locked topics

[crux]

What I don't understand about any of the arguments used to lock a thread, is why does it matter? What purpose does locking the thread serve? Is a locked derailment any better than an active one? Does a locked thread prevent future derailments? Does it serve to prevent future hostility? Is a dead conversation superior to a heated one? Does a conversation need to end in an agreement for it to be considered worthwhile?

I think the mods here are far too prone to avoid hostility or disagreements at all costs. I've seen interesting conversations locked before they barely began, simply because a few users were hostile or a few users were trolling. Many of us, not just some of us, have the capacity and the maturity to carry a meaningful conversation despite those that try to degrade it. Will those conversations often come to a resolution? It doesn't matter. Sometimes the discussion is just as meaningful as the outcome, regardless of the hostility or redundancies contained within.

In all honesty, if any one thing would drive me away from these forums, it would be the mods. I like nearly all the mods here on a personal level, but as far as the direction they take to neuter and censor conversations, I simply can't respect it in any capacity.

[Hobie-wan]

I think the mods here are far too prone to avoid hostility or disagreements at all costs. I've seen interesting conversations locked before they barely began, simply because a few users were hostile or a few users were trolling. Many of us, not just some of us, have the capacity and the maturity to carry a meaningful conversation despite those that try to degrade it. Will those conversations often come to a resolution? It doesn't matter. Sometimes the discussion is just as meaningful as the outcome, regardless of the hostility or redundancies contained within.

Discussion is one thing, flame wars are another. I happen to like that things get snuffed because discussion of politics and religion never go well on the internet even though I am against censorship. Most of the closed threads have involved those in some shape or form. Debating these topics in person can be dicey depending on the temperament of the people involved, but on the internet with the factor of pseudo-anonymity and the lack of intonation and body language means that they willl spiral out of control at some point when there is dissenting opinion. Either that or someone will Godwin the conversation.

[crux]

And that's precisely where I disagree. This isn't my first forum by a long shot, and I've been through many religious and political discussions on the internet over the years. To assume they can't go well is to assume that the users that partake in them lack the intellectual capacity to have a reasonable discussion. If that's the case, then that's more than enough reason to never come back to those forums.

[pepharytheworm]

And that's precisely where I disagree. This isn't my first forum by a long shot, and I've been through many religious and political discussions on the internet over the years. To assume they can't go well is to assume that the users that partake in them lack the intellectual capacity to have a reasonable discussion. If that's the case, then that's more than enough reason to never come back to those forums.

All I have to say is go to Neo-geo.com they have plenty of intelligent arguements you can join

[MrPopo]

Many of us, not just some of us, have the capacity and the maturity to carry a meaningful conversation despite those that try to degrade it. Will those conversations often come to a resolution? It doesn't matter. Sometimes the discussion is just as meaningful as the outcome, regardless of the hostility or redundancies contained within.

Oh, I agree fully with the notion that the discussion is the important part. You rarely see people change positions during a debate due to a carefully worded argument. But even though that doesn't happen, both parties still grow as their ideas are held under more scruteny and are questioned.

I would like to address your point about carrying a meaningful conversation regardless of one or two people who try to degrade it. I have a buddy who regularly links me to amusing debate topics he's involved in. In those threads you sometimes see one or two people who try and make asses of themselves but they get ignored. Here I haven't seen that happen yet. What I have seen is that one person will start saying something very polarizing that essentially turns it into him/her vs. the forum. Rather than making a quick offhand remark discounting the polarizing view people take it on full force, because someone is wrong on the internet. Meanwhile the original person doesn't budge from their point and everyone else gets more and more frustrated that the person isn't grasping the flaw that everyone else is pointing out.

[Hobie-wan]

And that's precisely where I disagree. This isn't my first forum by a long shot, and I've been through many religious and political discussions on the internet over the years. To assume they can't go well is to assume that the users that partake in them lack the intellectual capacity to have a reasonable discussion. If that's the case, then that's more than enough reason to never come back to those forums.

Its not that everyone on a given forum is incapable of holding an intelligent discussion, its just that it seems that there's always someone who eventually comes along and says something inflammatory. Then that usually pushes a button in someone who might or might not normally filter their discussion, then it's over. Granted I've never been one to frequent a lot of forums, but I've never witnessed a thread or other online discussion about religion or politics that didn't go sour eventually. If you have, you are a far luckier person than I am.

[crux]

I think the baby topic was a good example of the negatives and the positives of such derailments. Despite Inazuma eventually getting personal instead of just sticking to his opinion (as usual, I'm afraid to add), some relatively new posters arose and wrote some of the most intelligent posts I've ever seen on this site. The conversation began to drag on, yes, but why is it that the users themselves can't choose to leave a topic alone instead of the moderators forcing them to? What purpose does it serve for those that choose to read those topics?

What it comes down to in the end is that I like a great many of the people here and that's why I stick around. But Mozgus was right that the topics around here often leave a lot to be desired, and I simply don't see how forcing sterility within topics is helping that cause. Yes, some topics are touchy subjects, but those that can't handle it should be the ones punished, rather than the rest of us who already know better. If the same users degrade a topic or a discussion, punish those users, not the topic. Every touch subject instead gets closed and any possibility for intelligent discussion is more quickly diminished than it possibly could be by a few derisive posters.

I'm not even against the idea of deleted posts or warnings (though enough of those surely would) - it's this idea of total topic castration that bothers me. A few posters go off on a tangent and sooner or later the stranglers don't even get a chance to weigh in on the subject. A moderator can't force maturity - if immaturity is what we have than countering it with topic-wide censorship will censor both the mature and the immature. I simply don't see it as reasonable tactic.

[wakeup]

It's funny. I was looking at the famous so-called "baby thread" and saw an edit I didn't notice before and I wanted to comment immediately. Then I got "Thread is locked"...



Haha but the comment wasn't going to add much that hasn't already been said.

[Hobie-wan]

I'm not even against the idea of deleted posts or warnings (though enough of those surely would) - it's this idea of total topic castration that bothers me. A few posters go off on a tangent and sooner or later the stranglers don't even get a chance to weigh in on the subject. A moderator can't force maturity - if immaturity is what we have than countering it with topic-wide censorship will censor both the mature and the immature. I simply don't see it as reasonable tactic.

I see your point there. Though this would mean that certain posters would probably be edited a lot and some might be in danger of being banned. Keeping up with trimming posts could lead to a lot of work for the mods. So that's their call.

[dsheinem]

I'm generally against locking topics and almost always against editing posts (except for threadcrapping in BST, perhaps). Of course I usually am a participant in some of those threads that get locked, so heh...

That said, I also respect the opinion of the other mods and would generally leave a topic locked if one of them see fit to lock it. If we have questions and disagreements we can hash it out in the super secret mod forum.

Anyway, the moderating here has always been good (long before I became a mod) and has kept the forum tidy and civil. Also, it is worth noting that, historically, mods have been responsive to threads like this - so I appreciate the criticism and will certainly keep it in mind before I wield my mighty modding powers, as I can guess most of the others will as well.