Locking threads to allow people cool off, etc

fergalr

This thread:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055728641
on:
"Supreme Court says no women need apply to Golf Club"

has been locked by a moderator to allow people to cool for a few hours.

Now, first off, let me say I respect moderators do a hard and thankless job; and I'm not out to attack anyone, but I would like to give some negative feedback on this policy.


I'd first like to say, that in this case, the thread was locked while I was writing a long, and (what I feel to be) constructive reply to one of the other posters. When I submitted the post, I was told 'thread has been closed' by the system.

I'd like to provide the feedback that this way of moderating the debate has several disadvantages, and I hence don't think it should be readily used.


Disadvantages:

* It removes the ability to discuss to thread from people who are interested in having a constructive discussion of the topic, and who aren't being rude or discourteous. It thus unfairly penalises the constructive users because of the behaviour of the less constructive ones, which is not a desirable feature of any such system.

* The core activity of boards is discussion - as such, locking threads breaks core functionality.

* It also acts to penalise the users who take the time to have reasoned discussion, in a bigger way. Its even worse when the thread is locked permanently; but in both cases, what essentially happens is that the people who get angry and destructive (not so much on that thread, but on other ones) and flame, and who seek to close down rational discussion on the topic, essentially have their goals achieved when a moderator comes along and shuts down the discussion for them.

Considering these three disadvantages, I would ask that moderators consider whether it makes more sense to moderate in situations like these through the issue of warnings on thread (followed by infractions and bans to specific users) rather than by locking the thread.


I think that the locking of the thread is essentially giving up - its an abdication of moderation responsibility (sorry I do appreciate the work in general! ) on the basis that the thread can no longer be effectively controlled, and I think it has negative impacts on the future 'discussion capital' of the forum, as it interrupts the debate, and hurts users like myself who were invested in the flow of discussion.


If the issue is a lack of moderator resources, then surely this could be solved extra mods?
If, on the other hand, the issue is an unwillingness to hand out bans, and moderate that way, for fear of damaging user goodwill, then I'd just like to suggest that the policy be thought about, and that the potential trade-off between the effects of locking the thread, vs targeting the specific behaviour that's undesirable be considered.

Thanks for reading anyway!

dr.bollocko

I hate to have to lock a thread and don't like that some times that lock thread button can be overused.
I will just explain why I locked this particular thread and then you can tell me what you think about that.
We've had a lot of debate on this thread. It's not been bad. It's certainly a very interesting read. That said there comes a point on threads like this in which debate can get quite heated and where hot-headedness can prevail over arguing the merits of the other poster's points. Yesterday I posted a request in thread asking for people to not get personal or antagonistic and that seemed to help things flow. Today we have a situation where there were some reported posts and the thread itself was getting quite heated. You can see a couple of posters going off on tangents. Rolleyes start flying and people start back seat moderating. Because the discussion is of interest I do not want to keep it closed but felt it might be best for a cooling period on this particular discussion.
Now this is not an abdication of my moderatorly duties. The last thing I like to do is stamp out a thread because it's "too much bother". We have many mods on AH so there is a lot of back up and if something contentious comes up we just try and be pro-active in keeping things going rather than shutting up shop because it might cause trouble. in this instance I didn't want to ban any posters from the thread or have to ban or infract anyone so I felt it might be good for the whole thing to have a cooling off period.
Of course I could be wrong. I have been in the past and will be again.

fergalr

dr.bollocko wrote: »

I hate to have to lock a thread and don't like that some times that lock thread button can be overused.
I will just explain why I locked this particular thread and then you can tell me what you think about that.
We've had a lot of debate on this thread. It's not been bad. It's certainly a very interesting read. That said there comes a point on threads like this in which debate can get quite heated and where hot-headedness can prevail over arguing the merits of the other poster's points. Yesterday I posted a request in thread asking for people to not get personal or antagonistic and that seemed to help things flow. Today we have a situation where there were some reported posts and the thread itself was getting quite heated. You can see a couple of posters going off on tangents. Rolleyes start flying and people start back seat moderating. Because the discussion is of interest I do not want to keep it closed but felt it might be best for a cooling period on this particular discussion.
Now this is not an abdication of my moderatorly duties. The last thing I like to do is stamp out a thread because it's "too much bother". We have many mods on AH so there is a lot of back up and if something contentious comes up we just try and be pro-active in keeping things going rather than shutting up shop because it might cause trouble. in this instance I didn't want to ban any posters from the thread or have to ban or infract anyone so I felt it might be good for the whole thing to have a cooling off period.
Of course I could be wrong. I have been in the past and will be again.

Well, that's fair enough - I definitely see the rational for temporarily closing the thread.

What I guess I'm wondering is whether the costs of stopping the active users that are posting coolly, is worth the benefit of not having to hand out infractions? While no one likes to hand out a ban (right? :-)) the costs - in terms of lost engagement - to the users that otherwise would have continued the discussion, is invisible, and hard to measure.

I'd just like mods to bear this cost in mind.

Maybe there's a research project in here where its randomly decided to sometimes follow the thread locking strategy, and sometimes the infraction/ban strategy is followed, and over time, the total effects of both are calculated, in terms of lost engagement etc. (infracting someone probably hurts buy-in and community capital too - which is more costly? Which is better?)

Thanks for the reply anyway, appreciated.

EDIT: It'd be pretty funny if someone was to come along and just unilaterally lock this thread.

dr.bollocko

fergalr wrote: »

What I guess I'm wondering is whether the costs of stopping the active users that are posting coolly, is worth the benefit of not having to hand out infractions?

Well that's the crux of the question right there.
I think my point also relates to the fact that say a poster has a lot of input on a thread but loses the head. Calls somebody a tool or something. Gets banned from the thread of the board. Their input is then lost also. Which is unfortunate as 99% of their input would also be valid. I'd like a little naughty step button that forces posters to look at cute cat pictures for ten minutes before posting again.

ShooterSF

I actually think locking it for heads to cool is a good idea. A mod warning thrown in the thread can get overlooked when it's a heated conversation because it can end up two to three pages back fairly quickly.
Usually threads don't seem to last much longer afterwards but it's it's best opportunity to survive.

RE: OP's reply.
For future notice OP if when you see the "Thread Locked" screen you can press back and it will go back to your reply. You can then copy the text by dragging over it with the left mouse button pressed to highlight it all then press ctrl+c. Then open notepad and press ctrl + v to paste it into notepad. You can then save it until the thread is reopened to post it.

Beruthiel

Temporarily locking a thread does in fact allow people to cool down. If that helps prevent headaches all round, great.

fergalr

Threads and online discussion sometimes just isn't as ideal a world as it should be.
Perhaps sometimes a thread is just heading off the rails, destined to fast become a train wreck, and the only thing to do is lock it on a temporary basis - its better than locking it forever, and it might make sense to force people to cool off.

I do believe there are disadvantages as I posted about - but what the 'right thing' to do is just too close to call.

So, on mature reflection, I withdraw my criticism.

DeVore

I hate to see hot topics getting locked but as the lads (and lady) say above, sometimes its really needed to get the message through.

Ideally it should be temporary, as in this situation.

DeV.

Ponster

fergalr wrote: »

So, on mature reflection, I withdraw my criticism.

/me has found a potential new mod

dr.bollocko

Ponster wrote: »

/me has found a potential new mod

He's mine!

faceman

Id rather see a thread temporarily locked that have people getting banned for saying something in the heat of the moment.

Sherifu

Beruthiel wrote: »

Temporarily locking a thread does in fact allow people to cool down. If that helps prevent headaches all round, great.

faceman wrote: »

Id rather see a thread temporarily locked that have people getting banned for saying something in the heat of the moment.

This. As one person who hates to see a lock without a damn good reason I agree with the above. dr.bollocko used a good deal of sense temp locking it. It may inconvenience some innocent posters for a short while but if it makes everyones life easier i'm all for it.

fergalr wrote: »

So, on mature reflection, I withdraw my criticism.

Fair play.

Manic Moran

I must say, I'm not a fan of cool-down locking.

If I'm locking a thread, one of two things has happened:

1) The signal-to-noise ratio is beyond redemption. The same arguments are being hashed out, with flared tempers and generally much off-topic comment. However, the posters are still being productive/informative/useful etc in other threads, so a ban might not be in the bests interests of the forum.

2) It's an injunction, used to provide the moderators breathing room to discuss a potential action against a possible offense. In which case, it might be re-opened. (To get to that level, the possible offense would have to be pretty integral to the direction the thread was going)

NTM

Nevyn

I hate it, I won't do it as a mod, I will warn and then if needed ban but if I have to lock a thread which has become wrecked I won't reopen it and if it's in pi will encourage the op to start a new one.

I hate it as a poster esp as where there is a good debate going, far too often it gets locked of late and when that happens I see it as the mods not steering it and locking first thinking later or they are unable/sure on being able to steer the debate.

Nothing will put me of posting again in a thread more then a cool down locking I won't go back to the thread, simple as.

dr.bollocko

Here's a new one I have learned. If a once reasonable thread is going really badly and destined for a lock it's often an idea to post a note in the thread just letting posters know that the thread is destined to be locked soon so they get the opportunity to post a final response. I don't know who did that first. Saw Dev and Beruthiel use it before. Started doing that in AH. That's more useful for a terminal lock though. I think I've only ever used the lock thread to make people cool off trick once. Hence this thread. :pac: