Locking threads

[X Royal]

I can understand locking a post that is getting out of hand but WHY a post with NO Replies.
This is in ref: to a posting by aesop081 on 14 Aug. in the Canadian Army Forum titled "The Canadian Military Ethos".
If the oridginal post is objectionable Delete the thread.
If replies were deleted before locking to leave only the oridginal post this is not a thead but a forum for opinions that cannot be questioned. Delete it or reopen it and moderate.

Just my opinion

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Because it came from a thread that was going on at the time and it was "stickied" to be a "stand alone" read-only thread.

It was not locked for any bad reasons...

 

[X Royal]

Thanks Bruce for the explanation.
I just feel when a certain member is mentioned in the title of a thread it is only fair to give them the opportunity to make a intelligent reply. To be singled out without recourse seem not right.

Pro Patria

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Quote,
I just feel when a certain member is mentioned in the title of a thread

Sorry, I don't understand....... Edit, OK I got ya, the person in question had her chance to respond in the original thread but, you are correct, it is not appropriate in this context, thanks.

 

[X Royal]

No Problems.

Cheers

 

[MOOXE]

I keep seing threads locked all the time with comments like "this is covered in another thread perform a search and read it." Really, whats the point. If someone wants to start a new conversation why not let them? Locking a thread simply because its a topic thats been talking about in the past just discourages new thoughts and opinions. Why make some wade through pages of other peoples posts that eventually always go off topic. The main focus should be actively encouraging communication rather than shutting it down (ofcourse I am talking within the rules of what can be talked about in the public). Locking a thread is essentially making a one way conversation with somebody when theyve done nothing wrong.

Moderators... Is this just a way to exersize your mod rights or is there really a good reason to lock a thread like these..

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/41471.0.html
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/41516.0.html

....just to name a couple.

 

[aesop081]

I keep seing threads locked all the time with comments like "this is covered in another thread perform a search and read it." Really, whats the point. If someone wants to start a new conversation why not let them? Locking a thread simply because its a topic thats been talking about in the past just discourages new thoughts and opinions. Why make some wade through pages of other peoples posts that eventually always go off topic. The main focus should be actively encouraging communication rather than shutting it down (ofcourse I am talking within the rules of what can be talked about in the public). Locking a thread is essentially making a one way conversation with somebody when theyve done nothing wrong.

Moderators... Is this just a way to exersize your mod rights or is there really a good reason to lock a thread like these..

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/41471.0.html
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/41516.0.html

....just to name a couple.

MOOXE, i hate to say it but......your question has been answered here many times  ;D

do a  :'( search  :'(

hahaha

 

[Mike Bobbitt]

aesop's right.... here are some good start points:

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/28552.0.html
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/34043.0.html
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/36008.0.html
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/33516.0.html
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/27660.0.html
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/27567.0.html
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/26408.0.html

 

[old medic]

Can't...... Help....... Myself...........

Thread.......locked

 

[George Wallace]

Well MOOXE......my only words to you, and I am sure we will all agree, that some day soon you too will feel like this:

:brickwall:

and I am sure that you too will enjoy the incessant call of juvenile enthusiasm and inability to listen to reason with something like this:

:argument:

I suppose, there is one recourse that you may try.  You can open up and Moderate your own web site and enjoy all the joys of "Moderation".  ;D

 

[MOOXE]

Even as I was replying the thread was locked... Anyways..

My reply to the 1st reply..

How ironic, I wish I could say that those threads were locked but I didnt even check. Further proves my underlaying point that not many people want to use the search functions and wade through everybody elses posts. Maybe what a mod can do is post the link to the corresponding thread that already covers the topic in the new thread and then lock it.

 

[Mike Bobbitt]

To be specific to the 2 threads you listed:

The first was answered (correctly) in the initial reply and then we started to see some speculation. The thread was locked because no additional facts could be added to the thread.

The second thread is regarding a book that has been discussed several times already, so rather than opening a new thread, it makes sense to keep the discussions together. That way when someone searches, they can read a single "mega" thread instead of many disjoint ones (see my post above for an example of that!). Furthermore, the author of this particular book has been known the threaten legal action when his name comes up here, so we try to keep a lid of any discussions about him (positive or negative).

I hope that helps.


Cheers
Mike

 

[aesop081]

Even as I was replying the thread was locked... Anyways..

My reply to the 1st reply..

How ironic, I wish I could say that those threads were locked but I didnt even check. Further proves my underlaying point that not many people want to use the search functions and wade through everybody elses posts. Maybe what a mod can do is post the link to the corresponding thread that already covers the topic in the new thread and then lock it.

this is going to be one of those nights

Lock ?

 

[Mike Bobbitt]

How ironic, I wish I could say that those threads were locked but I didnt even check. Further proves my underlaying point that not many people want to use the search functions and wade through everybody elses posts. Maybe what a mod can do is post the link to the corresponding thread that already covers the topic in the new thread and then lock it.

We can't help it if people don't want to use the search function. It's the way the site works, and those who chose to "go their own way" will find they won't have much success in their posts. DS have no obligation to spend their volunteer time searching for answers to your questions.

Spend a couple seconds typing the keywords in and reading the responses. If it's not important enough for you to do that, then move on.

 

[Michael OLeary]

Even as I was replying the thread was locked... Anyways..

My reply to the 1st reply..

How ironic, I wish I could say that those threads were locked but I didnt even check. Further proves my underlaying point that not many people want to use the search functions and wade through everybody elses posts. Maybe what a mod can do is post the link to the corresponding thread that already covers the topic in the new thread and then lock it.

MOOXE, the point isn't that no-one will use the search function .... the point is that even if we do not lock the threads with advise to search - there's hardly anyone who will type out (again) the answers the posters are looking for.  Now, if you're volunteering to do that, I am sure that we can direct the next hundred or so "simple" questions your way.

Would that work for you?

 

[Fishbone Jones]

We can't help it if people don't want to use the search function. It's the way the site works, and those who chose to "go their own way" will find they won't have much success in their posts. DS have no obligation to spend their volunteer time searching for answers to your questions.

Spend a couple seconds typing the keywords in and reading the responses. If it's not important enough for you to do that, then move on.

...and if it's not important enough for you to do it...it certainly isn't important enough for me.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Quote,
Maybe what a mod can do is post the link to the corresponding thread that already covers the topic in the new thread and then lock it

Mooxe,
When I post a link to another thread that covers the question someone has asked without searching it is because I did the search for it. We have no different search function than any other user, why should we have to, among our other unpaid duties, do somebodies searching for them........?

 

[George Wallace]

Thanks Bruce

mooxe doesn't realize the amount of time that we already spend merging threads, that newcomers or those just too lazy to search, start up on a Topic that has been covered in thorough detail and brought to a satisfactory conclusion.  Sometimes it is only a day and someone else asks the same question over again.  A question that may have been answered successfully only a day before.  What a waste of bandwidth.


(mooxe you have been demoted to lower case, for your attitude.  ;D )

 

[MOOXE]

My point is try to encourage talk by not locking so often. For example if someone asks what the minimum age is to join, big deal, someone will answer him, as a mod just dont jump on it and lock it because its been covered 100 times over. Its discouraging, why discourage? I am merely suggesting a better way to deal with posts. George I actually do admin some other forums aside from the site listed in my profile, I like to remain transparent to the board, but thats just me. Maybe I am a bleeding heart, but I just hate to see threads locked so quickly. From the amount of quick replies it looks as if I stepped on someone toes, clearly not my objective.


Edit... The fact that this thread was locked in like 5 minutes from my post sort of proved my point that some people are a little to quick to lock. Lets talk, not lock!

 

[Mike Bobbitt]

So what do we do if someone jumps in with the wrong answer? It clearly needs to be corrected, taking our time and confusing people in the process. All of that can (and is) avoided by preventing the re-discussion of clearly factual items like minimum age to join.