locked threads

[LaL 418]

....that someone inadvertently resurrected anyway? Generally no one.

Speaking of resurrecting threads, I'm going to follow up on what I did last year resurrecting old threads.

Do not spam the board. This is your official warning.

[Niels Bohr 72]

I been a member for a long time. I'm no spammer. Totally off-topic!

[diadromous mermaid 36]

Overall, we lock about .005 percent of threads, mostly in off topic, MENA and Effects of major family changes on immigration benefits. The issue is that the subject threads draw much passion from the community and are very high profile.

My specific query is related to the Effects forum, which I think is a valuable asset, and information there is not found many other places. I think it is a disservice to VJ to lock down threads that provide attypical case information.

[LaL 418]

I been a member for a long time. I'm no spammer. Totally off-topic!

It would still be considered spamming. So, you have the request to refrain.

[William33 110]

Overall, we lock about .005 percent of threads, mostly in off topic, MENA and Effects of major family changes on immigration benefits. The issue is that the subject threads draw much passion from the community and are very high profile.

My specific query is related to the Effects forum, which I think is a valuable asset, and information there is not found many other places. I think it is a disservice to VJ to lock down threads that provide attypical case information.

DM,

I agree that this is extremely valuable information (that you are a major contributor to), until members continue to argue without end on the proper solution. As a result, insults typically ensue.

At some point, moderation is required. We issue warnings, sometimes respected, sometimes not.

Following that action, a decision must be made for the sake of the website. We take that action.

[eric&gen 0]

How is digging up old threads consider spamming? Is the old threads still part of VJ? Maybe if a person was posting links to porn sites and posting them on here now that is spamming?

[Jasman0717 9]

[diadromous mermaid 36]

Overall, we lock about .005 percent of threads, mostly in off topic, MENA and Effects of major family changes on immigration benefits. The issue is that the subject threads draw much passion from the community and are very high profile.

My specific query is related to the Effects forum, which I think is a valuable asset, and information there is not found many other places. I think it is a disservice to VJ to lock down threads that provide attypical case information.

DM,

I agree that this is extremely valuable information (that you are a major contributor to), until members continue to argue without end on the proper solution. As a result, insults typically ensue.

At some point, moderation is required. We issue warnings, sometimes respected, sometimes not.

Following that action, a decision must be made for the sake of the website. We take that action.

Why not consider reprimanding the offenders instead of removing the dicussion entirely? I recognise that this would require someone to follow the thread to determine where the problem began, but isn't that really the right way to provide effective moderation? When someone reports a post, don't the moderators read the discussion?

It just seems that current practice of closing the discussion only causes either a new thread about the very same subject to be started or else the individual, (the subject of the discussion), is having his/her query shut down and in some parts of this newsgroup that could send a very different messages to members and newcomers than I suspect VJ wishes.

[bakofoil 27]

My specific query is related to the Effects forum, which I think is a valuable asset, and information there is not found many other places. I think it is a disservice to VJ to lock down threads that provide attypical case information.

Have to agree with this. There are some questions raised in threads which are unusual and don't arise on a regular basis. If a new member uses the search facility (as they are sometimes chastised to do 'read the guides! Search the forums before posting a new thread!') and digs up an old thread which addresses their particular question why would it be deemed necessary to lock the thread rather than remove an offending post? One or two offensive posts in a more useful thread should be removed and the member posting unnecessary and inflammatory opinions warned.

I can understand why Off-topic threads which run wild are better locked but not Immigration specific threads particularly if they contain information posted by members who have historically posted useful info but do not frequent the forum anymore.

[Minya's wife 24]

If a thread is locked, at least it is still visible...so users can still read the valuable information within the thread. Someone who wishes to read about the discourse described therein can still do so, they just cannot offer their .02$ When posts are made invisible, it truncates the thread and disrupts the flow, IMO. The lockdown a thread never happens without fair warning, I've seen mods come in and give those warnings....its just that when the insults start flying nobody listens. Reprimanding the offending users, would cause the same effect that you're mentioning DM, only in a different way. The reprimanded user could create new accounts just to be able to 'have their say'. Not sure what the best way is....but if the thread degenerates into a free-for-all mudfest, I think locking is the only option available.

Coincidentally, in a perverse way....locking a thread may serve to make it 'attractive' as some will specifically click and peruse the thread if they see that it has been locked....curiosity and all.

-P

[Nagishkaw 510]

My specific query is related to the Effects forum, which I think is a valuable asset, and information there is not found many other places. I think it is a disservice to VJ to lock down threads that provide attypical case information.

Have to agree with this. There are some questions raised in threads which are unusual and don't arise on a regular basis. If a new member uses the search facility (as they are sometimes chastised to do 'read the guides! Search the forums before posting a new thread!') and digs up an old thread which addresses their particular question why would it be deemed necessary to lock the thread rather than remove an offending post? One or two offensive posts in a more useful thread should be removed and the member posting unnecessary and inflammatory opinions warned.

I can understand why Off-topic threads which run wild are better locked but not Immigration specific threads particularly if they contain information posted by members who have historically posted useful info but do not frequent the forum anymore.

I totally agree .

[Nessa 23]

I like locked threads. They're fun to read.

[eric&gen 0]

Why are locked threads fun to read if you can't post a comment.

[diadromous mermaid 36]

If a thread is locked, at least it is still visible...so users can still read the valuable information within the thread. Someone who wishes to read about the discourse described therein can still do so, they just cannot offer their .02$ When posts are made invisible, it truncates the thread and disrupts the flow, IMO. The lockdown a thread never happens without fair warning, I've seen mods come in and give those warnings....its just that when the insults start flying nobody listens. Reprimanding the offending users, would cause the same effect that you're mentioning DM, only in a different way. The reprimanded user could create new accounts just to be able to 'have their say'. Not sure what the best way is....but if the thread degenerates into a free-for-all mudfest, I think locking is the only option available.

Coincidentally, in a perverse way....locking a thread may serve to make it 'attractive' as some will specifically click and peruse the thread if they see that it has been locked....curiosity and all.

-P

I still think that a mod can give a warning, before locking a thread, and if the offenders persist, then give thema time-out (a day ban) and then let the thread continue. Mods could post something like, "XYZ member's post removed & sanctioned. After a while, I would imagine that members that typically like to cause friction would not want that sort of information floating around, and maybe it would be incentive for them to toe the line

[Mags 112]

I still think that a mod can give a warning, before locking a thread, and if the offenders persist, then give thema time-out (a day ban) and then let the thread continue. Mods could post something like, "XYZ member's post removed & sanctioned. After a while, I would imagine that members that typically like to cause friction would not want that sort of information floating around, and maybe it would be incentive for them to toe the line

9 times out of 10 if we have removed certain posts we WILL post "off topic/offending comment have been removed". 9 times out of 10 we will also send a PM to the member(s) concerned explaining why it was removed. This could be because it was out of line, or merely because it was quoting someone who was out of line.