I've been a member of many forums over the years. Quality of mods has ranged from poor to great (Frihost typically has great mods). Typically there are many reasons for locking threads and I just wanted to see what everyone else thinks.
1. Inappropriate- easy enough, say something rude or flame then, Lock end of story
2. Copy and paste- Simple plagiarism, pretty basic
3. Repeat post- Search function people!
4. Age- This one I don't really understand. Why shut a post down just because a post is old, if someone has something to add to the conversation shouldn't it be a welcome addition. I mean we need all the conversation we can get these days.
5. Jibberish- if you can't understand it then it's trash.
Did I miss any?
Different Moderators/Admins will lock for different reasons, or for the same reasons, but at different thresholds. Your list looks like the basics, with some caveats:
Copy/Paste and Jibberish will tend to just get spamcanned (removed) rather than locked... at least from me
Repeat threads will often get merged with the thread they're copying, or if it's a question, locked with a reference to the answering thread.
Old threads are sometimes locked, sometimes not... it depends on the reason they were resurrected and their current relevance and the quality of the post that brought it back. Particularly if the thread was a question posed by a long-gone forum member who likely found their answer, or the problem is simply obsolete, it'll often get locked. Likewise if the new reply serves no purpose within the context of the discussion (and it seems that further relevant discussion is unlikely). Unfortunately, many threads brought back from the dead years later are brought back with basically worthless posts (points mining?).
An old thread resurrected with new content, new insights, and the like will be left to evolve as it will. There've been a couple really good old threads dug up, and the discussions have continued nicely. Unfortunately, many posters don't look at dates and quote/respond years-old posts within the resurrected threads asking specific, long-gone users questions and wait for replies that are just never going to come, too. The potential for confusion aside, they can work out well.
A sixth category might be circular discussions... these tend to be topics that are well represented in the forum already, though maybe not in the thread's particular flavour. They tend to be contentious topics (e.g. religion, politics, or similar) where participants have a strong stance, and the discussion just loops back on itself with no real likelihood of actually going anywhere, and no parties involved are going to really agree to disagree or possibly change minds. I've locked a couple threads like this, as they only serve to inflame the participants, and little constructive comes of them.
What appears to be a circular to an atheist is square to a Christian and visa versa.
|Ankhanu wrote: |
|A sixth category might be circular discussions... these tend to be topics that are well represented in the forum already, though maybe not in the thread's particular flavour. They tend to be contentious topics (e.g. religion, politics, or similar) where participants have a strong stance, and the discussion just loops back on itself with no real likelihood of actually going anywhere, and no parties involved are going to really agree to disagree or possibly change minds. I've locked a couple threads like this, as they only serve to inflame the participants, and little constructive comes of them. |
I’ll say up front that the following is not a comment about moderation solely. I’ll verify that sentence by stating the following. Moderators can do what ever they choose. If the moderation of frihost decided to act on a certain policy then they could do that unquestionably. They could declare themselves to be dictators. Have I actually read this somewhere?
In any event, what I mean here is if frihost for example wanted to declare that it’s membership is only to be atheist university graduates with an honours degree in philosophy then it could declare this and police it. It could ask for “proof” that members send in their record of university degree and if it the membership did not meet this predetermined standard, prevent members without university degrees from posting on the forum. This could be done if a staff decided on it, in fact staff can do what ever it wants to. Although this example is not what is being asked in frihost, I am giving this as example to show the power a staff has.
So you can clearly see or I am hoping you can see that my comment is not aimed at the direction questioning moderation decision. Staff or moderation decision is not the question here. What is the question is thus.
In terms of logic and merely logic, how logical is the statement you have provided? I question that statement. I say it is not logical at all. Keep in mind that I am not stating this to question a justification of a decision but to simply point out your logic is faulty.
When it comes to religion, atheist leadership will aways falter because atheists have no idea nor respect for the Christen viewpoint. To say a topic must “go somewhere” and end up somewhere and must change the mind is atheism’s dictatorship in action. Although I can agree that subjects can and do get inflamed, I will make note here that it is often the atheist sarcastic and arrogant attitude that takes it in that direction. There is obivious proof in the threads in p/r to verify that. To tell a Christen that posts must conform to this kind of standard or be locked up simply shows everyone what atheism is all about.
The mind must be changed! Come on!
I’m not sure what you mean by agree to disagree because does not the nature of the majority of religious discussion between atheists and Christians always maintain that position from start to finish?
Not everything is about atheism vs theism, Bluedoll. Please stop conflating everything to that dualism.
I can certainly see the benefit of locking threads which go round and round in boring circles (number 6?)
and mostly agree with the other reasons.
The age of a thread in itself is no reason to lock it in my opinion though. As coolclay said, if someone has anything interesting/relevant to add then the conversation is still as valid, regardless of date started.
Personally speaking I don't lock many threads - I can only think of a handful in total. Usually it will be because it seems to have run its course and is now simply repetitious - which is basically what Ankhanu defined earlier.
The other reasons listed in the OP would prompt me to remove the posting rather than simply lock it...
I tend to agree about age not being an automatic reason to lock - there would have to be some aggravating circumstance methinks....
Having been an Admin on different forums as well as a moderator on several the reasons I have locked posts really range. There are the reasons that you stated.
A few others are Posts that are just meant to give out directions or information
Threads where someone has asked a question that got answered and no longer needs to be open
On some forums if someone is selling a product that has been sold
If a contest is being held and the contest is over a thread may be locked.
I've seen posts where someone is promoted get locked because we don't need someone posting in it 6 years after that person has left the forum.
I'm sure I could think of a few others but this is just a basic list