its too much to keep track of in the different thread titles relating to maybe one common factor and then in the mega threads they complain of things going off topic when one degree of relevancy is not enough for them to consider it on topic, can't have it both ways.

 

[hiero2]

the point of having a saxo bank thread or a thread about something at all for that matter, is that all the new items about it can go there so information isn't spread over several threads.

Ok, Parrulo, and all the other mods: I think you have a discussion point here for your next confab. "What is the purpose of general threads, and when should they be invoked?" In my mind, the general thread, for the riders, for the teams, for any topic that gets BIG - is to prevent thread duplication. The point, in my thinking, is to keep posts that are on a particular topic in a particular thread. That way you avoid a proliferation of threads that are basically about the same thing.

Parrulo has described this as "all the news items about" a topic would go in a single thread. While I understand his reasoning, I think the objective should be described differently. I think the questions should be "Does this post add to the conversation? Is it basically about the same subject title? Does something make it unique and worthy of a thread?" I realize that applying these questions will require some thought, making the judgement more of an art, and not quite so clear-cut a decision. But, ultimately, I think re-describing the decision criteria will benefit the forums as a whole.

You want rules on how to be a mod, those are necessary. I, too, have been a moderator of online groups, and understand this. I am also aware that how the rules are applied will vary from one volunteer to the next. The question, to you, then, is do you agree that you need to refine this rule definition? Do you want to?

I have a comment to bump the reporter thread comment, too, but I will put that in another post - to keep these things clean.

 

[hiero2]

Dude you are only 400 posts in. they are personality policing until you are on everyone's ignore list

I'm glad to see I'm not on YOUR ignore list yet!!!

 

[hiero2]

. . .

In the 2nd instance, http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=18087I could see MOVING the thread to a different forum, but not closing it. The thread has a point! A very definite point! Was the reporter correct, or not! It might have been more appropriate to post this comment here, in this area, but not to close it! If the reporter is wrong, they need to correct it, and the editor needs to know! If the reporter is correct, I want to know some supporting evidence! . . .

Ok, we have a conversation going about the 1st instance. That leaves this issue. I still don't know if the reporter made a mistake! And that thread is closed, meaning I will get no answers there! So, how about it? Do you recommend I take a different approach? A letter to the editor, perhaps? Honestly, I have enough to do I'm not keen on the other idea that comes to mind - going through the archives myself to establish the precedence of action that the article author described.

Keep in mind that shutting the thread in the manner it was done closes a conversation. Not just the thread - but the possibility of conversation. You probably will notice that I am not quite so easily subdued, but other users, who are more marginally involved, might be. I think, that when closing a thread like this, a mod should seriously consider writing the originator directly and open a conversation there. Asking the originator "What is your point?" might be useful for both mod and originator. If the mod realizes that they have to represent their action, and describe their reasoning, in words, both to the originator, and to other mods, it will take a few more minutes, but it will facilitate good judgement in cases that are less than black and white.

 

[Maxiton]

Early on in my cyclingnews forum career, I started a thread - a perfectly legitimate thread - in the pro cycling forum that got shut down by a mod. Why did it get shut down? Because it was about Mark Cavendish, who at the time was a rider many here loved to hate, and so it was said that there were already too many Cavendish threads - as though the number of them outweighed the significance of the point being discussed in my thread.

Well, anyway, I've started threads since then, but always with less enthusiasm and usually not in the pro cycling forum. I should probably grow a thicker skin, but nevertheless it seems to me that a forum like this one exists to generate enthusiasm and encourage discussion. When you find yourselves discouraging discussion and dampening enthusiasm, you know you're doing it wrong.

The best moderation, most of the time, is the least moderation, meaning: police behavior first and foremost, and have a light touch with topics and other matters. As long as people are staying on topic and not insulting each other, nothing needs to be done.

Riders and teams and topics that are popular, or controversial, are going to have a lot of threads. It's a given. This is to be encouraged in a forum such as this, whose purpose is, after all, discussion.

And I agree with what others have said, that there is a fundamental inconsistency in these forums: when a thread is started about some arbitrarily chosen topic, we are often told, "There is already a thread for that"; but when, instead of starting a new thread, you bring up your topic in an existing thread, we are told, "This thread is about _________. Start a new thread." Which one of those you get seems to depend on the phases of the moon or some such, and which moderator is talking.

You guys really need to establish a consistent policy, one that the mods and the participants can easily understand, and then stick to it. Because what you're doing right now doesn't work, for anyone.

 

[Potomac]

We need the ability to vote a mod off the island.

 

[krebs303]

We need the ability to vote a mod off the island.

 

[ElChingon]

We need the ability to vote a mod off the island.

That would be a landslide vote.

 

[usedtobefast]

ginger and maryann

 

[Caruut]

Totally agree with the posters that have said that there is inconsistency. Sometimes I feel the moderators should just let threads die a natural death instead of killing them off. While "Alberto Contador stubs toe" obviously does not merit its own thread, I don't see why such a thread needs instantly axing on the grounds on unimportance. If it genuinely isn't a worthwhile topic of discussion, let it slide into obscurity by a lack of posts.

 

[ElChingon]

Totally agree with the posters that have said that there is inconsistency. Sometimes I feel the moderators should just let threads die a natural death instead of killing them off. While "Alberto Contador stubs toe" obviously does not merit its own thread, I don't see why such a thread needs instantly axing on the grounds on unimportance. If it genuinely isn't a worthwhile topic of discussion, let it slide into obscurity by a lack of posts.

I think you fail to envision the importance of "Alberto Contador's stubed toe", just look at the steak jokes, still alive and reoccurring. Now you bring up a toe, it would last for a decade.

 

[Ozzie2]

I think if people kept their opinions and hyperbole and accusations out of the other thread it would have achieved its purpose and still been around.

Talk about shooting oneself in the foot?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

great job.

 

[Cyivel]

As I said before this Parrulo is a loose cannon.

 

[Parrulo]

As I said before this Parrulo is a loose cannon.

yup, put the contador off topic talk back on it's track and deleted 2 threads that were miss placed and duplicated and could be considered spam.

totally loose canon. . .

 

[Cyivel]

Yep, you remind me of Brian Pillman circa 1996.