Mods closing interesting threads when a discussion is still going on

Hollister11

This happens a lot on Boards I find, and it is incredibly annoying, and tbh if I wasn't a member, it would put me off signing up.

Dav mentioned a few Months back that sign ups are down, and is it really any wonder when this ****e happens.

For example this thread in Accommodation and Property has 153 posts in the last week, and it was just locked, because the OP didn't reply.

This thread in Bargain Alerts was closed back in July for no reason and with no explanation.

Locking threads is a really annoying issue with boards. For boards to keep on growing this has to stop.

Taltos

Don't see an issue with the A&P one being closed.
11 pages with no OP input beyond the first post, and a clear reason from the mod, seems good to me.

As to Bargain alerts, no idea, as you call out it's from July. Did you try PM'ing the mod to ask for it to be reopened at the time or if they could let you know why it was closed?

hatrickpatrick

Taltos wrote: »

Don't see an issue with the A&P one being closed.
11 pages with no OP input beyond the first post, and a clear reason from the mod, seems good to me.

...Except for the fact that, as OP here points out, discussion was still ongoing within the thread. What harm is caused by letting it continue?

Cookie_Monster

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

...Except for the fact that, as OP here points out, discussion was still ongoing within the thread. What harm is caused by letting it continue?

exactly, nothing to suggest the OP hasn't been reading it even if they haven't replied...

athtrasna

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

...Except for the fact that, as OP here points out, discussion was still ongoing within the thread. What harm is caused by letting it continue?

Discussion about grass cutting and ride on lawnmowers! The OP asked for suggestions of location and properties, when they stopped getting them the thread went way off track, and if anything would be off-putting to the OP or anyone looking for similar suggestions.

CantGetNoSleep

All gangland threads are closed for no real reason too - you need to wait for someone else to get shot before you can talk about that feud again.

The Hill Billy

I didn't read the whole A&P thread to be honest, but even on the last page there were suggestions still being thrown out. While it really gets my goat that an OP just 'seagulls' a thread (flies in, drops their crap & flies off never to be seen again) - there was still relevant discussion taking place. Rather than shutting it down - my preference would have been to take action against those who may have been dragging it off-topic & let it continue.

As for the BA thread - that went downhill so rapidly it was a goner straight away. Maybe the mod wanted to call a halt to the OT chat & close it, but didn't have time to follow up or forgot to put in a closing note afterwards.

Now that I've said that - I'd also note that the mods are generally appointed because they 'get' their forums. A lot of times instinct will tell them when a thread is just not going to work or has gone on a crash trajectory. They'll act on that instinct, often saving cards/bans from be handed out, members from frustration with crappy posts, & the time & effort it takes the mod team to clean up afterwards. But when a thread is closed - it should be accompanied by a note to say why.

In cases like these it is best to PM the forum mod team & request that the thread be reopened. If a member sees it happening repeatedly in a forum - then drop a PM to a CMod & they'll be happy to look into it for you.

tHB

Maximus Alexander

This is a whole new level of weird in terms of thread closure reasons.

D0NNELLY

Taltos wrote: »

As to Bargain alerts, no idea, as you call out it's from July. Did you try PM'ing the mod to ask for it to be reopened at the time or if they could let you know why it was closed?

A pm from everyone? Mod would soon get sick of that, and rightly so. they're volunteers with outside commitments. so, Why not just a note? Or, you know, maybe I'm just new, letting the discussion continue? Mods steering discussion is a bad thing. If the community is happy to post in the tread, then its doing its job. No higher purpose here..

Insect Overlord

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

This is a whole new level of weird in terms of thread closure reasons.

Yeah, I'm struggling to see the logic behind that one too. Absolutely bizarre.

The Hill Billy

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

This is a whole new level of weird in terms of thread closure reasons.

Thanks. I'm checking that with the AH mods now.

The Hill Billy

D0NNELLY wrote: »

A pm from everyone? Mod would soon get sick of that, and rightly so. they're volunteers with outside commitments. so, Why not just a note? Or, you know, maybe I'm just new, letting the discussion continue? Mods steering discussion is a bad thing. If the community is happy to post in the tread, then its doing its job. No higher purpose here..

Not everyone will send a PM. If you are interested enough in the thread - drop a PM as Taltos said.

As for why not letting the discussion continue - see my earlier post.

looksee

I don't think it was all that unreasonable to close the burning churches thread, the reason given was possibly not great, but the thread was proposing illegal action, which was reason enough. The OP was not getting much support though, maybe a change of title to a less inflammatory (sorry) one?

I was enjoying the A&P thread though, did it really matter that the OP never came back?

Darkglasses

looksee wrote: »

I don't think it was all that unreasonable to close the burning churches thread, the reason given was possibly not great, but the thread was proposing illegal action, which was reason enough. The OP was not getting much support though, maybe a change of title to a less inflammatory (sorry) one?

I was enjoying the A&P thread though, did it really matter that the OP never came back?

I didn't see the OP proposing that, they explicitly stated they were against it. Seemed like an interesting discussion.

_Tombstone_

To many mods with nothing to do, get rid of a few hundred???

looksee

Darkglasses wrote: »

I didn't see the OP proposing that, they explicitly stated they were against it. Seemed like an interesting discussion.

Yes I agree, it was the title and opening paras that would lead to closure as it seemed to be suggesting illegal actions. It could have been an interesting discussion but it was proposed in overly violent terms, I thought.

kneemos

looksee wrote: »

I don't think it was all that unreasonable to close the burning churches thread, the reason given was possibly not great, but the thread was proposing illegal action, which was reason enough. The OP was not getting much support though, maybe a change of title to a less inflammatory (sorry) one?

I was enjoying the A&P thread though, did it really matter that the OP never came back?

"Should we burn churches " isn't proposing anything.

The Hill Billy

_Tombstone_ wrote: »

To many mods with nothing to do, get rid of a few hundred???

Keep the feedback constructive & on-topic please.

tHB

The_Valeyard

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

This is a whole new level of weird in terms of thread closure reasons.

I'm going to start a thread about should we burn or close down mosques in Ireland in response to Isis and extremist threat across Europe. If this is closed down, it may give evidence of liberal bias, as discussed in another thread.

kneemos

The_Valeyard wrote: »

I'm going to start a thread about should we burn or close down mosques in Ireland in response to Isis and extremist threat across Europe. If this is closed down, it may give evidence of liberal bias, as discussed in another thread.

You have to ask yourself would this be allowed if it was about a n other religion,if yes then it must be disallowed for fear of being accused of bias of course.

The Hill Billy

If you wish to discuss bias - please use the other thread.

tHB

The Hill Billy

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

This is a whole new level of weird in terms of thread closure reasons.

Thanks again for raising this. The thread was closed in an attempt at equality, on the thinking that if a thread was started about burning mosques that it would most likely need to be closed immediately. This is probably somewhat true, given that the quality of posting in such threads tends to be on the lower end of the scale.

That said, whether a thread is about burning churches or burning mosques, the discussion should be given a chance to develop. As long as posters are civil to each other, & the discussion doesn't contravene site rules & the forum charter, there should be no reason to close the thread.

tHB

The_Valeyard

The Hill Billy wrote: »

If you wish to discuss bias - please use the other thread.

tHB

I've tried, post deleted, I made a new thread, was locked. Not sure what else can be done but just accept bias and prejudice it seems.

LoLth

The_Valeyard wrote: »

I've tried, post deleted, I made a new thread, was locked. Not sure what else can be done but just accept bias and prejudice it seems.

again : your post was deleted because it broke the rules of the thread you posted in.

Your thread was deleted as it was just plain stupidity. "does boards hate Christians"... No. job done, thread closed.

Abusing the reported post function to get a last word in was a nice touch though, thanks for that.

The_Valeyard

LoLth wrote: »

again : your post was deleted because it broke the rules of the thread you posted in.

Your thread was deleted as it was just plain stupidity. "does boards hate Christians"... No. job done, thread closed.

Abusing the reported post function to get a last word in was a nice touch though, thanks for that.

It's the only way to reply without criticising a mod in public forum? Unless I am meant to PM them when it's closed?

A serous discussion needs to take place into the topics regarding religion, etc and appropriate forums.

hatrickpatrick

The_Valeyard wrote: »

Unless I am meant to PM them when it's closed?

Unfortunately, that's exactly what you're supposed to do. Bit like if there was no GSOC and you had to complain to the same Garda who arrested you that you were wrongfully arrested.
GameFAQs has a system for contesting moderations in which when you get modded, you have a "contest" button - and the contest is automatically reviewed by a different mod to the one who moderated your post or thread.

It's a little irrelevant over there since they disallow only about a tenth of the amount of discussion that Boards disallows, but it works exceptionally well when it's needed.

LoLth

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Unfortunately, that's exactly what you're supposed to do. Bit like if there was no GSOC and you had to complain to the same Garda who arrested you that you were wrongfully arrested.
GameFAQs has a system for contesting moderations in which when you get modded, you have a "contest" button - and the contest is automatically reviewed by a different mod to the one who moderated your post or thread.

It's a little irrelevant over there since they disallow only about a tenth of the amount of discussion that Boards disallows, but it works exceptionally well when it's needed.

that "contest mod action" button is interesting alright. Not sure how managable it would be when you scale up the user base. However, that site has a lot of features that I would not like to see here... full screen ad playing in the background on the landing page (for kerry gold of all things!), two lines of sponsored link images to "news" across the bottom of each page (in addition to the banner ad and in thread sponsored ads that boards have as well).

also, while the disallow less content and have looser moderation in general, look at the list of banned content, they are all in one line so it looks like less (and its not 1/10th of boards.ie's list) and they have a different emphasis like instant and permanent ban for untagged spoilers. We reserve that for actually illegal material.

On closing of threads, if there is not an explanation of why the thread was closed and you want to know, then of course PM the mod. ask why it was closed. If there is a message and you want to dispute it, then yes , PM the mod and give your opinion or report the closing note and state why you disagree with it. don't report the post and use it to get the last word in or make some smart arse comment.

LoLth

The_Valeyard wrote: »

A serous discussion needs to take place into the topics regarding religion, etc and appropriate forums.

serious discussions have been held in the past and opinions gathered and applied. There is never a problem with discussion, its sniping / blanket accusations / unfounded and unfair blame that I have a problem with.

Just out of curiosity, how much of that thread did you read before you decided to be offended? There are a lot of very well constructed and reasoned arguments against any damage to churches of any religion in that thread, many prefaced with "I dont support the church but..." . Yes there are the odd post by some rebellious teen who doesnt think before spouting what they think is a radical opinion - at least I hope its a teen - but they are quite few and far between in that thread. Maybe the thread closure gave time for the reactionary posting (well most of it) to lose the potential for drama/shock so the posters were already distracted elsewhere.

Point is, this is a discussion site where almost all topics should be open for discussion. It is the quality and method used in that discussion that should be the foundation for mod actions, not purely the topic under discussion.

kneemos

LoLth wrote: »

serious discussions have been held in the past and opinions gathered and applied. There is never a problem with discussion, its sniping / blanket accusations / unfounded and unfair blame that I have a problem with.

Just out of curiosity, how much of that thread did you read before you decided to be offended? There are a lot of very well constructed and reasoned arguments against any damage to churches of any religion in that thread, many prefaced with "I dont support the church but..." . Yes there are the odd post by some rebellious teen who doesnt think before spouting what they think is a radical opinion - at least I hope its a teen - but they are quite few and far between in that thread. Maybe the thread closure gave time for the reactionary posting (well most of it) to lose the potential for drama/shock so the posters were already distracted elsewhere.

Point is, this is a discussion site where almost all topics should be open for discussion. It is the quality and method used in that discussion that should be the foundation for mod actions, not purely the topic under discussion.

If you're basing mod action on quality most of AH needs to be closed immediately.

What you really mean is the quality of discussion of certain topics.

Darkglasses

LoLth wrote: »

that "contest mod action" button is interesting alright. Not sure how managable it would be when you scale up the user base.

I was about to say "but gamefaqs is huge!" and then I went to check on how many people were online there, only 1,300. Wow that site died a death.

LoLth

Darkglasses wrote: »

I was about to say "but gamefaqs is huge!" and then I went to check on how many people were online there, only 1,300. Wow that site died a death.

maybe through lack of filtering of allowed topics ?

@kneemos: I cant believe I'm going to post this but I think you are being rather unfair to AH. there have been some stellar debates there on emotive topics in the past with some really excellent posts on both sides of the discussion (complete with comic relief to lighten the tone)

hatrickpatrick

LoLth wrote: »

that "contest mod action" button is interesting alright. Not sure how managable it would be when you scale up the user base. However, that site has a lot of features that I would not like to see here... full screen ad playing in the background on the landing page (for kerry gold of all things!), two lines of sponsored link images to "news" across the bottom of each page (in addition to the banner ad and in thread sponsored ads that boards have as well).

also, while the disallow less content and have looser moderation in general, look at the list of banned content, they are all in one line so it looks like less (and its not 1/10th of boards.ie's list) and they have a different emphasis like instant and permanent ban for untagged spoilers. We reserve that for actually illegal material.

I have been a GameFAQs user for around 13 years (and by the way I agree entirely, their ad overreach has got utterly ridiculous in recent years - in the glory days, they just had a couple of CNET banners ) and I can tell you that the number of threads which get locked over there just because "this isn't going well" is pretty much zero. If a thread didn't break the rules to begin with, it doesn't get locked - individuals within it who break the rules get suspended.

On closing of threads, if there is not an explanation of why the thread was closed and you want to know, then of course PM the mod. ask why it was closed. If there is a message and you want to dispute it, then yes , PM the mod and give your opinion or report the closing note and state why you disagree with it. don't report the post and use it to get the last word in or make some smart arse comment.

There usually is a message on the closing of threads. I'm simply disputing one of the common ones, which is the subjective "this isn't going well", "I think we'll leave it there lads" etc kind of stuff. No clear rule violation by the thread itself is cited, merely a loosely defined and open to interpretation standard for "thread quality".

hatrickpatrick

Darkglasses wrote: »

I was about to say "but gamefaqs is huge!" and then I went to check on how many people were online there, only 1,300. Wow that site died a death.

Lolth has alluded to the cause of this - the site was merged with CNET and GameStop in 2004, and went from being one guy's passionate project because he loved video games to being a cash cow for a very large marketing organisation, which did everything it could to destroy the site's layout and coding in order to squeeze as much advertising in as possible. And as if that wasn't enough, the ads they introduced were of the HD flash video style that causes even the most modern laptops to choke and splutter as their GPUs attempt to render stuff in Flash that Flash simply wasn't designed to render in the first place.

The user-base revolted and fled en masse to a handful of other sites. Reddit and LueLinks are probably the biggest refuges for former GameFAQs users.

Lovely Bloke

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

and went from being one guy's passionate project because he loved video games to being a cash cow for a very large marketing organisation, which did everything it could to destroy the site's layout and coding in order to squeeze as much advertising in as possible.

Hmmmmmmmm

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The user-base revolted and fled en masse

_Tombstone_

Sounds like what's happening on Boards, if ya go over to the sub its mostly threads complaining about mods aswell...deja vu.

I think this is the 3rd thread in this forum since the big feedback thread to bring up the same stuff from that thread aswell...

Users get the ould " Thanks for the feedback, its invaluable etc etc" but what's changed except for a couple of Forums amalgamated.

LoLth

_Tombstone_ wrote: »

Sounds like what's happening on Boards, if ya go over to the sub its mostly threads complaining about mods aswell...deja vu.

I think this is the 3rd thread in this forum since the big feedback thread to bring up the same stuff from that thread aswell...

Users get the ould " Thanks for the feedback, its invaluable etc etc" but what's changed except for a couple of Forums amalgamated.

tell ye what then, we'll just implement every change that users suggest without any consideration, testing, discussion or research into technical compatibility... you say "threads complaining about mods" is a sign of that forum declining, tell me, did the posters of those threads actually try to help the forum or did they continue to post the same and continue to complain when the mods continued to deem it unacceptable?

we do appreciate feedback but boards is not a one-man-band. change takes time and what you consider good change may not be "good" for the majority of users.

hatrickpatrick

LoLth wrote: »

we do appreciate feedback but boards is not a one-man-band. change takes time and what you consider good change may not be "good" for the majority of users.

But would you consider the changes which have taken place over the last number of years, namely the tightening up of content restrictions and the rise of pre-emptive thread-locking - that is, locking threads which don't break any rules but which a mod feels might contain rule breaking if they are allowed to continue, or that contain some users breaking the rules but not the actual OP - to have been "good" for the majority of users?

Given how much attentions this thread has attracted, as well as the well documented decline in active poster numbers in recent times, I'd hazard a guess and suggest that it hasn't.

And for everyone's clarity, what's happening to Boards is not the same as what happened to GameFAQs. GameFAQs has a problem with over-zealous advertising and advertising which is extremely user-toxic. Boards has a problem with over-moderation but it definitely doesn't have ad problems - Boards is one of the few sites on which the ads are truly un-bothersome, except on very rare occasions when we get a broken rollover ad or a CPU intensive ad, and they tend to be nipped in the bud very quickly once they're brought to the attention of the admins. Boards' advertising is akin to what GameFAQs' advertising was like back in the early 2000s before the CNET takeover - static, inoffensive and topical banner ads as opposed to animated, auto-play video ads with sound and other incredibly annoying invasive aspects.

The_Valeyard

LoLth wrote: »

serious discussions have been held in the past and opinions gathered and applied. There is never a problem with discussion, its sniping / blanket accusations / unfounded and unfair blame that I have a problem with.

Just out of curiosity, how much of that thread did you read before you decided to be offended? There are a lot of very well constructed and reasoned arguments against any damage to churches of any religion in that thread, many prefaced with "I dont support the church but..." . Yes there are the odd post by some rebellious teen who doesnt think before spouting what they think is a radical opinion - at least I hope its a teen - but they are quite few and far between in that thread. Maybe the thread closure gave time for the reactionary posting (well most of it) to lose the potential for drama/shock so the posters were already distracted elsewhere.

Point is, this is a discussion site where almost all topics should be open for discussion. It is the quality and method used in that discussion that should be the foundation for mod actions, not purely the topic under discussion.

Sorry for the delay, ive been out and busy most of the day.

I have indeed read the entire thread with interest, was originally brought to my attention by a friend via email.

LoLth wrote: »

Just out of curiosity, how much of that thread did you read before you decided to be offended?

Its not about offended, its about bias, and I really do not see the thread having been allowed if it was to do with Muslims, Jews, Travellers, etc, I really think it would have been shut very early on with red cards handed out.

LoLth wrote: »

There are a lot of very well constructed and reasoned arguments against any damage to churches of any religion in that thread, many prefaced with "I dont support the church but..." . Yes there are the odd post by some rebellious teen who doesnt think before spouting what they think is a radical opinion - at least I hope its a teen - but they are quite few and far between in that thread.

I have no idea whether they are teens or not, unless you have information that I do not possess. Still talk about burning down places of worship could easily be seen as an incitement to hatred, if you leave the thread open, fine, but then the same approach must be taken to threads that are also seemed to be 'sensitive' topics, such as abortion, Islamic extremism, crimes or offences by ethnic groups, etc.

LoLth wrote: »

Point is, this is a discussion site where almost all topics should be open for discussion. It is the quality and method used in that discussion that should be the foundation for mod actions, not purely the topic under discussion.

But are they really open for discussion, a lot get slammed shut, very quickly, if they seem to be a certain group, while other groups are open for the kill. I can see why certain boards users feel annoyed by this. As is evident with some of the replies in the liberal bias thread.

Bandana boy

The Ex Girlfriend wont move out is another great example , Fun interesting discussion , with nobody being disrespectful , most followed thread of the day and closed for a technicality of more discussion than advice

This kind of modding is killing the forum

Hollister11

Bandana boy wrote: »

The Ex Girlfriend wont move out is another great example , Fun interesting discussion , with nobody being disrespectful , most followed thread of the day and closed for a technicality of more discussion than advice

This kind of modding is killing the forum

It's killing the site.

The Hill Billy

Thanks for the heads-up. But first of all - please discuss with the mod if you have not already done so.

tHB

athtrasna

As the mod who closed that, after 167 posts, the thread might have been great fun but it wasn't discussion. It had gotten totally out of hand and was straying between belonging in After Hours and Personal Issues but had definitely lost almost all relevance to Accommodation and Property. It was even being commented on on thread. The option to reopen it was given to the OP when there is an update but not for puns, jokes or derogatory references to his ex.

Edit: thread is reopened as the OP is shaken by what happened tonight. Hopefully people will stay on the helpful rather than comedy/nosey/negative side of things from now on.

Maximus Alexander

I'm not questioning your decision because from reading the thread I can absolutely see where you're coming from. Accommodation & Property doesn't seem the right place for it, but is it not an option to just move it to AH or somewhere more appropriate? It's surely better for Boards in general if popular discussions are allowed to continue.

athtrasna

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

I'm not questioning your decision because from reading the thread I can absolutely see where you're coming from. Accommodation & Property doesn't seem the right place for it, but is it not an option to just move it to AH or somewhere more appropriate? It's surely better for Boards in general if popular discussions are allowed to continue.

That hadn't occurred to me until it was suggested earlier, AH isn't somewhere I frequent but it's headed there very shortly

sbs2010

Here's another one. http://touch.boards.ie/thread/2057647171


This got shut down supposedly because people weren't being civil (couldn't see the problem myself).

Very early on we were told to get back on topic though and that's the bit that is overly moderated -

Some makes an observation, asks a question, whatever. The natural flow of a discussion/conversation will likely take it away from the OP.

Is that such a big deal? The original post is often treated as sacrosanct and everything must relate back to it. I can't see why .
Or move the thread if it veers into territory of another forum - but what if it veers off from that move it again?

Rant over, as they say.

dudara

As the Hill Billy commented earlier, the first step is to discuss with the mod in question. They can explain their rationale.

athtrasna

dudara wrote: »

As the Hill Billy commented earlier, the first step is to discuss with the mod in question. They can explain their rationale.

That doesn't happen though...

sbs2010

athtrasna wrote: »

That doesn't happen though...

I did and I posted the gist of their response above. Basically they said it was about to get messy. I couldn't see that at all. It was a lively discussion which had strayed a bit from the OPs question, that's all.

The Hill Billy

I'll refer back to my earlier comment...

...I'd also note that the mods are generally appointed because they 'get' their forums. A lot of times instinct will tell them when a thread is just not going to work or has gone on a crash trajectory. They'll act on that instinct, often saving cards/bans from be handed out, members from frustration with crappy posts, & the time & effort it takes the mod team to clean up afterwards. But when a thread is closed - it should be accompanied by a note to say why.

In this case instinct was not required as the thread was indeed getting messy, & was rightly closed as posters were clearly ignoring the on-thread warning to get back on topic - yourself included, sbs2010.

sbs2010

Ok I'll bow out of this one. I'll just restate my main point in case someone feels they can address it - which no one has so far:

Why the overriding desire to keep threads "on topic" when an interesting discussion has evolved from the early posts?

The Hill Billy

Allowing threads to develop & in some cases go somewhat off topic is OK in certain forums & indeed can result in some fascinating discussions.

However, in certain forums such as Parenting, Personal Issues, etc - a stronger line may need to be taken on the development of threads. That thread in Parenting being a good case in point. The OP had a genuine question regarding the rate for a babysitter. Next thing they were being strongly criticized for leaving their kids with someone they didn't know. That may scare off other posters from asking questions in the forum lest they be subject to undue criticism.

On one hand, closing a thread may kill the current discussion, but on the other it sends out a message that posters are welcome to post queries without fear of being slated on unrelated matters - thus encouraging discussion.