Thread Closings

[BigApplePi]

May I suggest thread closings give a 24 hour notice or something equivalent? I missed issues about a recent poster who wanted alterations to his posts and I never got to provide input. Seems the poster was controversial and tended to arouse sarcastic remarks and the thread was closed or whatever the reason was.

This is just my personal view and not the moderator view I assume. I'm sensitive to all forms of what I'll call "censorship." I realize when a situation is detrimental to the INTPf, this is desirable. Nevertheless I'd like to be able to provide input, rectifying if possible. To me when such actions are taken it's because no alternative ways to handle it were available. Not that I could definitely fix it, but at least I'd like to try.

In general I'd like to be able to at least ask a controversial character or controversial behavior of that character if they'd like to change whatever is causing their situation. This applies also to those who would provoke just a poster.

In general, there are provocative issues, provocative posters.

 

[Hawkeye]

In regards to JG's thread about removing any trace of him on the forum, it should never have been made.

Instead, an admin/mod should have been pm'd directly.

The most recent thread locks have my approval (and that's saying something ^^)

 

[Cavallier]

I think you misunderstand the reason behind thread closures. The problem I see with a 24 hour thread close announcement is that it allows for already out of control fires to continue to burn. There are times when a flame war needs to be shut down. Sometimes this means there is no time or need for a 24 hour notice. If the various parties want they are encouraged to continue their "discussion" in private.

It would allow for an all out brawl to occur without their being the ability to stop said brawl.

 

[redbaron]

The threads that were closed were pointless gossip threads, or had turned into them.

 

[BigApplePi]

If a thread contains too much gossip, or is not thought provoking I tend not to follow them. So I miss their closings. Can you show me such a thread so I can test if I can bring reason to it, not to open it, but to test the abstracting of reason ... if you believe I can do it, that is. Don't feel you have to though.

 

[BigApplePi]

@Cavallier

I think you misunderstand the reason behind thread closures. The problem I see with a 24 hour thread close announcement is that it allows for already out of control fires to continue to burn. There are times when a flame war needs to be shut down. Sometimes this means there is no time or need for a 24 hour notice. If the various parties want they are encouraged to continue their "discussion" in private.

It would allow for an all out brawl to occur without their being the ability to stop said brawl.

That makes sense we wouldn't want a fire to burn out of control. My interest is to see if water can be put on the fire. That might be a fireman's specialty and if such fireman is not around, the fire has to be put out by any means.

Perhaps I'm just disappointed, but I see an issue of both sides having motives. Both sides are real people and if not recognized we learn nothing. Any side has a position and if we could get them to see the other side we could hope for a change. Might be difficult, but for example if someone takes an extreme (that is, isolated) position, the other side will be tempted to make fun of it. Then the original side is wounded and the spark is lit. Here reason could conceivably be brought to the extreme side while the fun maker might be called to attention for causing unnecessary pain.

I'm not saying it's easy to put out a fire, but I tend to carry eternal optimism and faith in the possibility of reason.

 

[Absurdity]

I tend to carry eternal optimism and faith in the possibility of reason.

Mods don't usually have such a luxury.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Cav pretty much said it. One can get a pretty good feel for threads we tend to close here: http://www.intpforum.com/forumdisplay.php?f=61

In general I'd like to be able to at least ask a controversial character or controversial behavior of that character if they'd like to change whatever is causing their situation.

In general, what you're asking is for the ability to add fuel to the fire without recourse. Take it to PM.

Also.... Thread closed.

Spoiler

j/k

Spoiler

Or am I?

 

[TimeAsylums]

look at all the waves the entp/JG makes in his splash...it's beautiful...bhahahah

fun2watchtheripples

 

[DelusiveNinja]

Feeble attempts to deny the system never workout do they?

 

[BigApplePi]

@Absurdity. I PM'd you by mistake because I thought this thread was closed. I must have been seeing things, lol. Anyway you are right. The mods look at a thread, see what is happening and have to act the best they can to put out the fire.

I would caution posters to act more moderately. Not that you don't want to express your feelings about what is going on, but I for one would like a chance for input. Mods may not have the luxury to examine every nuance that posters argue about, but I do have more time ... when I'm here. I'd simply like the chance to make input and I'm not alone I assume. There are posters who may not be so emotionally involved and may like to comment on both sides fairly. What the heck. I'm saying this and I may be wrong but I'd just like the chance to provide input.

 

[BigApplePi]

In regards to JG's thread about removing any trace of him on the forum, it should never have been made.

Instead, an admin/mod should have been pm'd directly.

The most recent thread locks have my approval (and that's saying something ^^)

Hey Hawkeye. I don't recall JG giving reasons for his strong request and that must be frustrating to those who themselves don't make strong requests. Yes to PM for that, yet the request was interesting.

I've seen programs where a universal change can be made across the board, like:

"change/just george/new name/all".

It can be used for say when a writer spells their, "thier" all along and you want to fix it without locating every usage. If JG wanted to hide his posts, it might be done that way but it may not be available on INTPf.

 

[TimeAsylums]

Feeble attempts to deny the system never workout do they?

someone has to scream at the universe, even alone

 

[BigApplePi]

@TheHabitatDoctor

Cav pretty much said it. One can get a pretty good feel for threads we tend to close here: http://www.intpforum.com/forumdisplay.php?f=61

In general, what you're asking is for the ability to add fuel to the fire without recourse. Take it to PM.

Also.... Thread closed.

Spoiler

j/k

Spoiler

Or am I?

Well you had me fooled. Get this posters. I thought he closed the thread cuz he was a mod. Joke's on me.

Nevertheless you posted a list of closures. Good. If I get time I'll look at one or two. I did look at one which I PM'd you. You have my permission to post what I said about the one I selected provided you don't take anything out of context.

Odd thing about jokes. The recipient has to have a sense of humor*. If the joke hurts someone, the jokester would do well to see if he/she can cause real damage. If one kids a blind man about their eyesight, one had better know the person very well to see if they had previously joked about themselves or were very sensitive about it ... in spite of assumed toughness. This goes even if you don't care for the person.

*Why do a joke if it gets no laugh? If the object is to get the others to laugh, maybe they will, but this is like the sucker punch: cruel to the recipient.** It's a moral issue and a topic for a morality thread.

**If the recipient were Hitler, would you make safe fun of his mustache? That's why it's a morality issue.

 

[Polaris]

I see it like this:

If people are going to be posting things on a public forum, they would hopefully be smart enough to post things that aren't going to be used against them later on. It is called long-term strategic thinking. Tactics are also crucial.

Every member is responsible for their own future and their own actions. We cannot make special allowances just because someone didn't think ahead. I'd like to think members are intelligent enough to realise this on their own; mods shouldn't have to tell people why, one would hope. This isn't school.

A controversial poster is responsible for their own conduct, just like everyone else. You act a certain way; it has repercussions one way or another. Analyse the consequences. Intelligent posters would realise this. I am speaking on a generalised basis here, not pointing at any one poster in particular.

As far as thread closures; sometimes beating a dead horse is just that: beating a dead horse. And JG's thread wasn't closed, as far as I could see?

 

[TimeAsylums]

And JG's thread wasn't closed, as far as I could see?

http://www.intpforum.com/showthread.php?t=17890

 

[Polaris]

Ah, now it is ...cannot keep up, just wrote 7000 words last night...

 

[TimeAsylums]

just wrote 7000 words last night...

only? I spam 7000 words in less than one temp ban, but really.

 

[Polaris]

only? I spam 7000 words in less than one temp ban, but really.

Well...mine was referenced spam .

It takes time when you have to back up every single statement you make......

 

[TimeAsylums]

It takes time when you have to back up every single statement you make......

got me there

 

[Polaris]

<---- looks tempting right now....give me sleep....

 

[Jennywocky]

I see it like this:

If people are going to be posting things on a public forum, they would hopefully be smart enough to post things that aren't going to be used against them later on. It is called long-term strategic thinking. Tactics are also crucial.

But it is the lack of long-term strategic thinking that creates the drama that everyone loves and that brings SO much happiness into everyone's lives!

... anyway, the rule about "not Swiss-cheesing the forum because you suddenly got cold feet" is a standard across sites. It's not like I've seen many sites (in fact, I can't currently name one) that allow that kind of editing to occur. I'm not sure what the limit for post editing is here either, but I've seen tighter limits elsewhere.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

**If the recipient were Hitler, would you make safe fun of his mustache? That's why it's a morality issue.

BAP... I'm afraid I can't fix your lack of a sense of humor. I fear it may have passed on. The irony of possibly closing a thread about closing threads was just too irresistible. And yes, I'd also make fun of Hitler's mustache in front of him. So take that as you will.

But more to the point:

You have my permission to post what I said about the one I selected provided you don't take anything out of context.

I will actually do this, because I think the response raises an interesting point:

I haven't talked to you much so I don't know you.
Are you a mod?

rawr. Indeed, I am a madmin.

You suggested take it to PM, but to whom?

Whoever you're interested in prodding.

Spoiler

By making it private, it stops me from making points. If I were to PM mods, I would be taking up their time and I'm more interested in discussion of issues read by all with alternatives to "adding to the fire." Yes that's a possibility but not necessarily going to happen. The issue is open. Now to a math person this has lots of meaning and a post was made that was absolutely brilliant by walfin: Re: Count to 1,000,000. (Do you know why?) Before I could comment the thread was closed. What happened? In looking over that thread, people who are not fond of numbers didn't understand and badmouthing went on. When I saw that I ignored it. Why? Because if it's nonsense I pay little attention ... unless I can think of a joke. In a sea of crap I wait for jewels (bad metaphor I know). Now if that thread were open ... can it be reopened? Of course it can. I would not put down the nonsense. I'd emphasize the numbers and even tell my personal story. By closing that thread what was learned about numbers? How do you think walfin would feel who was 100 percent on topic? How do you think I feel when those who don't understand get rewarded and the guy who deserved, "Post of the month" gets no feedback? Yes I could PM him, but that would make it a non-public statement.

From a moral standpoint, A LOT of things are acceptable for discussion on a forum. (You wouldn't believe the things I'd be open to discussing, nor the detail I'd be willing to go into. Trust me. ) But, that's restricted by the established forum community, often indirectly.

If a thread topic is favored by the community, even if it's terribly worded and poorly assembled, it'll be salvaged by the respondents into something workable. However if a thread topic is brilliant yet isn't understood by the community or is greeted with harshness, a cesspool of responses frequently ensues, if there are any responses at all.

The topic alone doesn't make a thread. It's the responsibility of the OP to be able to bridge that gap and relate the topic to the rest of the community in a meaningful way.

In that thread, the OP... failed. OP didn't provide any guidance, didn't contribute outside of starting the thread, and didn't attempt to get it back on track. It practically screamed "DERAIL ME NOW AND FOREVER MORE!!!" That's why that thread failed and was locked. I'd have locked it too, but Kuu beat me to it.

 

[BigApplePi]

If a thread topic is favored by the community, even if it's terribly worded and poorly assembled, it'll be salvaged by the respondents into something workable. However if a thread topic is brilliant yet isn't understood by the community or is greeted with harshness, a cesspool of responses frequently ensues, if there are any responses at all.

You are making an excellent point here.

The topic alone doesn't make a thread. It's the responsibility of the OP to be able to bridge that gap and relate the topic to the rest of the community in a meaningful way.

I will go with that fifty-fifty. If someone starts a thread it's a good idea to explain its purpose. But not necessarily. I've seen threads begun with one sentence and left there. Then they have taken off in surprisingly interesting directions, especially for an INTP who lets hir mind wander.

In that thread, the OP... failed. OP didn't provide any guidance, didn't contribute outside of starting the thread, and didn't attempt to get it back on track. It practically screamed "DERAIL ME NOW AND FOREVER MORE!!!" That's why that thread failed and was locked. I'd have locked it too, but Kuu beat me to it.

. You are right ... sort of, but I don't agree with all of it. If a thread begins flawed, responders have a responsibility also. It depends on the reader. Here is how it begun:

"Count to 1,000,000 why, because

let's go for a forum record

1."

One could interpret that as a silly wasteful joke. But I say it's there for the reader to take the hint and add to it. Did it mean:
1. Do the impossible?
2. Think about numbers and how we count?
3. Continue with jokes?
4. Anything relational one can think of.

As it turned out, it went bad. Well some people posted negative comments. I'd have to think about that. It's something like booing your ball team. Not great sportsmanship. Look at what I said:
Re: Count to 1,000,000

Not the best post in the world but it did say something about counting around one million. No one took the hint to speak to it. Okay. It was chancy but not a crime. I didn't agree with what Auburn said but I didn't want to say so to his face. I didn't agree with what Kuu said in the sense of things being totally vacuous because I didn't see a vacuum. I was waiting for more posts on numbers. When I saw @walfin's post I thought it restorative and one of the best posts I'd ever seen in the atmospheric context. It was a numbers thread and non-numbers people lay into it.

Anyway that is history. Let the thread stay closed. Anyone can bring up numbers again. I'm just pointing to the future: anyone can bring meaning to a thread, not just the originator. Anyone can attempt to destroy a thread. I don't favor that. If a thread displeases you, why not go to another one? I do. If I dislike a thread what is my place to spoil other people's fun? How about good sportsmanship?

_______________________________________

From a moral standpoint, A LOT of things are acceptable for discussion on a forum. (You wouldn't believe the things I'd be open to discussing, nor the detail I'd be willing to go into. Trust me. ) But, that's restricted by the established forum community, often indirectly.

Try me*. Depends on how you do it. Name some of these topics and I or others can suggest how to handle them with grace, decorum and aplomb.

*I should trust you? Need to verify first.

 

[Hawkeye]

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

If a thread begins flawed, responders have a responsibility also.

I'm just pointing to the future: anyone can bring meaning to a thread, not just the originator.

Anyone can attempt to destroy a thread. I don't favor that. If a thread displeases you, why not go to another one? I do. If I dislike a thread what is my place to spoil other people's fun? How about good sportsmanship?

No, responders don't have a responsibility to increase thread quality, just a responsibility to attempt not to decrease it; And the reason why, is because when a thread is created, the OP must assume that they cannot predict the responses they will receive. Telepathy is not inherent to the internet. Grace, decorum, aplomb, and good sportsmanship aren't either.

 

[Grayman]

No, responders don't have a responsibility to increase thread quality, just a responsibility to attempt not to decrease it;

Why argue if the glass is half empty or half full when it is obvious that it is both?

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Why argue if the glass is half empty or half full when it is obvious that it is both?

Because it's not; being a quality poster is good for all, being a bad one is bad for one. Those who make a habit of lowering the quality of discussion tend to be mobbed by the rest of the community and/or banned. There's a larger system at work that encompasses threads themselves.

 

[Grayman]

Because it's not; being a quality poster is good for all, being a bad one is bad for one. Those who make a habit of lowering the quality of discussion tend to be mobbed by the rest of the community and/or banned.

You were comparing 'not decreasing' quality vs increasing quality. I view them, for all practical purposes, equivalent.

 

[Auburn]

Now to a math person this has lots of meaning and a post was made that was absolutely brilliant by walfin: Re: Count to 1,000,000. .... By closing that thread what was learned about numbers? How do you think walfin would feel who was 100 percent on topic?

I don't think the original intent of the thread was a profound discussion about numbers. It was a "Count to 1,000,000" thread, and nothing more was said in the OP... granted, it's possible for a spammy thread to be filled with pearls, and a thread discussing the nature of numbers would be awesome and I'd encourage it, but that isn't what that thread was.

~ musings about you, BigApplePi ~
​

There is always the curtailed unknown whenever a thread is closed.. the loss of possibility, and never flourished potential, and... this seems to me what you're conflicted about. From what I've observed of you, curiosity seems to be such a thirst in your psyche that even what you yourself might consider a reasonable closure/halt to a direction of flow - closing it isn't entirely fulfilling to your senses and would still ignite in you an unrequited curiosity.

There really is something sad about loss of potential... indeed

And it is quintessential of Ne to have faith in that potential or those possibilities. The problem you seem to be encountering is that other forumers are not quite as faith-ful.

An argument could indeed be put forth that a thread about to be closed (or closed) could have turned out wonderful and added insights. And indeed that possibility will always be there and the full answer to whether that would have happened will never be known. But if we took that as reason to not close a thread, then no thread would ever be closed because there's always potential for it to flourish.

Thus it is fundamental to the duty of adminship/modship to make calls/locks/bans that might have had a possibility of turning out well - based not on possibility but probability.

​

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

You were comparing 'not decreasing' quality vs increasing quality. I view them, for all practical purposes, equivalent.

Recall two things: 1) 0 is not 1, and 2) poor quality posts and derails are often moved or deleted instead of closing the thread.

 

[Seed-Wad]

I'm no saint, I posted snappy remarks I shouldn't have, so maybe I'm not the one to talk, but I found it strange that after the JG thread close and the nice close message, Kuu came around the corner and added some insults without anyone able to respond to that. I found that misuse of administrative powers for personal gain, and as such, despicable. For the rest, I think that thread close was a good decision.

* also, if someone replies to provocations they are as guilty as the one making the provocations, it has nothing to do with morality, you always have the option to walk away from a thread. (Stalking and persistent bullying is a whole other thing of course.)

 

[BigApplePi]

@Auburn. Thank you for the gentle musings Auburn.

I plant seeds in my garden and make all around experiments elsewhere. Like INTPf threads, some flourish and some die. Some plantings are beautiful and some not so. I hate to deliberately destroy those that do not do so well. Closings stop ANY chance at growth. I let failures die there and move on to another area. Eventually one has to make room and remove weeds and dead plant matter, but there the analogy breaks down. I like to see threads die a natural death, not crush them on the spot.

Fires? Yes the moderators must put out fires that will spread. But how do we know? Sometimes a fire will die down. Sometimes we can even be warmed by the heat. We can let the embers burn on and then burn out. Let not fear cause us to miss witness to a natural process.

 

[Hawkeye]

I'm no saint, I posted snappy remarks I shouldn't have, so maybe I'm not the one to talk, but I found it strange that after the JG thread close and the nice close message, Kuu came around the corner and added some insults without anyone able to respond to that. I found that misuse of administrative powers for personal gain, and as such, despicable. For the rest, I think that thread close was a good decision.

* also, if someone replies to provocations they are as guilty as the one making the provocations, it has nothing to do with morality, you always have the option to walk away from a thread. (Stalking and persistent bullying is a whole other thing of course.)

Kuu has been known to do that from time to time. ^^

He "diffuses" situations, but always has to have the last word. Sadly, it's usually something that either provokes a rant, or it's a piece of hypocritical advice that he can't follow himself.

He'll probably disagree with this


I agree that he had no reason to post in JG's thread as it was already locked.

Spoiler

I personally think he's a muppet.

 

[BigApplePi]

Kuu has been known to do that from time to time. ^^

Kuu: I have decided to close the door and as the last one out, I'm locking it when I leave.

BAP: Now where did I put that extra key?

 

[Cherry Cola]

Who cares about whoever gets the last word when insults are being thrown?

The issue is when there's more of substance to be said from one or more posters that is left unspoken because of the insults being thrown between one or more other posters.

Although its still not in good taste to insults and then lock as a moderator, seeing as they are supposed to try and transcend that crap.

 

[Jennywocky]

I agree that he had no reason to post in JG's thread as it was already locked.

I didn't see Kuu's remarks nor know why he posted whatever he did; but as a kind of side comment, I remember when I was modding, sometimes I'd post in a locked thread because I didn't realize it was locked yet... mod privs let you post anywhere. Afterward, I felt kind of " ".

 

[BigApplePi]

I remember when I was modding, sometimes I'd post in a locked thread because I didn't realize it was locked yet... mod privs let you post anywhere. Afterward, I felt kind of " ".

Jenny. As mod did you think of removing it?

Whenever I utter a horrendous oath in one of my posts and regret it, I have 24 hours to remove it or replace it by a more genial profanation.

 

[Jennywocky]

Jenny. As mod did you think of removing it?

I think I removed posts of mine on occasion if I felt the locking of the thread rendered my continual posting unfair, although typically they were just explanatory posts (and still helpful) or genial, versus being zingers or anything. It's just really easy to be posting in places without realizing that something got locked.

Note: This was on other forums where I was modding with vBull, I've never been a mod here.

 

[Hawkeye]

I didn't see Kuu's remarks nor know why he posted whatever he did; but as a kind of side comment, I remember when I was modding, sometimes I'd post in a locked thread because I didn't realize it was locked yet... mod privs let you post anywhere. Afterward, I felt kind of " ".

I get what you're saying; however, not only was the thread locked nearly 2 hours prior to him posting, but the final post on that thread opened with a statement about the thread being closed.


So yeah...

 

[Kuu]

I found it strange that after the JG thread close and the nice close message, Kuu came around the corner and added some insults

Insults? Would you present the evidence? The only thing that could be construed an insult was my comment to Cherry Cola, whose post made me actually laugh out loud. There's a very clear policy of no mass-deleting of posts, and it's rather ill advised to give mod power to anyone, let alone someone who's been warned for their behaviour. Was it not a joke? It sure seemed like one to me.

I didn't see Kuu's remarks nor know why he posted whatever he did; but as a kind of side comment, I remember when I was modding, sometimes I'd post in a locked thread because I didn't realize it was locked yet... mod privs let you post anywhere. Afterward, I felt kind of " ".

^^^

I get what you're saying; however, not only was the thread locked nearly 2 hours prior to him posting, but the final post on that thread opened with a statement about the thread being closed.

Have you ever opened a thread and started a reply then got distracted by some other business and came back and posted without hitting refresh?

Yeah.

 

[Cognisant]

 

[Cherry Cola]

Insults? Would you present the evidence? The only thing that could be construed an insult was my comment to Cherry Cola, whose post made me actually laugh out loud. There's a very clear policy of no mass-deleting of posts, and it's rather ill advised to give mod power to anyone, let alone someone who's been warned for their behaviour. Was it not a joke? It sure seemed like one to me.

Nah I was serious with that first post :P
Thought it seemed reasonable that if the fucker needed to delete shit then he could do it himself since he would know what to delete and would hence be able to do it more efficiently, plus it shoulda been his job from the get go. But don't worry I can be naive and if it made ya laugh out loud then thats just all for the better really!

In any case the whole thread seemed like something that shoulda taken place in PM's so after that I didn't bother to be very... serieus

 

[Grayman]

In any case the whole thread seemed like something that shoulda taken place in PM's so after that I didn't bother to be very... serieus

Now that Cherry has been popped he never takes anything serious anymore.

 

[Jennywocky]

Now that Cherry has been popped he never takes anything serious anymore.

Oh, so THAT's what that sound was.

 

[BigApplePi]

Just reread this thread. I think is contains more wisdom than I can absorb. (I learn slowly.)

Anyway to the moderators: We know posters can be warned before banning if they are out of line. What about warning ahead of time a thread will have to be closed unless it shapes up? I realize "shaping up" is hard to define, but at least it gives a thread a chance to recover.

Going further, if a poster can receive a temporary ban, what about doing the same for a thread? Like a poster, this can give time for things to cool off.

 

[Cavallier]

We've been over this before BAP. The answer is no.

1. There are threads that when giving time, second chances, get worse. The damage become irreparable.

2. There is always the option to make a new thread with quality discussion in mind and which references the old thread.

3. There are many times when mods have chosen to request members simmer down before ever actually closing the thread. Thus, the thing you are asking for...ALREADY EXISTS.

4. Your request to unclose threads is something that has been done in the past. When someone actually brings up a good reason to do so and all agree we reopen a thread. No problem. There is precedence for this. Thus, I say again, that course of action ALREADY EXISTS.

Finally, if what you want is a system of checks and balances that leads to a bullet list of specific warnings and actions taken based on those warnings then let me put your request to rest. For the second time, the answer is no.

We have a simple and above all FLEXIBLE system that in all intents, purposes, and appearances works. We are INTPf and we like flexibility. We like a system that can change and also allows for slow or quick responses. If you want more structure go to INTJf.

Thank you and goodnight.

 

[TheScornedReflex]

It would be hilarious if this thread was closed.

 

[Cavallier]

I considered it just for the lulz alone...

 

[TheScornedReflex]

I would have got you a mail order bride from Cog for if you had.