Is there a criteria for closing threads?

I have had a few threads closed recently and it was not really clear to me how those threads differed from other threads where people were disagreeing. I don’t know the whole universe of closed threads so I can’t really see the pattern.

Is there some sort of criteria that is used to determine when to close a thread?

GD and P&E do have some criteria but no hard rules.

If the thread is new and is offering nothing new, we’ll close it. That is stated in the GD rules.

If the thread has been around for awhile (usually months) and it is down to a few principles yelling at each other and generating flags; we’ll probably close it.

Please take a look at the GD and P&E rules:

This will give you a feel for what guides us to some degree.
There is a thread right now that just started I need to review for possible closure. I need to ensure it is covering new ground.

Happy to say, it looks like new ground.

What_Exit has given some examples. Other reasons include becoming a clusterfuck, trainwreck, or dumpster fire.

This is the most recent thread that was closed.

The thread had recently gained 2 new participants that proceeded to yell at each other. Having participants yelling at each other is not unique to this thread.

Perhaps the mods thought the thread had turned into a dumpster fire. This seems very subjective.

Now in this thread:Academically/Intellectually Gifted Education is problematic but necessary

I am being told to stop trying to derail the thread with discussions of race. I found this confusing because race is brought up in the OP and in a dozen posts by others throughout the thread.

It seems like the OP is allowed to say that tests are racist and I am not allowed to rebutt that conclusion because that would be injecting race into the debate and turning the thread into a dumpster fire?

Given these things, how is this much different from telling me that only one side is allowed to present arguments connected to race and education?

Dumpster Fire is subjective. Our noticing a dumpster fire is often fueled by flags being generated in mass by one thread. But if you think that thread was anything other than a dumpster fire by the time I closed it, you 're missing something big here. That one was pretty clear cut. We tolerated longer than we should have and I closed it before warnings were given out.

As to your new complaint, sorry I disagree. You want to rehash the same argument from the prior threads. That is not being allowed.

If your motive is to close threads because you see where things are headed and want to close the thread before you have to start handing out warnings then I can understand. But how do you prevent people from turning threads into dumpster fires in order to get threads closed?

What is wrong with the argument I was making in that other thread? Is it a forbidden topic like holocaust denial or the denying global warming? Most of the forbidden topics tend to be topics on which there is broad consensus, this doesn’t seem to be one of them.

Its not just because the thread is contentious, is it? Every debate about abortion gets at least as contentious as that one, doesn’t it?

Maybe I don’t understand what a dumpster fire is.

…and one of them also got yelled at by you and others on your side. Pretending it was just about two other posters, and you had zero involvement, is some bullshit.

I can’t say I have ever seen posters try to get a thread deliberately shut down by what they post. Dumpster fires are almost invariably caused by people getting angry at one another and upping the ante until one or more lose their tempers entirely and get warned.

I think this is the first mildly provocative thing i said.

“I think you have to squint pretty hard to consider them “better off” as unpaid teacher’s assistants.”

This was your response:

“That you view this in terms of commerce, rather than a group of friends all working on achieving something better together, is a clear indicator that we have very different ideas about what schooling is supposed to achieve.”

It sort of went downhill from there.

But that’s besides the point. I was pointing to the two new posters to say that we were getting new entrants into the conversation and it was not a thread that had run its course.

I agree that is a very good reason to close a thread especially if after several mod notes, the passion does not subside. I assume that if you start to see a pattern, you would address that as well?

Is there a reason why others can discuss race but I may not? I mean LHOD’s thread explicitly brings up racism as the reason for disparities in gifted programs, specifically the evaluation exams. Why is rebutting that statement so much more controversial than making the statement in the first place?

Do we have a moratorium on discussions of race? Or is the moratorium only on arguments that things other than racism can explain disparities between races?

How many times do I have to say to you the same thing?
You were rehashing arguments from prior threads that have been closed. We’re not re-arguing those threads in the new one. Everything else you said in the quote is a silly comparison.

Straight up: the way you discuss perceived racism against Asian students (I’m not going to characterize it, nor will I get into a back-and-forth with you about it) has a tendency to turn the thread entirely into your views on that subject. I have no interest in that discussion with you, and I don’t want a thread that’s proving pretty interesting to turn into that discussion. If you’re unhappy with that, I invite you not to participate in that thread.

If the topic of race is raised, then how is it off topic to discuss race?

Where do I discuss anti-asian racism in your thread? I haven’t seen any anti-asian racism in your thread.

I use asian test results to rebutt your contention that tests are racist.
When you point to racial disparities to say “either the tests are broken or the kids are” you are implying the tests are racist. My response is to ask why the racists are throwing so much to asians and so little to whites.
I’m not complaining about anti-asian racism (apparently the only form of racism that you are not allowed to complain about on this site (unless it’s trump or conservatives being racist)).

Is complaining about antoi-asian racism similar to “men’s rights advocacy”

I’m not going to characterize it, nor will I get into a back-and-forth with you about it.

I’ve answered your question. I won’t answer your attempts to reframe the question to suit yourself.

I’m actually considering this now to be jerkish and am reporting you for mod attention. I might be wrong, but you’re really pushing it in my opinion.

This is ATMB. How is asking you to clarify your moderation being jerkish?

You are telling me that I cannot bring up race in a debate where the OP specifically discusses race. You are basically saying that only one side of the argument can be expressed, or maybe that we have to assume for the sake of argument that the racism is exactly as the OP describes.

You don’t want a back and forth?
That doesn’t seem much in the spirit of resolving issues.
You threw out an accusation. I don’t think the accusation applies in this situation.

This, this is being a jerk.

I explained why you were modnoted, but you keep trying to reframe the question.
I am not saying what you are trying to make it. I told you why via PM and in this thread.

You can try to twist things and make it up. But it is a simple answer.

Maybe drop it for now.

Perhaps starting a separate thread to discuss whether there is racism in G&T selection would be the best option?