I’m not trying to be a jerk, or argue that you shouldn’t have, I’m genuinely curious. It’s not standard to close a thread at the request of the OP, right? And since you linked to the second one he started on the same exact issue, engendering pretty much the same exact responses, I’m wondering what happened there.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13866185&postcount=113
Eh? I’ve seen numerous threads closed at the request of the OP. More often than not, actually.
The only times I’ve never seen a thread closed at the request of the OP is if they’re being annoying, receiving flack from it, and trying to escape the replies by asking the thread to be shut down OR if a more interesting conversation starts after the main point of the thread is already addressed.
I was wondering why he started the second thread in the first place. Or why Czarcasm didn’t merge them. Although locking the first one was OK, as it was confusing to have two threads about the same situation open where people were replying to both.
Ah. I’d seen it mentioned recently in a **Sarahfeenah **started pitting that was resolved to her satisfaction and being hijacked; she was told that it’s not customary practice to close threads simply because the OP requested it. Perhaps that’s a Pit only rule.
I’ve been wondering that, myself. There’s no mention of it in the Pit rules sticky.
I can’t speak for the guy, but I can take a guess as to why he played it that way. And if I’m right, I certrainly don’t have a problem with it.
“Part one” grew to three pages. Then, RADTENN started “part two”. Czarcasm had three options once the OP requested the closure: 1.) Ignore the request and leave them both open, 2.)Try to merge a three page thread into a new one, which would be clunky as hell, or 3.)Close the first one and post a link to “chapter two”
He chose the third option, and I like that decision.
Or option four, close the new one and tell the OP to keep discussion in his existing thread.
I think that would have been best.
Hmm, I don’t know. Then we would have a different ATMB thread about how he closed “chapter two” against the OP’s wishes. Once the second thread was started, there wasn’t a perfect solution. He posted a link to chain the two together as if to say, “OK, it’s over here now”. I don’t have a problem with that.
Let me state it more simply. I think Czarasm thought there should only be one thread on the subject, so he bridged the two hoping that dopers were smart enough to see that “chapter 2” means “same thread continued over here”.
I’m not commenting either way on what the best option would have been. Simply pointing out an option you missed.
Personally I dont’ give two fucks whether modmins want to close threads or not, I just wish there’d be some fucking consistency about whether they do it at the OP’s request or not.
I’m not addressing what Czarcasm did in this particular instance at all. Don’t know what he did or why.
With regard to the general issue of closing a thread at the OP’s request: like so much of the moderation around here, it depends.
First off, it doesn’t actually happen all that often.
That said: it depends on why the OP requests it. When the OP is about a specific issue and that issue has been resolved, and that’s all the thread has been about, I will usually close the thread if the OP requests it. For instance, “my kid’s prom is next week, x y z …” after the prom is over, I’ll close the thread if the OP requests it.
If, on the other hand, the OP just isn’t getting the answers he or she wants, and there’s an interesting conversation going on, I will not necessarily close the thread just because the OP doesn’t like the direction the thread went, or doesn’t like the feedback he or she is getting.
Beyond that – if you want to know why a particular thread was or wasn’t closed at the OP’s request, you’d have to ask the mod who acted in that particular case. I am not aware of any hard and fast rule about closing or not closing in general, or in any forum in particular.
twickster, MPSIMS and Cafe Society moderator
As an example (nothing more) there was this thread from the late lamented Smash the State who spat the dummy and Czarcasm closed the thread.
Even though it wasn’t a direct request from the OP, nothing much more was going to be achieved.
Yet, ironically, at least half the post in RADTENN’s second thread are references, questions and restatements of the information for the first thread. “Nothing much more was going to be achieved” may be an accurate asessment of his first thread, but nothing much more is going to be achieved by keeping the second thread open either, it seems. They’re really the same thread on the same topic, which is why my puzzlement.
Oops- we have crossed wires. I was referring to Smash the States post/ thread.
Sorry I wasn’t more clear in my wording. Yes, I understand you were referring to Smash the States…I was saying that the reason for closing that one doesn’t seem to be the reason for closing RADTENN’s first thread. 
Of course, I’m not sure because I don’t know the reason, 'cause Czarcasm’s probably busy or still asleep and hasn’t answered the OP yet. How *dare *he have a life of his own off this board? 
“Spat the dummy”?
A common Australian colloquialism meaning “Got mad” or “Lost his cool” or “Had a bit of a hissy fit.”
It comes, i believe, from the notion that, when babies start crying, they tend to spit their dummy, or pacifier, out in the process.
It’s not in the sticky precisely because its a custom, not a rule. It’s the sort of thing that’s left up to the mods’ discretion. I think most of us feel it’s better to let a thread peter out on its own, rather than lock it down, but there may be situational exceptions. What constitutes an exception varies from moderator to moderator.
In the Pit, I almost never make an exception. As I see it, the possibility of a Pit thread turning against the OP works as a brake on starting ill-conceived pittings. (Also, I think misfired pittings are among the most entertaining threads on the SDMB, and I’m more than willing to milk them for all their worth.) I tend not to heed closure requests for other reasons, because I don’t really want to see those threads brought up as some sort of precedent for closing a misfire. Not that such an argument would be remotely persuasive, of course, but it saves time all around if I limit the number of opportunities for people to make it.
Obviously, that’s something that’s pretty specific to my forum, and doesn’t apply to MPSIMS or GQ or the like.
I get that reasoning, Miller. I think, though, that on a board this size it might be a good idea to have some sort of policy, even if it’s a different one for different forums.