Closing threads

I finally get chance to get back to the Dope and reply to comments in a thread I was following… and it’s closed. Again. Is this the new style of modding? Because I don’t like it. Telling disruptive posters to knock it off and warning them if they continue helps threads get back on track. Closing threads instead may be less effort, but it’s unfair on other people who wanted to participate.

We close threads that are problems. More than that, it’s difficult to say, without knowing what specific thread you’re referring to.

It’s always been this way. I’ve also often recommended that, rather than closing threads, they just mod the people causing disruptions. I think closing threads actually encourages those people who post to disrupt threads, rather than discouraging them. Closing the thread got them what they wanted.

That said, there are threads where closing is the only option that really makes sense. I just don’t think you should close without also punishing those who disrupt.

What thread? We had one go off the rails today. It was temporarily shut until a Mod for the forum showed up to sort it out. That was an example of a very good closing. It’s been reopened for several hours though.

The other was thread was down to two posters, did you mean that one?

I guess I could reopen it and kick that pair from the thread. But it appeared to be done.
I mean 3 days and no one else doesn’t seem unreasonable to just shut it down.

@DemonTree actually posted yesterday, as well, meaning there were three people. However, her being the only one there might make for a boring thread.

I’d be tempted to respond to that post if the thread is reopened, but I would likely not want to continue the overarching topic. I just want to point out a flaw in her argument (as well as throw in a compliment, actually).

I assume you are talking about kicking me from the thread I created.
On what basis would you kick me from the thread?
Would’t you have to moderate the thread first?
Maybe acknowledge the bad behavior going on?

And I posted like two hours before the thread was closed.

Oops. Sorry for not noticing. I only checked out the link from @What_Exit’s post. I was checking to see which thread @DemonTree was talking about. So when I saw a post from her from yesterday, it stood out.

One thing is that, with the dynamically loading pages, I find it easier to skip posts if I’m skimming. I wonder if @What_Exit is running into that as well, as I assume a mod will skim a bit when they moderate.

Yes, it was that one. I count 4 posters posting yesterday, plus me the day before, so perhaps you were simply mistaken?

I agree with BigT that sometimes closing a thread is the best option, but I feel like we’ve seen the trigger pulled way too quickly recently. I’m not sure if anything in that thread really needed moderating, and I certainly don’t think @damuriajashi should be barred from a thread he started, especially with no warning.

I don’t think the debate was mega productive, but if the idea is to encourage productive debate, closing threads kind of ends any chance of that. I’d prefer less drastic measures.

You know, that thread keeps getting flagged. Always the same two posters being flagged. When I looked at it yesterday, I only saw those two posters.

Not sure how I missed the others. With apologies, I will reopen it after modnoting.

Thanks. Now maybe I can find out what @BigT wanted to say. :slight_smile:

Thanks for being considerate, @What_Exit. Reevaluating a decision based on new information is a good trait.

I wonder if this isn’t what leads to the impression of biased moderation. The non-woke posts just generate more flags than non-woke posts because of the imbalance of posters on this site. So moderators ding the non-woke posts more frequently even though in the context of the thread there is no real difference.

I don’t think its possible for moderators to skim through a thousand threads with hundreds of posts but if we are more liberal about issuing “simmer down now” moderation, then perhaps doing that more often will keep things from escalating when someone gets a little butthurt about some other poster’s tone. Doing so before the butthurt gets too bad would also reduce the additional butthurt that comes from moderation.

Unpopular positions get dogpiled. Not simply with a ton of opposition arguments but with a mountain of veiled insults. This often leads to escalation.

I think there is a cottage industry among some elements of this board in making veiled insults and provoking emotional responses from others. Not necessarily trolling but provocation. When you moderate someone, do you look to see if they had been provoked?

Still on about the supposed


@damuriajashi Attacking people as getting butthurt is not a good look. It does make it seem like you are angry at them and are trying to piss them off.

It is a common tactic when debating to use tone to try and anger the other side so that they either make mistakes or fall afoul of rules. There is this whole technique of escalating in this manner.

No one was butthurt. People were arguing in the same tone you were using. And neither was appropriate.

Pfft. You need to read the thread.

Uh. Are you saying that there is no woke echo chamber in existence?

The present-day use of “woke” is a far cry from its origin in Abe Lincoln’s presidential campaign. You’re using “woke echo chamber” like octopus uses “hive mind”.

Is it an actual thing or does it merely exist in my imagination?

I’m no mind reader. I wouldn’t want to read yours, anyway.