Closing a thread at the OP's request.

Question raised by this thread.Since when has it been policy to lock a thread, because the OP feels the question is answered? I remember is used to be “You started it, but you no longer own it. Let’s see where the thread goes.” That included cases where the OP got piled on for something they said.

Just because a question is answered, do we really need to cut off all future discussion?
disclosure - I have one time requested that a thread I started be closed. It had been hijacked. I really questioned if I should make the request, but I didn’t really want to provide a platform for the hijacker.

Since I locked that one:

If it’s a simple factual question that has been answered, the OP wants it closed, and there’s no other discussion going on, I’ll usually close the thread. There’s no specific reason to ignore the poster’s request, although as twickster pointed out to me yesterday, there’s no pressing need to lock such threads, either. If the discussion is over they’ll just drop down the page, and I’ll keep that in mind in the future.

If the OP feels the thread has gone way off the rails and wants it closed and I agree, I’ll usually comply there as well. On the other hand if someone wants a thread closed just because his arguments have been shot down or he is being criticized, I won’t do that. That’s really cutting off discussion and using moderation to stifle discussion.

Well, even though I was the one who originally wondered why that thread had been closed, I must admit that I myself once asked a thread that I’d started – also in Cafe Society – be shut down when it was being hijacked by someone after my factual question had been answered. In this case the hijacker had so changed the tone of the discussion that it was moving into inappropriately acrimonious territory for CS. Twickster was kind enough to close the thread.

A thread that’s being hijacked is one story, though. As Marley23 says, normally threads will just die out if others aren’t interested in posting in 'em, but if others want to continue the discussion, why accede to the OP’s request? I’m glad that’s still the overall policy, so thank you, Marley23!

Of course the ironic thing is that if KneadToKnow (the OP of the other thread) hadn’t requested the lock, I bet I wouldn’t be nearly as curious as I am now about the reason behind the original question. If s/he’d let it die, we’d probably all have forgotten and lost interest. Now it seems like a big state secret or something and I must know!.

Thanks for the answer Marley23.

What had me really baffled by the actions around KneadToKnow’s original thread is the incredibally fast way it all happened.

Thread opened at 3:58PM
Answered at 4:21PM
Locked at 4:43PM
Unlocked at 4:46PM

How could the discussion possibly be over in 45 minutes? If it’s locked that fast, it could be off the front page before I even get around to looking at the forum.

Me too!! Locked threads and people whispering in the corner = I MUST KNOW!

It happens sometimes. He asked his question and it got answered quickly. He reported the post shortly after, and since I was at my computer when the report arrived, I locked it right away. That lead to the online equivalent of one of those door-slamming farces, where I kept locked the thread a few times and twickster opened it a few times.

I have a related question of posting etiquette. I had a question that could easily exist in either GD or the Game Room: [thread=552181]If reality is a simulation, are we players or NPCs? [/thread]. I put it in GD, and an interesting discussion ensued about the nature of reality. However, the question remains - what strategy should we pursue if reality is a simulation?

So should I:
a) contact a mod and ask the thread move to Game Room?
b) start a new thread referencing the old one?
c) find something else to think about?

Wherever you put it, it seems obligatory to add “Need answer fast!” to the title.


Need answer fast - reality demonstrating increasing pixelation.

<<404 Reality Error

Soothing distraction not found. Contact SysAdmin and report to the Matrix.>>

Hi. I have considered trying to close my thread on whether the heat death makes life possible. I am inclined to do this because while the question is complex in its ramifications I think that the underlying yay or nay is pretty simple and people are driving me up the wall. They will disagree without looking at the core question or they will say that what I am suggesting is well established and therefore irrelevant or they will say that they aren’t sure what I mean. it goes around and around in circles of apparently disagreeing for its own sake rather than making any sense.

I could conceivably just wash my hands of it here of course but I have thought about putting an end to the debating idiocy. Mike.

Of course if it turns out it was answered incorrectly or that there are unexplained caveats to that answer, the OP is out of luck.

It seems bizarre to randomly close a handful of answered threads out of the multitude of answered threads that make up these boards just because the OP is an odd duck who requests it. If there’s really nothing more to say then, by and large, no one will pop in to say anything anyway.

That’s where you are incorrect. Just go take a gander at every single GQ question: they always devolve into jokes that have little to nothing to do with the topic. Or someone will repeat an answer that was already given. Having nothing more to say does not shut down the topic.

And there’s nothing random about it. The OP asked for something, and mods are nice enough to provide it. You’re looking at this the wrong way. When someone asks you to do something, you don’t think “How bad would it be if I don’t do it?” but “How bad would it be if I do?”

You do realise that facts and jokey responses are somewhat Cecil’s whole schstick, don’t you?

Okay, he manages to put them both in the same reply, but we’re not all as smart as Sensei Cecil.

I’m aware. I don’t have a problem with them. (I even will participate when I can.) But they often don’t have anything to do with the topic. This challenges Erasmus’s point: despite there not being anything else needed to be said, people keep on talking.

But, really, that was tangential to the second part, which was my main point. I should have made that clearer.

I suppose you’re right in that respect. However, I still don’t think arbitrarily closing a handful of threads is the best solution to that.