Topic: Locking threads

[Dankai]

I thought Id just post my condolances (sp?)  since this is a forum.   I just thought that a persons remark such as that , should be done via PM since it could potentially cause some drama, and not just lock a post where someone came here for help and support on such a delicate issue. Because one person decided to post such a thing , I dont think its really fair to the original poster to have it locked.    I just thought that I'd ask   Sorry if that bugs ya    Thanks for getting back to me so quick

[Michael O'Leary]

The potential for further susch post got the thread locked.  It's a better approach than trying to clean it up repeatedly.

[Dankai]

Gotcha   

[Jarnhamar]

How to word this without being crushed

I have to admit I'm a little (very) frustrated at all the posts being locked recently. I'll click on a thread, read a bunch of posts I want to reply to, write down my points and when I get to the end I find the thread locked. (yes I need to pay better attention to detail)

Now I agree there are VERY obvious reasons why these suckers get locked. People going off topic, people making silly personal attacks instead of attacking someones argument (which is a BIGGIE i've noticed recently) and people personally involved with the issue (as seen by the recently friendly fire incident).

The mods do an awesome job at interjecting exactly when it's required. 
"Get back on topic or this will get locked."
 People however continue to derail a topic and the thread gets locked.  Thats not very much fun. We post on this forum because we love it, it's full of some expert opinion on all things military and it's a great place to discuss issues that are on the front page in the news.
It's just very frustrating comming to this great site and not being able to contribute to these topics because they have been locked.

Instead of locking posts after mods give warnings, what about singleling out posters who continue to derail threads and simply stop them from either A) posting on that thread or B) stop them from posting on the forum for a few days.   Give them 2 days to relax, take a breath, let their emotions come down.  This way the remainder of us can still enjoy the threads and contributing.  If said person comes back after their 2 or 3 day break and just goes berserk (as we've seen done in the past) then give them a ban. No big loss.

It's annoying when someone with 40 posts and no profile information comes in, causes crap and gets an interesting thread locked. The thread ends up turning into an argument where everyone fights with this guy asking for his pers info and the thread topic gets forgotten.

The rest of us who are mature and able to control our emotions with a few thousand posts and a few years on this site end up loosing out in the end. The crap disturber just ends up quitting w/mission accomplished.

In no way am I critisizing the staff or their decisions to lock threads when they do, no doubt they've helped avoid many headaches. 
I am only suggesting an alternate course of action that punishes crap disturbers and not the remainder of army.ca posters

With respect
Ghost778/Grant

[Ex-Dragoon]

you can also PM the Mod who locked the thread and tell him why you feel it should be unlocked. We will unlock threads if warranted on a case by case basis.

[muskrat89]

Ghost - PM inbound

Just a note to all - occasionally we get suggestions to deal with offenders on a one-on-one basis. I agree that would be more effective in some cases, but remember, it is usually more time consuming, and labour-intensive. We are all volunteers here, with real lives away from Army.ca   

[the 48th regulator]

and that is a lock,

 

dileas

tess

[737pilot]

Hi there,
I recently posted a question, and was promptly answered by a few of you.  Thanks for your help!  The topic was then locked, and I don't know what that means.  I have tried seaching the site for an answer, but was unsuccesful.  Can someone shed some light on this for me?  Just curious, that's all.  Thanks a lot.

[uncle-midget-Oddball]

A locked topic is a thread that has been 'locked' by the site Moderators, for any number of reasons. Locked meaning there can't be anything new posted in the thread, unless it has been un-locked by the Moderators.

Midget

[the 48th regulator]

To save bandwith, and not allow threads to be highjacked, we Moderators lock the topic.

Any thread can be unlocked, if something relevent can be added, by asking any Mod.

And with that, this is a lock.

dileas

tess

army.ca staff

[Loachman]

Just to clarify Tess' remarks, it doesn't necessarily mean that you or any poster on the thread has done anything "wrong", only that the discussion has run its course or the question has been answered and there is no need for people to just ramble on. We like to keep a tidy shop here.

[Zip]

This will just become another long drawn out battle of the opinions of religion, much like the one that was just locked.

Do we really need to drag another one out into the mud again??

dileas

tess

Well the locking of specific threads around here is a topic for other discussion.  Like why a topic such as the one you referred to, in which no-one was foaming at the mouth was summarily locked and yet in other topics the flame wars go on forever, get quite vitriolic and are never locked.

[the 48th regulator]

Well the locking of specific threads around here is a topic for other discussion.  Like why a topic such as the one you referred to, in which no-one was foaming at the mouth was summarily locked and yet in other topics the flame wars go on forever, get quite vitriolic and are never locked.

Have you asked the Mod who locked it for his reasoning behind it?

dileas

tess

[Zip]

Have you asked the Mod who locked it for his reasoning behind it?

dileas

tess

I've asked the questions before.  I know the answer I'll get and it is just as unsatisfactory now as it was then. 

[the 48th regulator]

I've asked the questions before.  I know the answer I'll get and it is just as unsatisfactory now as it was then. 

Do you have a solution?

Maybe that can help us to better moderate the threads, as opposed to just outright locking them.

dileas

tess

[Zip]

Ok.  since I have raised this before, what is it about certain threads that causes them to be locked but others go round and round the mulberry bush ad nauseum to the tune of 941 replies and are never locked?

Seems to me that there is an inequitable application of standards here.  Either all topics should be summed up at the point where the participants are chasing themselves in ever diminishing circles or none are.

[aesop081]

Well, speaking for myself.....

I'm only doing this job in my spare time. When a thread catches my attention as going nowhere , i lock it. I dont have the time to read everything and be in every single thread. Also, my idea of what deserves a lock might be a little different that the other mods. We talk about as much as we can but sometimes its just not possible.

Reccesoldier, This isnt my full-time job and i'm not going to make everbody happy. If you think you can do better, i will give you my mod spot.

[Yrys]

Reccesoldier, This isnt my full-time job and i'm not going to make everbody happy. If you think you can do better, i will give you my mod spot.

Why not an internship's' mod  of a week for people that are dissatisfied  ?

[Zip]

Well, speaking for myself.....

I'm only doing this job in my spare time. When a thread catches my attention as going nowhere , i lock it. I dont have the time to read everything and be in every single thread. Also, my idea of what deserves a lock might be a little different that the other mods. We talk about as much as we can but sometimes its just not possible.

Reccesoldier, This isnt my full-time job and i'm not going to make everbody happy. If you think you can do better, i will give you my mod spot.

That's not what I'm saying.  I don't want your spot, I am and have been a mod on other boards, I know what it entails. 

I guess I really don't want all threads to be locked at some point, I want no threads to be locked for no reason.   The antagonists in a thread will either give it up after a point or the subject will morph, like MCG's recent resurrection of the Accommodation thread. 

This is the only forum I am a member of that arbitrarily locks certain threads because mods see no point in continuing the discussion. Others with bandwidth concerns may conduct a prune, but as far as I know that isn't a problem here, and those sites that do do it resurrect ongoing subjects and archive the rest so that they can be restarted if necessary.

And yes, it is the fact that it is certain threads and certain ones only that experience this attention that really pisses me off.

[ArmyVern]

Ok.  since I have raised this before, what is it about certain threads that causes them to be locked but others go round and round the mulberry bush ad nauseum to the tune of 941 replies and are never locked?

Seems to me that there is an inequitable application of standards here.  Either all topics should be summed up at the point where the participants are chasing themselves in ever diminishing circles or none are.

I am also a volunteer.

Your chosen example is a highly debatable topic. It IS news ... you may not agree with Global Warming -- that does not render climate change irrelevant however. The debate will rage on from both sides.

Simply put, there is nothing to sum on on either side regarding that topic as of yet. Scientists on BOTH sides of the issue are still arguing it, so any new studies etc or discussion is worthy of posting. It may not be your particular topic of choice; if so, you have the choice to avoid the thread. Just as others do avoid threads which do not interest them.

For the most part, topics that find themselves locked pertain to policy etc. And, those will find themselves unlocked & then relocked if policy changes.

Some threads are locked as a result of their delving down to the personal insult level. Those topics are usually cleaned up & then unlocked again for relevant conversation.

Others are locked because the question orignally asked was of a specific nature, and when the answer is given ... it serves no other purpose.

Others that become locked are usually locked because there IS other threads running on the same issue.

Would you rather us volunteers lock up the global warming thread so that a new one could be started this afternoon to post the results of yet another cities "results" for Earth Hour? You certainly won't be saving us mods any work if that's your thought. Because then we'd have to delve into 10 new and different global warming threads to wade through them. It also makes thing more difficult for new users when they get 20 or 30 results for their search -- only to find it locked. Guess what they are going to do? That's right. They'll start a new one.

Then the mods look bad for invoking the "use the search function" or "read"; sometimes it really seems as if we can win for losing.

I do the best I can here on my free time, thank you very much. And, there's not a mod in here who doesn't attempt the same.

ArmyVern
The Milnet.ca Staff

[MCG]

Personally, I do not close threads because I feel the discussion is complete.  If it is going nowhere that's fine.  Members can choose to participate or not.

If a thread is in a violent downward spiral, it gets locked.  If a question has been asked & answered somewhere else, then a link is posted and the thread is locked to consolidate discussion (or there is a thread merge).

I believe this it the typical approach here.  Am I wrong?

[the 48th regulator]

That's not what I'm saying.  I don't want your spot, I am and have been a mod on other boards, I know what it entails. 

I guess I really don't want all threads to be locked at some point, I want no threads to be locked for no reason.   The antagonists in a thread will either give it up after a point or the subject will morph, like MCG's recent resurrection of the Accommodation thread. 

This is the only forum I am a member of that arbitrarily locks certain threads because mods see no point in continuing the discussion. Others with bandwidth concerns may conduct a prune, but as far as I know that isn't a problem here, and those sites that do do it resurrect ongoing subjects and archive the rest so that they can be restarted if necessary.

And yes, it is the fact that it is certain threads and certain ones only that experience this attention that really pisses me off.

So when the Moderator that has locked the thread states that anyone who has a post of relevence to add, may just PM that mod, you are in the belief that this is just fluff and no one should do anything?

As for pruning a thread, then we just feed the ones saying we are sanitizing and oppressing peoples views by deleting posts.

A double edge sword, wouldn't you agree?

dileas

tess

[George Wallace]

Ok.  since I have raised this before, what is it about certain threads that causes them to be locked but others go round and round the mulberry bush ad nauseum to the tune of 941 replies and are never locked?

Seems to me that there is an inequitable application of standards here.  Either all topics should be summed up at the point where the participants are chasing themselves in ever diminishing circles or none are.

Ah!  The long drawn out "Global Warming" thread.  One reason it is so long is that many started up a number of similar Topics, all dealing with the same premises.  Once merged we have one mega thread.  The question now is, do you want one "Mega thread" or dozens of redundant threads?

I suppose we can do the same thing with all the Religious threads and put them all in Radio Chatter as "Mega Threads" so that they can spiral down whatever drains they want, and stay out of the main Forums.  It is getting rather tiresome having some newbie start up a thread on Religion, that we have already put to bed months/years earlier.

[ArmyVern]

And yes, it is the fact that it is certain threads and certain ones only that experience this attention that really pisses me off.

Let's have them then.

Which specific threads and why/why not should there be a lock in your view?

Hopefully, it's not just because you personnally feel the topic is irrelevant (like Global Warming) ... because there's a lot of others here who find it IS relevant.

[Zip]

Personally, I do not close threads because I feel the discussion is complete.  If it is going nowhere that's fine.  Members can choose to participate or not.

If a thread is in a violent downward spiral, it gets locked.  If a question has been asked & answered somewhere else, then a link is posted and the thread is locked to consolidate discussion (or there is a thread merge).

I believe this it the typical approach here.  Am I wrong?

And this is all I'm asking for. 

I'm done with this.  This is almost word for word exactly the same reaction, I got the last time I brought up a thread that was arbitrarily locked. 

It's your play pen.  Have at it and run it as you see fit. 

I will not censor my displeasure about this kind of action when I see it in the open forum though, and I will not subject myself to a Mod dog pile in here either.