Explanation for thread lockup(s)?

[FdL]

Hi, I've seen that the moderators have locked up a thread in Friendly Banter called "Is the Prius Environmentally Friendly?".

I had read that thread and found it interesting, and the original poster wisely advices others not to let the topic go to political or controversial aspects, which didn't happen. Then the thread gets locked without any reason given by the mods.

On the one hand I was wondering what was wrong with the thread's topic or manner of discussion. I feel I need to know the reasons for this for the sake of better understanding the moderator's policies. Personally I don't see anything there that's against the rules.

And on the other hand, this does raise a personal point of mine that is the fact that often threads get closed with no explanation about the reasons. As a matter of personal opinion I think this is a bit disrespectful on the forum's users. Even from the angle of enforcing the rules and "educating" the community, I think that it would also be more effective if reasons were explicited whenever this happens.

[Saithis Bladewing]

I sort of have to agree. Maintaining good moderator-user communications helps keep the forum healthy.

[Cobra_Ikari]

I agree with what Sai said. The lack of communication between moderators and posters is a little disconcerting.

[Ego Slayer]

This bothered me too. I don't recall seeing anything blatantly political about it, and I believe the OP even said that he was looking at this from a scientific perspective, not a political one.

I know we're supposed to go to so-and-so if we have a problem with a thread being locked, but honestly, I am (at least) not going to do that for... reasons of my own. Why can't you just post a public explanation? I'm sure you have plenty of thread locking to do, but as the moderation staff, I'd hope to see as much communication as possible.

Edit: It's also begun to bother me when something in Board Issues is "<answered> and locked"... Okay, sure you clarified the OP's question, but... what if some of us have further questions or clarifications? ~.~

[zeratul]

Yeah, it would be nice if there were always explanations. There often are (although mainly in media not in banter) but there are also often not explanations (like in banter.) I feel it would not only be more respectful, but also more productive, since we would know what was done wrong so that we won't do it.

[ufo]

As mentioned, it seems a bit silly that there is given no explanation, so that we have no idea what we did wrong. For all we know, it might be the amount of times the word 'milk' has occured in a post that got the thread locked.

[Roland St. Jude]

That's a fair question. It's also one that I answer every few months when a thread occasionally gets locked without explanation.

The last thread on this was: here. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=69098)

A recent post by me on this:

I think I can safely speak on behalf of my brethren and sistren mods when I say that we agree: giving a reason for locking threads is the preferred and standard practice. However, it is not an absolutely uniform practice. Sometimes, time or other countervailing concerns override it.

If you have a question about why a thread was locked, feel free to contact a moderator for that forum.

P.S. I'm locking this one because I've answered the general question and specific cases should be taken up with the forum moderator(s) for the forum in question. :smallsmile:

In Board Issues specifically, we often lock threads because they are issues that should be taken up with the moderator who took the action or one of the moderators assigned to the area. Also, threads here get locked because once the question has been answered the threads tend to degrade into sillyness (which is great but not here) or tangents. If you have a question, by all means ask.

The specific question of why the thread noted by the OP was locked should be directed to one of the moderators for that section.

Normally, I'd lock this now, because I've answered the Board Issues question (of what our locking explanation practice is) and directed the poster to he proper process for asking about the specific thread.

[Admiral_Kelly]

Locking the thread was justified (in my opinion) since, fair or not, the environment has become a political issue and can raise tensions.

[FdL]

Thanks for that, Roland. I'll ask the subforum's moderator/s.

[Ego Slayer]

Locking the thread was justified (in my opinion) since, fair or not, the environment has become a political issue and can raise tensions.
Not that this thread it for debating it, but I fail to see how, in terms of car stats, it was even a remotely political issue. Sure, it could turn into one, but so could a lot of things if you let it go in that direction. It could have remained a civil comparison of cars.

[Roland St. Jude]

Not that this thread it for debating it, but...

This type of comment exemplifies another reason why we often lock Board Issues threads once the question is answered. Some people can't help but debate here, even after being told that the proper process is elsewhere. (For the record, I'm only addressing general rules and process here. I didn't lock the thread the OP mentioned and haven't really looked at it.)

I'll forebear locking this a little longer because it's a thread about locking, but it's probably against my better judgment.

[Serpentine]

I generally see questioning the mods as being pretty pointless and somewhat unappretiative most of the time (I know you guys spend a lot of time and effort on these forums, and I appreciate it and that you can't always keep everyone happy), but I don't think this issue has been resolved. To take your own response, Roland:

I think I can safely speak on behalf of my brethren and sistren mods shen I say that we agree: giving a reason for locking threads is the preferred and standard practice. However, it is not an absolutely uniform practice. Sometimes, time or other countervailing concerns override it.What sort of countervailing concerns? Just sheer volume? Do you ever intend to come back and give us an explaination? Should we, to voice my own frequently-supressed frustration, avoid even referring to anything that could be or has ever been remotely related to religion or science - so no talking about science, the weather, biology, no sexuality, no philosophy, history or mythology? The locking of threads like the one referred to in the OP causes me, at least, to feel like I should be wary of those topics, and creates, in my mind, an atmosphere of dread, of "is this topic going to get locked because this polititian talked about it once?" I really think that explaining these lockages, at least eventually, will really help to ease this fear (or, as the case may be, confirm it...).
I understand perfectly the reason for banning all discussion of politics and religion, but I think that maybe it needs to be defined a bit better. As it is, it seems to be no discussing anything even possibly related to politics or religion, which doesn't leave much to talk about. I think it's silly that we should feel like we're not allowed to/be not allowed to simply mention, say to explain something about our personality or merely as part of a description of ourselves, that we follow such and such a religion, or are of such and such a political thought - RAW, so to speak, that should be "legal", because it's not a discussion, just a statement of fact, but I have little doubt that it would be considered against the rules anyway. What, exactly, is considered "discussing" a banned issue?
*sigh* I dunno... It's just so frustrating.
[/rantramble]

[Roland St. Jude]

But the issues presented by the OP have been resolved. The OP had two questions: 1) Why was the specific thread locked and 2) why don't mods explain why they lock threads?

The first of these needs to be taken up with the moderators for the specific subforum (question 1 resolved). The second has been answered by me with quotes, linkage, and explanation of further application (i.e. why lockage in Board Issues is common) (question 2 resolved). The general practice is comment when you lock.

You're reasking question #1. I can honestly tell you that I don't know. Some judgment call was made by a moderator for that section. The moderators for that section, specifically the one who locked it, can tell you why they locked it, explain, and explain whether they intend to go back and explain publicly. I can't do that and neither can any other mods, unless we gather and discuss the specific issue, which we don't do for everything. So the most efficient and effective way to ask about a specific mod act is to ask the mod who did it or the mods for that subforum. If you don't get an answer there, or you aren't satisfied, then contact WampaX.

What "countervailing concerns" exist that prevent universal, instead of just usual explanations? Sometimes there isn't time to leave an explanatory post in a given thread. We are all volunteers. We do this during the moments in our day we can spare away from other things. Sometimes that means we have a few minutes or few seconds. The vast majority of threads we lock are for obvious reasons or receive an explanation. Sometimes that isn't possible given the time constraints or volume that needs to be addressed. Sometimes all time allows is lock and move on. Sometimes all a message could say is "locked for review" while we look at it. We often lock threads that seem problematic until we can review them more fully. (Better that something be nipped in the bud or at least paused briefly than have it turn into a multi-page violation-fest that leads to numerous infractions. Especially since those infractions tend to fall hard on people who come in on page 8 and think that if such a topic has gone on for so long, it must be okay.)

But I've digressed, or at least proceeded too far into the hypothetical. The bulk of your "rantramble" (:smallsmile: ) seems addressed at asking, what is the scope of the ban on Inappropriate Topics? I don't think it would be possible to perfectly delineate the boundaries of that prohibition. I think the best advice would be to avoid such topics completely. Don't proclaim you are a member of X party or Y religion. It seems minimal but it's plainly a political/religious comment. It's only going to invite more political/religious discussion.

Around the edges, like in the thread at issue, I suggest you discuss the topic as best you can, avoiding the political aspects. If a thread gets locked or you get a warning for straying too close to the Inappropriate Topic, discuss that with the moderator who took the action. I'm sure they'll be willing to explain and discuss the contours of the rule.

Finally, it is meant to be a general ban on such topics. I can't speak to the specific thread at issue, but in general, it's intentionally a broad and strict prohibition. As for the specific thread at issue and what lessons you can take from its locking. I'd suggest not to read too much into it. When you see posts scrubbed, locking comments, warning PMs and the like, that might be suggestive of the contours of the rules. But merely locking a thread might just be a matter of deciding, "some moderator needs to take a look at this, but I don't have time right now."

[Rawhide]

Geez Roland, don't write such a long reply or they'll think we have all the time in the world :smalltongue:.

[FdL]

*sigh* I won't get much into this again. I'm (still) waiting for a PM response by the Friendly Banter moderators, only because I just want to see this to an end that minimally satisfies me and validates the system in my eyes.

I still disagree with both mentioned reasons to indiscriminate and unexplained thread lockups being lack of time and going by "general" terms, "broad" prohibitions and "the contours of the rules".

If I'm brought to think of moderation in those terms, I can't take it too seriously. It gives an impression of a too subjective, too hurried "click happy" modding where threads get locked up in a matter of seconds in a break from work, without giving it too much thought. I don't really think that writing "Locked for potential political issues" can take you so long as to make a difference in your schedule.

I also think that locking a thread, that is, taking from people the possibility of discussing, of expressing their points of view on a topic, is the worst thing that can happen in a forum. And that it should be used as a last resort.

[Rawhide]

*sigh* I won't get much into this again. I'm (still) waiting for a PM response by the Friendly Banter moderators, only because I just want to see this to an end that minimally satisfies me and validates the system in my eyes.
Please be patient. There are any number of reasons why the moderator who locked the thread has not responded yet. For example, the moderator may not have had a chance to read their PMs or may not even have visited the forums since then. As Roland has mentioned, we are a volunteer staff and we're doing the best we can on a very busy forum while also having a very real and occupying life outside the forums. Given these considerations, you should not expect an instantaneous response.

[FdL]

It's okay. I'm sorry, I didn't mean to sound impatient. I understand they are busy and it could take some time....

Edit:

Well, to wrap this up in a sort of way, for those who read this thread and agreed with my enquiry, here's how it ended.

My private messages to the mods of Friendly Banter went unanswered. At some point, the thread reappeared with this post.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4184689&postcount=14

Whether this can be seen as a satisfactory development is up to each one of us. I see it as some sort of end to this, that's why I post it for readers to have a complete picture.

The previous post's edited comment is not in any way a complaint against the moderator who posted in the thread. Just want to make that clear.

Also, I wanted to bump this, otherwise it'd go unnoticed. Sorry for that.