Thread Closings

GargGarg Purveyor of Lincoln Nightmares Icrontian
edited April 2005 in Community
I'm not going to go into detail and bring up examples of threads from the past months, but I will say that I'm getting a little worn out on thread closings in general.

Sure, some need to be closed. Any thread where debate gets too personal, sure, shut that baby down, and then delete it soon afterward. But the dragons thread? Come on. That thread, barely on it's second page, still had plenty of time for harmless "flying dildo" comments to be retracted (or shall we say, re-sheathed). It might have made it back on track, but it was ended prematurely. This wasn't the most frustrating example of a thread closing, but it was recent and I've been meaning to throw my $0.02 in on this issue for awhile.

Anyway, my point is, let's make absolutely sure that a thread needs to be closed before we do it. Let's try erring on the side of adventure instead of caution for a little while, and see which is less frustrating.
«1

Comments

  • edited March 2005
    Oh yes, a longstanding thorn in my side too. It's a bit overmoderated at times in my opinion. Otherwise a great job. There's definitely nobody asleep at the wheel here.

    //edit: I went to the thread and noticed there was no moderator comment that usually appears before a mod closes a thread and was going to add that comment but prime beat me to it.
  • primesuspectprimesuspect Beepin n' Boopin Detroit, MI Icrontian
    edited March 2005
    That thread was not closed by a moderator, it was closed by the thread creator - a right any thread creator has.
  • GargGarg Purveyor of Lincoln Nightmares Icrontian
    edited March 2005
    I wasn't sure who closed it, but that's one reason I used the "us" form in my post. I think we each have the responsibility to think reasonably about thread closings, not just the admins.

    This dragon thread is just one example of many threads, closed by many people for many reasons. I'd just like to see less of it, you know?
  • TexTex Dallas/Ft. Worth
    edited March 2005
    I know I came from a differant culture but. I was a super mod at Icrontic so I have some experiance at this also.

    My view is mods should do as little as possible and just try and keep things civil. No warez, no personal attacks, no posts about illegal activities etc.. You want mods that are around but for the most part are not heard from.

    Warnings not bannings or thread closures. Mods should be seen but not heard.

    Good mods that understand their role rarely have threads like this one ever get posted.

    I like S-M but still feel overzealous mods are really hurting not helping the site. I am not picking on anyone in particular! Sometimes doing LESS is better then doing more.

    We have a good core group of mostly mature posters for the most part. We can do a better job of policing ourselves then some of the mods are doing because they are over modding by not understanding their role.

    We need calm quiet mods not nazi word police. Trying to organize everything. I am sick to death of getting crap PM's for not putting a "joke" in the sticky "joke" thread.

    For gawd sakes the OT section has more stickys in it then most sights have in their entire forums in total. Sticky's should be for serious info and notices etc.. I no longer even read the sticky's on this site as they are garbage.

    A good mods job is to basicaly not be seen or heard unless there is a fight or problem. You just sorta sweep up the mess and move threads around that are posted in the wrong forum. It's a thank less job with no recognition. When it's done RIGHT. Too many get a puffed up view of their job and screw the deal up.

    Tex
  • mmonninmmonnin Centreville, VA
    edited March 2005
    It does make sense to put jokes in a thread thats already made. I mean we dont have a bunch of threads with babes in it, well we never did. Anime pics all go in one thread and so on.
  • DexterDexter Vancouver, BC Canada
    edited March 2005
    Just a few thoughts. Member feedback is always valued, but let's look at the bigger picture:

    - The Short-Media Pub has 6 sticky threads. These are threads which are very active, so they have been stickied for easy access. This is done as a benefit or courtesy to members, not to overwhelm them with stickies. Of the 6 stickies in the Pub, 4 have had posts within the last week, the 5th one within the last 10 days, and the 6th one within the last month. The now retired Babe thread was also a sticky there, and saw quite regular traffic as well.

    - Most other sections of the site have 0, 1, or 2 stickies, with the exception of the Spyware / Virus / Trojan forum, which has 7. Due to the nature of help provided in that forum and the amount of traffic it sees, that sticky count is understandable.

    - So far in the month of March, 4 threads in the Pub have been locked, 3 by the original poster.

    - So far in the month of March, 15 threads from various forums have been dumped. 14 out of those 15 were for dumped because they were SPAM.

    I'd hardly call that over-zealous nazi moderation. Unseen by most members is that in most instances before a thread is closed or dumped, staff discussion takes place in the staff forums. That negates any suppositions of Mods "not understanding their role." Most Mods wait for a 2nd, 3rd, even 4th opinion before taking any Moderator action, unless it is VERY CLEAR that something is SPAM or clearly out of line with existing site rules and policies, IE - warez, copyright issues, personal attacks, etc. Even then, all Mod actions are subject to review, and can be undone if it is felt that the Mods did not understand their roles. Since very few Mod decisions ever get undone by higher staff, clearly the ownership is pretty comfortable with the decisions made.

    For a site that gets millions of hits per month, thousands of posts per month, I think that having only a handful of threads closed or dumped for non-SPAM reasons is pretty reasonable.

    Dexter...
  • SpinnerSpinner Birmingham, UK
    edited March 2005
    Dexter wrote:
    For a site that gets millions of hits per month, thousands of posts per month, I think that having only a handful of threads closed or dumped for non-SPAM reasons is pretty reasonable.

    Dexter...
    Yeah I completely agree. I'm always keen to make sure any decision I have to make in the forums is opened up for discussion with the rest of the staff before and after I've made it. I don't think any of the staff here, myself included, are trigger happy, and I don't think it's fair or appropriate (when is it ever appropriate) to insinuate some of us are or act like the NAZI word police.

    We're always very open to discuss our decision making process with the people it effects as well as the people it doesn't.

    In every instance however, all our decisions are just about trying to make the site the most welcoming, organised and informative place to visit on the web, but at the same time trying to make everyone feel like they can talk openly and freely about anything they so choose, as long as it doesn't breach our very respectable forum rules.
  • GargGarg Purveyor of Lincoln Nightmares Icrontian
    edited March 2005
    Dexter wrote:
    Since very few Mod decisions ever get undone by higher staff, clearly the ownership is pretty comfortable with the decisions made.

    That's good, but what's at stake here is the satisfaction of the general membership, rather than the ownership.
    Spinner wrote:
    In every instance however, all our decisions are just about trying to make the site the most welcoming, organised and informative place to visit on the web
    Absolutely, and I'm sure we all understand that. We're just discussing the way this might be done.

    I know not all the threads were closed by admins. That's why I mentioned earlier that it's up to ALL of us to make sure this forum is an open and free place to visit. I think many of us get offended a little too easily, and sometimes threads end up getting closed. All I'm asking is the people think twice about what it will look like when a thread gets closed (and I recognize that mods confer with each other before taking action, thank you). When mods close a thread, usually a reason is given, which I certainly appreciate even if I disagree with it. When a member closes one, often no reason is given, and we're all left wondering who did it and why - and in the meantime, that closed thread on the list looks like a scar to me.
  • mmonninmmonnin Centreville, VA
    edited March 2005
    Gargoyle wrote:
    ...I know not all the threads were closed by admins. That's why I mentioned earlier that it's up to ALL of us to make sure this forum is an open and free place to visit.

    Exactly. Its your forums, not the mod's forums:)
  • DexterDexter Vancouver, BC Canada
    edited March 2005
    Gargoyle,

    just to clarify, my comments were not directed at your post, but at the post which insinuated that the Mods were over-zealous-Nazi-word-police who do not understand their roles. I do agree with you that if a member chooses to close their own thread, it would be nice to see the member give a reason, where possible / appropriate. Hopefully all members feel the same way. :)

    Dexter...
  • botheredbothered Manchester UK
    edited March 2005
    I notice when threads are locked. It seems they are usually stamped on when a brawl is about to start. It's like when a fight is about to start in a pub and the landlord says "take it outside guys". An alternative site is usually offered for the argument to take place in, this means there are never any flame wars at S-M, something that has destroyed other 'more relaxed' sites that nobody ever visits anymore. Nobody likes to see threads closed but I know my kids can come here, I can recommend S-M to anybody and I am never going to be blasted if somebody dissagrees with me. 10,000+ members can't be all wrong. Short-media has it about right I think.
  • edited March 2005
    bothered wrote:
    I notice when threads are locked. It seems they are usually stamped on when a brawl is about to start. It's like when a fight is about to start in a pub and the landlord says "take it outside guys". An alternative site is usually offered for the argument to take place in, this means there are never any flame wars at S-M, something that has destroyed other 'more relaxed' sites that nobody ever visits anymore. Nobody likes to see threads closed but I know my kids can come here, I can recommend S-M to anybody and I am never going to be blasted if somebody dissagrees with me. 10,000+ members can't be all wrong. Short-media has it about right I think.

    While I'm not exactly around here a lot, I'd say the moderation done here is just right. The admins and some of the moderators have seen first hand on another site what happens when moderation is NIL, so they won't go down that route. Dexter hit it on the head when he talked about what goes on in the mod forum. On any forum, it may look as if the mods are slow to act, or ignoring threads or whatnot, but an intense amount of discussion will be happening behind the scenes depending on the situation and the forum's policies.
  • edited March 2005
    I can't believe I actually registered here, I should have known better. Still the same ol' same ol' I see, trying to make real life safe for the 12-year-old readers out there in interweb land. I haven't posted in any other threads because, well, it looks like nothing I have to offer would be appreciated in this 'new culture' that exists here. F@H tribute circle-jerk threads with an overzealous use of new and innovative smilies seem to be the prevailing trend, as it has been since this place opened its' doors. F@H is just a computer program for God's sake, it's not a way of life. Jokes aren't welcome, sarcasm is seen as mean-spirited instead of humor, a thread about thread closings attracts 37 staff members to state that the original poster is mistaken and the current policies are in fact correct in both substance and execution. Oh well, I hope at least Tex gets to read this before it's deleted.
  • primesuspectprimesuspect Beepin n' Boopin Detroit, MI Icrontian
    edited March 2005
    :rolleyes: sorry we didn't make the "perfect for cardinal fang & friends" forum :)
    :mullet::thumbsup::wtf::rolleyes::mad::mullet::thumbsup::scratch:
  • profdlpprofdlp The Holy City Of Westlake, Ohio
    edited March 2005
    Fangsie, you might find this hard to believe, but do you know that there are people who will register and post at a website for the sole purpose of causing trouble?

    It's sad, but true. It is also the reason that moderators must sometimes take steps which are not popular with 100% of the people who visit. :wave:
  • GargGarg Purveyor of Lincoln Nightmares Icrontian
    edited March 2005
    I can imagine what would have happened had I posted this sort of topic at the forums that Fang visits. I would have been told to STFU, if I was lucky. This is a forum where respectable discussion is the norm, but Fang can call it what he wants.

    If I wanted a place where the 12-year-old readers could get it the way they want, I'd go to [H], or any other forum where responsible enforcement doesn't exist. I offered this kind of constructive criticism because this is the kind of community that's worth me caring about. To each his own, I guess :D
  • KwitkoKwitko Sheriff of Banning (Retired) By the thing near the stuff Icrontian
    edited March 2005
    Let's close S-M. We've all been pwned by CF.
  • edited March 2005
    Gargoyle wrote:
    I can imagine what would have happened had I posted this sort of topic at the forums that Fang visits. I would have been told to STFU, if I was lucky. This is a forum where respectable discussion is the norm, but Fang can call it what he wants.
    Fang doesn't participate in other forums anymore. Not tech-related forums, anyway.
    If I wanted a place where the 12-year-old readers could get it the way they want, I'd go to [H], or any other forum where responsible enforcement doesn't exist.
    If by responsible enforcement you mean heavy-handed Politically Correct bull**** (nice word filter, thanks for protecting the world+dog from my foul mouth- er, fingers), congrats, you're already in the right place.

    I meant that someone out there in mod-land has the impression that this site has to be safe for the 12yo market demographic (and boy is it ever, great job meeting that goal). Now how can any reasonably intelligent person that knows anything about me think that means I want a BDSM porn fest and flame war? I know, you guys are firmly ensconsed in the Cult Of Short-Media and all I'm doing is giving you reason to justify your position, but I'm saying it anyway.
    I offered this kind of constructive criticism because this is the kind of community that's worth me caring about. To each his own, I guess :D
    And to think, I once felt at home with the same people who run this place. Kind of frightening, actually.
  • edited March 2005
    profdlp wrote:
    Fangsie, you might find this hard to believe, but do you know that there are people who will register and post at a website for the sole purpose of causing trouble?

    It's sad, but true. It is also the reason that moderators must sometimes take steps which are not popular with 100% of the people who visit. :wave:
    Yeah I know "OMG IRC INVASION! AUTO-BAN!!!1". I've never been involved with the insanity from that group, and you know it. Continue to claim otherwise though if it makes you look like a big shot.

    /edit: I truly joined here with the intention of getting back in touch with the people who meant something to me from "the old days", NOT to cause trouble, or try to 'convert' members to another site (as I said, I'm not active in any other forums anymore). I should have looked around a bit more before I joined, and for that mistake I am truly sorry.
  • TexTex Dallas/Ft. Worth
    edited March 2005
    Fang... You live? I wondered where you had gone.

    Nice to see a old timer is still lurking anyway.

    Tex
  • KwitkoKwitko Sheriff of Banning (Retired) By the thing near the stuff Icrontian
    edited March 2005
    What do you plan on achieving by posting here? Seriously. Are you looking to effect some sort of rule change? Well, it's not going to happen. Are you trolling the waters of S-M looking to create controversy? It appears that way.

    Let's be honest. You're not going to get your way. You're not going to start a coup d'etat here and have S-M overthrown. Your input is appreciated, but frankly, we all know the ultimate outcome to this.

    The rules were set in place for a reason, and I think most would agree they're fine the way they are. There are forums that have more stringent rules than this, and some that border on anarchy. Aside from, say, Something Awful, those "free reign" forums usually die a horrible death (to wit- addaboy.com).

    You can certainly have fun here, CF. We're not out to cause you grief. But we will enforce the rules if you- or anyone- break them.

    With that said, let's all get drunk and play foosball.
  • edited March 2005
    'Sup, Tex!
    Location: Colorado Springs
    WTF?!

    ---

    Kwitko:
    Way to not read anything I posted there, Chief.
  • DexterDexter Vancouver, BC Canada
    edited March 2005

    /edit: I truly joined here with the intention of getting back in touch with the people who meant something to me from "the old days", NOT to cause trouble,

    So the first thing you do is insult the place and trash talk it. Nice. Yeah, you're too cool for us.... :thumbsup:

    FYI, the staff intent is not to make SM "12 yr old friendly." Our intent is to make it *all ages* friendly. Sometimes that means ensuring that our core members, some of whom are in their 30's, 40's and 50's, don't have to put up with the 12 yr old BS that goes on at other sites.

    Anyone of any age is welcome here, to discuss any matters pertaining to the purpose of the site. Anyone who does not wish to follow those simple policies, and be reasonably polite and decent to other users, is welcome to click the X button and go somewhere else. It's a big internet out there...

    I'm sure there are more interesting things to do than sign up at a forum you don't like just to tell people how much you don't like it.... ;D

    Dexter...
  • profdlpprofdlp The Holy City Of Westlake, Ohio
    edited March 2005
    .../edit: I truly joined here with the intention of getting back in touch with the people who meant something to me from "the old days", NOT to cause trouble...
    Which is why your first post, made the day after you registered, just happens to be the first post you made in this thread.

    You're off to a nice start. ;)
  • GargGarg Purveyor of Lincoln Nightmares Icrontian
    edited March 2005
    Let's not let Fang and our rallies to protect the SM flag derail some progress that I think we were making. Back on task:

    We all agree that the polar oppossite of the way SM is run would result in the kind of community that we don't want to be a part of. My point is that there is a spectrum between these two philosophies, and I'd like to see it moved just a smidge away from the conservative side (just a smidge, nothing drastic). I certainly understand the motivation to err on the side of being conservative, and to nip perceived problems in the bud. My argument is that not everything that gets nipped is a problem. I've already acknowledged that the administration is not responsible for all thread closings, which brings me to what I think is the more important point -

    We, as a whole, need to give people the benefit of the doubt, and take the time to respond with a cool head before closing a thread, or requesting that one be closed. I don't know about everyone else's crystal ball, but mine isn't 100% accurate when predicting whether or not a thread is doomed to a downhill slide into flamesville. Threads can be rescued, if given the effort.

    So, even if nothing will come from this thread, I appreciate that I've had the opportunity to say my piece. :thumbsup:
  • primesuspectprimesuspect Beepin n' Boopin Detroit, MI Icrontian
    edited March 2005
    Fang, it's simple. You may mock what we do here as too friendly mushy-gushy for you, but the simple fact is, the people who have shelled out serious cash, serious hours, and serious hardware to get this thing going for YOU want the site to be this way. I've said it a million times. This is no democracy. We set the tone and we make the rules. I'm glad you have an opinion, that's great, but honestly I really don't care what your opinion is. The site is the way it is, me and the other two owners are happy, and you can go elsewhere. What are you trying to prove by insulting the way we do things around here? It seems to me like maybe YOU are the one who's trying to look like a big shot :rolleyes:
    gargoyle wrote:
    We, as a whole, need to give people the benefit of the doubt, and take the time to respond with a cool head before closing a thread, or requesting that one be closed. I don't know about everyone else's crystal ball, but mine isn't 100% accurate when predicting whether or not a thread is doomed to a downhill slide into flamesville. Threads can be rescued, if given the effort.

    Garg, I agree 100%... Sometimes people are way too sensitive - members and mods alike. I'll quote an old friend and say this: "THE INTARWEB IS SERIOUS BUSINESS, PEOPLE"

    So, the ultimate lesson to be taken from all this is that sometimes people need to lighten up. I think what garg is trying to say is "think before you get pissed" ... and if you're still pissed, "think before you post" ;D
  • GargGarg Purveyor of Lincoln Nightmares Icrontian
    edited March 2005
    So, the ultimate lesson to be taken from all this is that sometimes people need to lighten up. I think what garg is trying to say is "think before you get pissed" ... and if you're still pissed, "think before you post" ;D

    Exactamundo. Thanks prime :)
  • mmonninmmonnin Centreville, VA
    edited March 2005
    OMG is CF. This guy was at ICF before almost all of us. I remember when you tried to help me out when I was like the ultimate hardware n00b. Back in the day when I couldnt name all the parts to a computer.

    Hey, we all have our opinions about how a forum should be run. Sometimes I dont agree with how strict things are around here. I myself am more relaxed than others but things are usually ok around here. Sure things flare up once in awhile, but its not a majority of times. Its a lot less than some other forums so I let things be.

    Not everyone is going to agree with the way things are run at a particular forum. If that happens to be the case, like it seems to be right here, then each party member can move on and we can all go our separate ways.

    The staff her appreciates members thoughts even if it is critisim, but only if it is constructive critism. If its not, then then I think its best not to say anything at all.

    I think now is the time for you to accept the way things are around here or move on to other places. If you would like to make suggestions, please do so. If you cant do so and cant accept the way things are then I suggest for you to leave. Take it or leave it. That is all.
  • edited March 2005
    I echo Gargoyle's sentiments. I understand this is not a democracy but sometimes changing the course slightly is needed, nothing drastic. I think that some of the threads are closed a little too quickly when they are perfectly salvageable. Good discussion gets surpressed at times by closing these threads. If there is a part of a post that is obviously offensive, edit that part out, put a placeholder with a short reason on why that part was removed, and let the discussion continue unless it denigrates further to where it is undoubtedly beyond reach. That way the person who made the offending post knows exactly what was done wrong and can take corrective action yet still continue the discussion as it may be of benefit.

    The discussion last fall about the venue for SM LAN '05 is a perfectly good example. The thread was temporarily closed because a mod perceived as it being offending to another mod. The discussion was certainly not meant to be offensive and it was later reopened but if it weren't then people participating would feel that they couldn't speak about it all without fear of another closed thread reprisal. The skin of some people is a little thin in my opinion but then again different people have different thresholds for what they deem offensive. Obviously mine and gargoyle's is different than other people that post here.

    I believe the ultimate goal is to achieve balance and fairness for the most amount of people possible. It will never be possible to satisfy or pacify everyone because you have lunatics at both fringes trying to push the buttons. I think that the staff at times errs too conservatively and stifles good conversations prematurely to keep from offending people. While the goals are certainly admirable, and one that I held when I was a mod at a forum and still do today, I do take bit of an issue with how it is achieved. I think that the staff can get the point across and correct problems before they happen without closing threads and stifling good conversations.

    This is not meant to be negativity directed at the staff as I know they are hard working and have honorable ideals on running the site. By all means take it as constructive cristicism. I just think it's a minor adjustment that needs to be made.


    KingFish
  • TexTex Dallas/Ft. Worth
    edited March 2005
    'Sup, Tex! WTF?!

    ---

    Yep headed back to the mountains dude. Live in a little town called monument just north of CO Springs.

    I can see Pikes Peak from my front door.

    PM or email if you want to catch up.

    Tex
Sign In or Register to comment.