S/O Locked topic - can we see why?

[Shores]

So, is it safe to assume that if a particular poster's actions cause a thread to be locked, that particular poster has been notified either in the thread itself or in a PM? If we all knew that for sure, that if we weren't notified about our actions the closing of the thread was not our fault, I think there would be a lot fewer problems with wondering why a thread was locked.

No, we can't assume that. I recently had a thread locked and since there were only 2 replies, I have to assume it was the topic itself that was a problem. Couldn't figure out what the issue was since no one said anything about the locking, but I just kind of shrugged and moved on. It was a bummer since I had actually asked for real advice and didn't get any, but in the future, I just won't post for that kind of advice, I guess. Many times, it seems that the mods just lock and move on, which is totally fine, but I agree, it can sometimes cause confusion for newer posters.

[MummyPumpkin83]

So, is it safe to assume that if a particular poster's actions cause a thread to be locked, that particular poster has been notified either in the thread itself or in a PM? If we all knew that for sure, that if we weren't notified about our actions the closing of the thread was not our fault, I think there would be a lot fewer problems with wondering why a thread was locked.

No, we can't assume that. I recently had a thread locked and since there were only 2 replies, I have to assume it was the topic itself that was a problem. Couldn't figure out what the issue was since no one said anything about the locking, but I just kind of shrugged and moved on. It was a bummer since I had actually asked for real advice and didn't get any, but in the future, I just won't post for that kind of advice, I guess. Many times, it seems that the mods just lock and move on, which is totally fine, but I agree, it can sometimes cause confusion for newer posters.

I agree. I am still a new poster and I think my second (maybe?) topic got locked with no reason. When I contacted a mod to ask why, it wa not the mod who locked the thread and I was directed back to the rules. So I still don't really know why the thread was locked, but I assume it was something to do with the topic, or the fact that it was about an old situation so I wasn't actually asking for advice.

[Nurvingiel]

MummyPumpkin83, there was a reason to lock the thread. It just wasn't communicated to you in a way you could understand. I'm not knocking you and I'm not knocking the mods. It's simply that pointing to the rules makes the communication process more complex.

I mean yes, the reason is in the rules. But if it were obvious to you, you never would have made the mistake of the thread's subject or direction in the first place. By posting that thread (or...*) you didn't pick up on one subtlety of the rule which rules out that thread topic.

This is why I am a big fan of a mod (doesn't have to be the mod who closed the thread) posting the reason why the thread was locked.

It gives a direct connection between the thread's subject (or direction) and the rule which it contravened. We don't have to work out what our mistake was, we now know. We can take the mod's message and learn from it. I find if I have to sleuth it out, I still don't get it and I could make the same mistake again.

The effort (which I really appreciate) is worth it because I feel that it will cause mistakes from regular posters to be less overall. I learn from thread-closing remarks on threads that I did not start as well.

* ...it could also be that the thread veered off into territory not covered by this board which happens sometimes and is really no one's fault.

[DangerMouth]

MummyPumpkin83, there was a reason to lock the thread. It just wasn't communicated to you in a way you could understand. I'm not knocking you and I'm not knocking the mods. It's simply that pointing to the rules makes the communication process more complex.

I mean yes, the reason is in the rules. But if it were obvious to you, you never would have made the mistake of the thread's subject or direction in the first place. By posting that thread (or...*) you didn't pick up on one subtlety of the rule which rules out that thread topic.

This is why I am a big fan of a mod (doesn't have to be the mod who closed the thread) posting the reason why the thread was locked.

It gives a direct connection between the thread's subject (or direction) and the rule which it contravened. We don't have to work out what our mistake was, we now know. We can take the mod's message and learn from it. I find if I have to sleuth it out, I still don't get it and I could make the same mistake again.

The effort (which I really appreciate) is worth it because I feel that it will cause mistakes from regular posters to be less overall. I learn from thread-closing remarks on threads that I did not start as well.

* ...it could also be that the thread veered off into territory not covered by this board which happens sometimes and is really no one's fault.

Mostly, we aren't given reasons but nine times out of ten, if a mod does explain, it's for not-appropriate-to-this-forum questions, usually legal or medical.

Generally, when it's apparent that the thread is contentious and also played out (going around in circles), that too is obvious, tho not always stated.

[gollymolly2]

I think obvious is in the eye of the beholder, though.  I do think if the reasons were spelled out, it might cut down on future violations, because I think the people who have violated the rules may not know that they are the reason the thread is shutting down.

Example:  I once had a boss who didn't like to single anybody out.  So she would lecture us all at meetings not to drive too fast in the parking lot, to show up on time, etc.  And I eventually understood her to mean that BOB needed to slow down in the parking lot, and BOB needed to show up on time, etc.  But the rest of us worried that we were the ones doing something wrong, and came unnecessarily early, and drove unnecessarily slow.  But Bob, who was obviously oblivious to the rules anyway, assumed that she wasn't talking to him, so he still showed up late and drove too fast. 

In other words, sometimes I think we'd be better off if the mods said "OP, this is a rant so I'm locking it" so the OP won't post ten more rants.  Or "Posters A, B, C and gollymolly, I'm closing this thread because you can't discuss the topic like adults" - so that A,B,C, and I can understand that we've done something wrong, and posters D - Z don't worry that it's their fault and start walking on eggshells.

[MummyPumpkin83]

MummyPumpkin83, there was a reason to lock the thread. It just wasn't communicated to you in a way you could understand. I'm not knocking you and I'm not knocking the mods. It's simply that pointing to the rules makes the communication process more complex.

sorry when I said "with no reason" I meant that there was no "I'm closing this thread and this is why" post by the mod who had closed it.

I agree that pointing back to the rules makes it more complex. I'm still confused. I'll abide by the rules of "not every locked therad gets a reason" but I think it creates confusion for posters in the topic, and other reading it.

[Audrey Quest]

If you are referring to this thread:  http://www.etiquettehell.com/smf/index.php?topic=73482.msg1718205#msg1718205

then I would guess that the reason was the combination of religion, sex, and legal/ethical privacy issues.  But, probably because the answer to the question revolved around the religion involved and not etiquette.

[Nora]

The stangest thing happened. A thread got locked that had the exact same content as a thread from a regular poster that had gone on for 20 pages. Marriage, infidelity, psychological problems, same content. Thread 1 is still going strong, thread 2 was closed after less than 1 page.

The only difference I could find was the OP.

[think2x]

The stangest thing happened. A thread got locked that had the exact same content as a thread from a regular poster that had gone on for 20 pages. Marriage, infidelity, psychological problems, same content. Thread 1 is still going strong, thread 2 was closed after less than 1 page.

The only difference I could find was the OP.

And someone reporting it?

[cass2591]

The stangest thing happened. A thread got locked that had the exact same content as a thread from a regular poster that had gone on for 20 pages. Marriage, infidelity, psychological problems, same content. Thread 1 is still going strong, thread 2 was closed after less than 1 page.

The only difference I could find was the OP.

I really, really dislike vague. If you have a point to make, say it, but this vague bit only irritates me. If you want answers, be specific.

[sparksals]

I have seen different application and/or perception of the rules by different mods.  Sometimes for the life of me I can't figure out why a thread is locked or deleted. Other times I wonder why some others haven't.  I don't believe anyone is playing faves. I think it is a matter of different interpretations etc.   

[ShadesOfGrey]

Sparksals, I think you've hit it - I think there's a "general" policy on e-hell, but the individual mods definitely interpret the "bright line" differently.  So, depending on which mod addresses the issue, you may get a different response than if it were a different mod.  I know they sometimes discuss threads and have a united front in general, especially for the more contentious subject, but I think there's still a lot of latitude for individual mods to moderate how they see fit. At least, this is how I explain the seeming inconsistencies (though few and far between) - it think it has less to do with inconsistency and more to do with lattitude/experience, kwim?

[Wavicle]

I think its also going to depend on who is on at the time it is reported, and if the thread gets reported at all. People may be more reluctant to report an established member or perceived "favorite" than someone less established, either not wanting to complain about a long time poster or assuming that if a frequent and long time poster is doing it that it must be OK.

[T'Mar of Vulcan]

I think its also going to depend on who is on at the time it is reported, and if the thread gets reported at all. People may be more reluctant to report an established member or perceived "favorite" than someone less established, either not wanting to complain about a long time poster or assuming that if a frequent and long time poster is doing it that it must be OK.

And yet the mods and Jeanne herself have stated that there are no favourites, and that longtime posters who break the rules will be dealt with the same way everyone else is.

From what I've seen in my many years on the board, this is 100% true.

[Samantha]

I think its also going to depend on who is on at the time it is reported, and if the thread gets reported at all. People may be more reluctant to report an established member or perceived "favorite" than someone less established, either not wanting to complain about a long time poster or assuming that if a frequent and long time poster is doing it that it must be OK.

And yet the mods and Jeanne herself have stated that there are no favourites, and that longtime posters who break the rules will be dealt with the same way everyone else is.

From what I've seen in my many years on the board, this is 100% true.

But if no one reports it, and the mods don't see it, it continues... and new posters see that people that have been here for awhile don't get in trouble for violations, so they are more likely to violate the same rule.