Req: Change in policy on thread closings due to one or two posters bad behavior

^ Here’s an example, but it’s not the only one.

There were a bunch of interesting/thoughful posts, and one or two people clearly disobeying mod orders and obviously misbehaving. The thread was closed by Jonathon Chance.

I think the moderating in that thread was good up until the poster point-blank disobeyed mod instructions and got off scott-free, AND got the thread closed, punishing everyone else.

This is standard SDMB policy. I’ve seen threads closed for similar reasons in most other forums–ATMB (constantly under previous Mods/Admins, less so now–which I appreciate, btw), GD’s certainly had them, GQ’s had some and even CS has had a few. I’m not complaining about JC’s moderation because it’s 100% in line with SDMB policy.

But let’s discuss that policy.

I’d much rather see a disruptive poster warned/suspended/manned than see a thread closed. Not only is it annoying to have a thread closed because of that, it gives way too much power to the disruptive poster. Want to shut down a discussion? Be a jerk and eventually the thread will be closed. That’s not what actually happens, but it’s the outcome that the moderation seems to encourage (under the “Behavior that gets rewarded gets repeated” concept)
Any other Doper have opinions on this? Mods? Thoughts? Large cash rewards? :wink:

Rather than man the disruptive posters, there’s something I did lo these many years ago when I was a mod on another board: I’d threadban them. “BobJones,” I’d say, “Do not post again in this thread about interracial dating.” If he posted again in the thread, even to protest his innocence, he’d get a warning. They were a step between a mod note and a formal warning and were used to keep threads on track when it looked like a mod note wasn’t going to work, or just when a poster was being a fractious jerkino.

Yeah, Pjen was being “a jerk” in that thread, and needed to get a warning. But I think by that time it was too late to get the thread back on track.

I think “Fractious Jerkinos” would make a great band name.

It’s too bad there’s not an “exclude poster from thread” option for mods. That would solve these problems. Yeah, I know, that’s not possible.

Meh. Declare the thread off limits for them in a note, and then any poster in that thread will voluntarily serve the same purpose as dedicated software.

I agree that this is a valuable tool that could be used more often. The mods have used it on occasion–I just think it needs to become a more regular part of their toolkit.

I agree it’s a better idea than closing the thread. If you close the thread because one of two were behaving badly, you punish everyone equally. The people who are innocent are punished undeservedly and the people who are guilty are free to just move to another thread and do it again. A moderator order targeting just the offender and telling him or her to stop posting in the still open thread seems like it would be much more fair. And probably more effective - I’d speculate some people consider it a “victory” if they disrupt a thread to the point where it’s closed. Seeing the thread go on without them would eliminate this incentive.

I’ve done the ‘don’t post in this thread’ thing once or twice, but I’m always uncertain about the wisdom of it. I dislike that level of control. AND it requires extra work on my part to monitor it.

There have been times where I’ve told monomaniacal posters to avoid their ‘one thing’ unless it’s specifically called for in a thread. Some will take any excuse to hijack a thread back to their…fetish?

As for the thread in question? It wasn’t just hijacked. It was hijacked, flown to a neutral country, the ransom was paid, Castro had welcomed the hijackers and CBS already had a movie in the works for Sunday night. I can’t see how anyone could recover from it. Far better to shoot it in the head and let those interested create a new thread free of the taint of the old one.

Protip: If I look at the postcount of a thread and notice that one person is making a majority of the posts? I’m going to go look to see just how wrong it’s gone, because it’s a good bet its gone wrong.

You can do that? More to the point, can non-mods do that? Because I think it would be interesting to know.

A suggestion then? Set the rest of the normal members to be your stoolies* and simply say “So-and-so, you’re banned from this thread–if anyone sees you posting in this thread again, I’ll ask them to report the post and I’ll warn/ban/kick your ass.”

The Dopers are doing the work, you get the fun of punishing an obvious law-breaking troll (there’s no grey area in “This thread is off limits to you. Post in it again and you’re suspended for 2 weeks”) and the teeming millions strike a blow against ignorance. And maybe the troll learns something. Win/Win/Maybe win
*I mean this in a good way. I could have said “Your monitoring system” or “The Jonathon Chance Irregulars”, but…c’mon. How often do you get to use the word “Stoolies” in a thread?

I disagree although I see your point. I’d have preferred to see you warn/ban/beat with an aluminum baseball bat the hijacker in question and then see if the thread could self-correct. It really does feel like this SDMB policy (and again, I’m not singling you out, it was just a perfect example of something that seems to be near official policy) punishes everyone for the bad behavior of a few.

Yes. Just click on the number of replies (of any topic) when you’re viewing a board and all of its topics.

When you’re looking at a list if threads, you’ll notice that “replies” is a link. Click it.

You’ll get a list of everyone who posted and how many times.

Furthermore, when you get that list of everyone who has posted in it, you can even click on the reply count for each poster, to see just all of their replies in the thread.

I don’t see why it takes extra work. You say it in a note, then you’re going to get people reporting it if they reply again. And since they would now get a warning (for failing to heed moderator instructions), most people aren’t going to reply again. So I’d think it would be rather less work than most responses.

As for the level of control: you’re doing it anyways when you close a thread. You’ve just applied it to everyone.

As for putting a thread out of its misery: I still think that punishes everyone. Thing is, once a thread closes, it’s extremely rare that someone starts a new one. It’s a lot of work to grab all the good stuff from the previous thread. Even though people can theoretically start a new thread, in practice you are letting the problematic poster control what topics people can talk about.

There are topics that I will not bring up on this board because I know they will be hijacked and then closed, making it pointless to talk about them.

Thanks guys! This is super-handy.

I support the OP on this. It seems really strange when the mods close a thread because of jerkidude (or whatever) and the jerk in question doesn’t get some warning or other form of punishment. I’m not buying the idea that such threads have “passed the point of no return” if it’s just one or two posters doing the jerking.

Hilarious and true.:smiley:
But it doesnt answer why the hijacker didnt get a slap down from you. He does that a lot.

He got mod noted, but not warned. That’s what I felt was appropriate. I also provided guidance to the poster in question that any further hijacks on the pet topic outside of appropriate threads would be dealt with severely.

I don’t see how that’s not appropriate, given the circumstances.

I did that with my name in the Baker’s Dozen thread.

There’s a lost weekend I’ll never get back.

Cite?

I’m only messing with you a little here. Other than casien I can’t figure out what you are talking about.