The thread locking is out of control

[TBoneTX 45,266]

Kathryn, at any point all you'd have had to do was pop in, ask people to take it back to topic, and that probably would have been that.

Bro-dude: In other instances, very likely so, but this thread was so far gone that a pound of prevention was worth a ton of cure. The one poster was out of control in perception and in language, and it is not clear at all that he would have moderated his stance or tone in the face of a mere notification. Everyone can read his completely dismissive response to my suggestion that there were alternative explanations; would a moderator have had any better success? And, as has been stated earlier, the OP had either gotten or not gotten what he needed (in a hurry, according to him) by the time of thread-closure. The horse was long-gone from the barn, si man. Edited July 27, 2009 by TBoneTX

[mox 298]

Kathryn, at any point all you'd have had to do was pop in, ask people to take it back to topic, and that probably would have been that.

Bro-dude: In other instances, very likely so, but this thread was so far gone that a pound of prevention was worth a ton of cure. The one poster was out of control in perception and in language, and it is not clear at all that he would have moderated his stance or tone in the face of a mere notification. Everyone can read his completely dismissive response to my suggestion that there were alternative explanations; would a moderator have had any better success? And, as has been stated earlier, the OP had either gotten or not gotten what he needed (in a hurry, according to him) by the time of thread-closure. The horse was long-gone from the barn, si man.

Disagree. Nothing about that thread was unsalvageable.

Disruptive poster: Blah blah agenda blah blah.

Moderator: Okay guys, I think we need to get back on topic.

Disruptive poster: Blah blah agenda blah blah.

Moderator: Seriously, this needs to get back on topic. Final warning.

Disruptive poster: Blah blah agenda blah blah.

<Deafening silence from Disruptive poster because he's now in time-out>

Thread continues or dies a natural death

Yes, it's a little more work. No, it's not always going to work. That's why the mods have the tools they have. But just because you have a hammer in your toolbox doesn't mean every problem is a nail.

Edited July 27, 2009 by mox

[rebeccajo 14]

Why is it such a big deal?

Srsly.

Edited July 27, 2009 by rebeccajo

[Kathryn41 3,205]

Kathryn, at any point all you'd have had to do was pop in, ask people to take it back to topic, and that probably would have been that. You used the "nuclear option" as a tactic of first resort, rather than performing any actual moderation. But I don't believe it serves the membership well. Not to beat a dead horse, but moderation is a synonym for facilitation, which can only be done through dialog. Thread locking should be done when all other avenues have failed.

I'm a little disturbed that you're continuing to address what was being discussed, rather than how you chose to approach the problem.

Mox, Your attitude puzzles me. You raised the issue but are disturbed that I respond to your statement of dissatisfaction for my action? I am not allowed a voice in my own defense? . . . because that is what this is beginning to sound like. You don't want me to address 'what was being discussed', only how I chose to approach the situation? Unfortunately, the two cannot be separated.

The issue at hand is 'what was being discussed'. That was the basis for my decision. I have to examine all of the factors involved, not just my 'preferences'. You can disagree, but disagreement does not give you the right to say I must agree with you.

I accept my moderation responsibilities very seriously. If you have followed them at all you would realize that I seldom close threads - that I am often in a thread advising or warning or participating in the discussion. What I do seem to spend a lot of time doing is removing the racial slurs and personal insults that are happily thrown back and forth by members with little regard for appropriateness or content. You would probably have more legitimacy to say I remove more of those posts than you think I should rather than I close threads, especially indiscriminately. When I do make a decision to close a thread it is because I have reviewed the whole thread with the focus of what the purpose of the thread is, where it is located in the forums and what is happening in that thread.

When I arrived at the K-1 thread under discussion it was long gone off topic and insults were already starting. If the topic had been in a forum appropriate for such behaviour I would have issued a warning. The discussion, however, was unrelated to the topic posted by the OP and had been so for over a day. If I had 'arrived' in that post earlier in the conversation - your 'at any time I could have popped in' -I could have redirected it back on track but that was not an option at this time. I did not see this thread earlier - I saw it around 11 pm last night when it was well and truly derailed. Sometimes you have to make a call based on the evaluation of the situation at hand. That is the job I have been asked to do and that is the job I do to the best of my abilities.

You can disagree with my choice if you wish but I stand by my decision and my reasons for making such a decision. If the Captain has problems with my moderation he can ask me to step aside and I will. I am moving on from this discussion now.

[TBoneTX 45,266]

Disagree. Nothing about that thread was unsalvageable.

You're always very sensible, and you're adamant now, so I returned to re-read the thread with a very open mind. Even had the bickering been kiboshed, what more was there to say, what with the OP's question having been answered? Was it really such a loss, or was the thread pretty much already at the end of its useful life? I suppose that I simply don't see the comparative value of continuing that thread vs. closing it when it was closed.

If something valuable and factual was truly left unsaid, start a new, highly focused thread to continue it -- of course without treading upon the TOS language about circumventing locked threads.

What was it about that thread that impelled you to write about the policy of lock-threading? As usual, I'm taking a zillion words to ask what RJ is asking in 7 words.

Edit: Again, I struggle to find anything wrong with K.'s logic in her post that just beat mine on here.

Edited July 27, 2009 by TBoneTX

[mox 298]

Last words, and then I'm moving on too.

- As I've said time and time again, I'm a big supporter of this moderation team. You all do a great job.

- Nobody, especially myself, is calling for your head, K. I've seen a major increase in closed threads, and I think it's the wrong approach. Sorry you were the focus this time, it could have been anybody else and I'd have had the same objection.

- I don't think you take moderation anything but seriously. It's not personal.

- I didn't say you couldn't voice your own defense, I said that you only addressed the why, not the how. You didn't address my point, which lead me to believe that you don't understand the problem.

TBone and RJ: there's nothing special about this thread. It was the latest in a slew of threads I've seen locked, and I finally just decided to shoot my mouth about it, probably because I happened to be a participant in that one. It's srsly a big deal because if nobody steps up and challenges the team on this, then it's eventually going to be the de facto method to solve every problem on this site, which will eventually drive people away. Imagine the thread being locked every single time a disagreement breaks out, or somebody posts off-topic. I just believe that if your first post in a thread is to announce that you are locking it, then you are doing it wrong.

Anyway, Ewok seems to agree with me on at least some major points, so I'm hopeful that the issue will at least be addressed behind the scenes.

Kathryn, Ewok, et al, if you want to discuss further via pm or openly, cool beans. Otherwise I consider the matter as "under resolution." Stick a fork in me, I'm done now.

Cheers.

[TBoneTX 45,266]

Stick a fork in me

Uh, is this an open invitation to, uh, "fork you," si man?

[Captain Ewok 1,891]

Firstly, I support Kathryn (mod) with regards to the example made by Mox in her decision. The TOS says that if a member wants that they can ask me to review a situation and I have. I defer to her based on my previous statements and her decisions are final on this. Her decisions are based on my directions in my posted threads to the moderators and to you the members on policy. Her decisions are simply trying to follow these policies. I will attempt to clarify my points (see below).

My specific points, in summary:

1) In most cases I believe a mod or myself should give fair and public warning (any why) if a thread is going over the top before closing it. This gives the members a chance to "reset" and get things OT or reduce any inflammation that may be causing TOS issues. This may not be possible in all cases, but is preferable.

2) If possible we (admin/mods, etc) should attempt to use social pressure first to steer things the right direction and then follow up with admin actions if needed. Often this is a "verbal warning" or reminder in the thread for certain behaviors to stop or simply to attempt to steer things back on topic. The concern here is that mods and myself can not often spend hours following a discussion closely enough to do this effectively -- lending to the use of admin tools such as closing threads, suspensions, others. Again this is not always possible but is preferable.

As I said before I have asked for some PR help on doing this from a retired (so to speak) member. They will be lending a hand in providing some "good will" on steering things in the right direction. The mods are a bit over burdened and an extra mod may be good too. The last thing I want is for our mods to be slammed by VJ mod duties and have it effect their personal lives so to the degree necessary I will ask for help from new people to prevent this from happening.

[Captain Ewok 1,891]

I want to also tell everyone that the Mod team has simply followed my directions (TOS and my recent post in OT). The issue is that the TOS and my posts are contradictory in some cases. The organic nature of the forums requires my to think on my feet and often official policy lags.

I would like to refine my wording and roll that "open letter" in to the TOS to help set a better direction for the mods. I am truly the one at fault in many cases when I fail to give adequate (what to do) direction to the mods. They in my opinion have followed the set policies to the "T" and given the "organic" nature of forums and online communities I may need to update certain things in the written TOS to help with this.

[mox 298]

I guess that's really what I've been trying to say all along, Ewok: You are a horrible, horrible admin.

KIDDING!

Also, if I gave the impression that I thought you were siding with me over Kathryn or the mods in general, that certainly wasn't my intention. I'm just glad to see the policy given a closer look in general. Also I think you owe Kathryn dinner and her own regional sub-forum (after Pitcairn!!!!!) for giving the earlier impression that she was a rogue moderator who doesn't follow the rulez, zomg just like Jean Claude Van Dam in Die Hard!!!1!

[Captain Ewok 1,891]

One last point (phew!). I want to reiterate this because I think I may have implied otherwise inadvertently. The suggestions (items #1 and #2 above) are already how the mods work now. The key phrase I used is, "Again this is not always possible but is preferable." Moderators are inundated with tasks and while they try their best to socially interact and cure problems, there are limits. They (or even me) often have to resolve issues in more expeditious ways given various scenarios but we always try our best to be fair and give good community feedback.

[mox 298]

Also stop trying to boost your post count, it's against the TOS.

[TBoneTX 45,266]

Also stop trying to boost your post count, it's against the TOS.

The evil moderators are behind it, si man!

[bhajishah 4]

Vj is closed today?? Leave the applying for citizen ship forum open. Trying to figure out which papers I need to reuse again, and how much money to send in this go round number 4!! USCIS stuff is a money making racket (IMO)

FKL

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

One last point (phew!). I want to reiterate this because I think I may have implied otherwise inadvertently. The suggestions (items #1 and #2 above) are already how the mods work now. The key phrase I used is, "Again this is not always possible but is preferable." Moderators are inundated with tasks and while they try their best to socially interact and cure problems, there are limits. They (or even me) often have to resolve issues in more expeditious ways given various scenarios but we always try our best to be fair and give good community feedback.

Well, yet another step forward in the steady "mommy-fication" of VJ. A thread was threatened by Mother Moderator for being in bad taste. Since when did bad taste become against TOS? We make fun of tragic situations all the time on OT, it's been par for the course. But now that we have mother superior on board we can't?

** that #######. If y'all want a PG-rated OT, by all means go for it. It's your site. I like my forums a bit more edgy, a bit less slavish to the dictates of good taste.