# The Etiquette of the Padlock **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [October 24, 2009, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-etiquette-of-the-padlock/514993 "2009-10-24T19:18:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2009, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-etiquette-of-the-padlock/514993/1 "2009-10-24T19:18:07Z")
In the thread [Would This Thread Be Acceptable?](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=11688601#post11688601), the OP’s question about permission was answered in Posts 4 and 5 by two mods who said they wouldn’t permit it even though it wasn’t against the rules. But other posters continued to discuss the OP. According to the sticky on good etiquette: > [@](#): > > Multiple viewpoints are to be expected. It should be possible to share your views, understand someone else’s views, and disagree with someone else’s views, without the need for personal insults. Twickster seemed to find it disconcerting that someone would even express an opinion contrary to that of the two mods (who were obviously making the decision). That makes her explanation more than a little ironic: > [@](#): > > …The emphasis at the SDMB is on community, and on conversations that we can all participate in, whether through posting or just through reading. That irony takes another bite only a few posts later when the discussion is continuing and Twickster posts this: > [@](#): > > Since y’all have found a place to play this game, I’m gonna lock this thread. This is another example of a mod locking a thread that contains criticism of or disagreement with that mod’s decision or action. I take no position on the decision itself. Why not just let the discussion die a natural death? No one was being hostile or insulting – unless you find disagreement to be insulting in and of itself. ---
**Author:** ![TubaDiva](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tubadiva/32/507_2.png) [@TubaDiva](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TubaDiva)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2009, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-etiquette-of-the-padlock/514993/2 "2009-10-24T20:50:30Z")
What the OP wanted he got – on another board. So it’s a dead issue here. That’s why the thread was locked – and exactly what Twickster noted when she closed the thread. Sometimes stuff is just over and that’s the end of it. ---
**Author:** ![Covered\_In\_Bees](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/7ab992/32.png) [@Covered\_In\_Bees](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Covered_In_Bees)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2009, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-etiquette-of-the-padlock/514993/3 "2009-10-24T20:53:56Z")
> [@](#): > > Sometimes stuff is just over and that’s the end of it. That is unacceptable! The horse still had plenty of skin and meat to beat on (Yes yes, get all your giggles out). It only stops being a horse to beat when it’s just bones, which this subject is not. Lots of [del]meat[/del] dead horse to beat. ---
**Author:** ![Qadgop\_the\_Mercotan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/qadgop_the_mercotan/32/83_2.png) [@Qadgop\_the\_Mercotan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qadgop_the_Mercotan)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2009, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-etiquette-of-the-padlock/514993/4 "2009-10-24T21:06:34Z")
Why beat an old bag of bones? Because we can! ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2009, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-etiquette-of-the-padlock/514993/5 "2009-10-24T21:22:05Z")
> [@Qadgop\_the\_Mercotan](#): > > Why beat an old bag of bones? > > Because we can! No! The horse is not dead. It’s just been sent to a farm in the country where it can run and play with the other horses. ---
**Author:** ![Qadgop\_the\_Mercotan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/qadgop_the_mercotan/32/83_2.png) [@Qadgop\_the\_Mercotan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qadgop_the_Mercotan)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2009, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-etiquette-of-the-padlock/514993/6 "2009-10-24T21:41:53Z")
> [@Colibri](#): > > No! The horse is not dead. It’s just been sent to a farm in the country where it can run and play with the other horses. Oh, Boxer… Boards of England, Boards of America, Boards of every land and clime, Hearken to my joyful tidings Of the Golden future time. [sub]ok, I’ll stop hijacking now[/sub] ---
**Author:** ![Red\_Barchetta](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/da6949/32.png) [@Red\_Barchetta](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Red_Barchetta)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2009, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-etiquette-of-the-padlock/514993/7 "2009-10-24T22:01:35Z")
> [@TubaDiva](#): > > Sometimes stuff is just over and that’s the end of it. Were that true, the thread wouldn’t have needed to be locked, now would it? That aside, I don’t particularly care one way or the other. But its disingenuous to suggest there weren’t other motives at work here. ---
**Author:** ![twickster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ec9cab/32.png) [@twickster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/twickster)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2009, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-etiquette-of-the-padlock/514993/8 "2009-10-24T22:38:58Z")
Like what? **Angry Lurker** asked if he would be allowed to start a thread in which he solicited PMs from people telling him their secrets. I said no, I wouldn’t want that in MPSIMS, and gave a reason – that it’s antithetical to the ethos of the boards. **Marley** agreed with me. We left the thread open at that point for people to discuss it. A couple of people wanted to know why we would close a thread there was no specific rule against; **Marley** and I both gave reasons. There was no effort by either of us to prevent discussion. It turns out **Giraffe** was fine with having such a thread at his board, at which point the people who want to do this all decamped to do so over there. What’s left to discuss? ---
**Author:** ![samclem](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a9a28c/32.png) [@samclem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/samclem)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2009, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-etiquette-of-the-padlock/514993/9 "2009-10-24T22:51:43Z")
> [@Zoe](#): > > In the thread [url=[http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=11688601#post11688601](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=11688601#post11688601)] > > This is another example of a mod locking a thread that contains criticism of or disagreement with that mod’s decision or action. I take no position on the decision itself. > > Why not just let the discussion die a natural death? No one was being hostile or insulting – unless you find disagreement to be insulting in and of itself. No, it was NOT “another example of a mod locking a thread that contains criticism of or disagreement with that mod’s decision or action.” You can view it that way(which obviously you do) but your view don’t make it so. It could also be that the thread was locked because the point of the OP was over, and now it’s just turned into a MPSIMS-fest. Since the OP is now hosted on another board, the point is moot, and locking it out of ATMB was sensible. > [@Red\_Barchetta](#): > > Were that true, the thread wouldn’t have needed to be locked, now would it? > > That aside, I don’t particularly care one way or the other. But its disingenuous to suggest there weren’t other motives at work here. What were the “other motives” at work? ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2009, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-etiquette-of-the-padlock/514993/10 "2009-10-25T01:28:43Z")
> [@](#): > > **samclem** : Since the OP is now hosted on another board, the point is moot, and locking it out of ATMB was sensible. The OP was fully answered with Post 4, was it not? And backed up with a second mod at Post 5. The point raised in the OP was moot after that. But others were still dealing with related points: > [@](#): > > **Twickster** : We left the thread open at that point for people to discuss it. A couple of people wanted to know why we would close a thread there was no specific rule against; Marley and I both gave reasons. There was no effort by either of us to prevent discussion. Locking a thread tends to discourage discussion, **Twickster**. > [@](#): > > **Twickster** : It turns out Giraffe was fine with having such a thread at his board, at which point the people who want to do this all decamped to do so over there. It’s statements like this which make your motives a little suspect – although we cannot read your mind anymore than you can read our minds. You closed the thread 43 minutes after the link to the other site was posted. That is not enough time to determine that you were not preventing further discussion relating to Straight Dope policies. When we ask “why” and you and Marley or other mods give reasons, I hope that you don’t consider the discussion closed. Samclem, you have a right to your opinion. As a mod, your opinion has more power than mine. That’s all. I’ve never seen a thread padlocked to prevent further non-discussion. ---
**Author:** ![samclem](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a9a28c/32.png) [@samclem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/samclem)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2009, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-etiquette-of-the-padlock/514993/11 "2009-10-25T02:22:13Z")
> [@Zoe](#): > > I’ve never seen a thread padlocked to prevent further non-discussion. Then you and I are reading boards in alternate universes. I’ve seen it done here. When there’s no use beating a dead horse, to use the illustration by more astute posters earlier in this thread, then just give it up. What’s so hard to understand? ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2009, 3:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-etiquette-of-the-padlock/514993/12 "2009-10-25T03:43:09Z")
If they agree with you, they are more astute? I thought Ed had told mods that they aren’t supposed to insult Dopers. I take note of your use of “more astute.” That is obviously meant as a personal insult and not as a comment on anythinng I’ve said. How like you, **sam**. This dead horse did not die a natural death as has been claimed: “The people who want to do this all decamped.” > [@](#): > > When there’s no use beating a dead horse, to use the illustration by more astute posters earlier in this thread, then just give it up. What’s so hard to understand? I don’t mind giving up when I have finished. I do mind a mod executing the horse, announcing its demise, then claiming that I’m beating it when I’m merely pointing at it. ---
**Author:** ![crypto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b3f665/32.png) [@crypto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crypto)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2009, 1:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-etiquette-of-the-padlock/514993/13 "2009-10-25T13:07:33Z")
I don’t understand the “legal” ramifications of this type of thread. If someone confessed to committing a crime, **Angry Lurker** is not required in any way to turn that person in. In fact, since I’m guessing many people would make stuff up, how would you go about proving it anyway? Track down an IP to a potential dead end, or worse, a real person who wanted to post something stupid on the internet. Since it’s a PM, I don’t get to see it. As a general poster, I’d only see what \*\*Angry Lurker \*\*decided to post. It might be entertaining reading, but I’d take the “confessions” with a grain of salt. Is there any sort of precedence for the legal issues you are trying to avoid? Because if so, I’d think Giraffe would be interested in hearing about them. I think Zoe has a point. She’s not trying to start a problem where none exists… I think her question is a valid one. If it’s not against the rules, “bacause we said so” isn’t exactly the reason folks out here usually respond well to. SFP’s $.05 ---
**Author:** ![twickster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ec9cab/32.png) [@twickster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/twickster)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2009, 1:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-etiquette-of-the-padlock/514993/14 "2009-10-25T13:21:08Z")
Okay, the legality issue is a red herring – no prob. This doesn’t mean that the idea suddenly becomes a good one. The proposed thread would be one of two things: 1. A solicitation that people send the OP confessions that then disappear into the ether. No further discussion would follow. What’s the point? What purpose would be served? 2. The OP posts the confessions in anonymized form. This violates our rule against socks. Either way – though there is no rule that says “no one may start a thread asking people to send him or her confessions via PM,” nor is there going to be such a rule, because the idea is too stupid to require a new rule designed exclusively to forbid it – this is not a thread that I would allow to remain open in MPSIMS. And, yes, as a moderator of MPSIMS, I have the power to lock threads that _in my judgment_ shouldn’t be allowed there, whether or not there’s a specific rule against it. ---
**Author:** ![C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b2d939/32.png) [@C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/C_K_Dexter_Haven)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2009, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-etiquette-of-the-padlock/514993/15 "2009-10-25T14:46:40Z")
The term “beating a dead horse” clearly refers to the discussion, not the person.\* I agree that the use of “more astute” applied to other posters implies indirectly that the recipient of the comment is not “more astute.” I’m not sure that being “not more astute” is an insult; you weren’t called “not astute” – in fact, the implication is that you were being called “astute” (even though others are more astute.) So, I don’t think it’s a horrendous personal insult; however, **samclem** , please try to watch such comments in future, OK? - I suppose that a, in a thread where Poster X were the subject of the Pitting and flaming, and a mod thought that the thing had gone far enough, then “Stop beating a dead horse” would imply that Poster X were a horse, and thus be arguably a personal insult. \*\* \*\* That’s a joke. ---
**Author:** ![samclem](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a9a28c/32.png) [@samclem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/samclem)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2009, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-etiquette-of-the-padlock/514993/16 "2009-10-25T15:02:43Z")
> [@Zoe](#): > > If they agree with you, they are more astute? I thought Ed had told mods that they aren’t supposed to insult Dopers. I take note of your use of “more astute.” That is obviously meant as a personal insult and not as a comment on anythinng I’ve said. How like you, **sam**. **Zoe** –I apologize for my dig. ---
**Author:** ![brownie55](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/f14d63/32.png) [@brownie55](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brownie55)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2009, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-etiquette-of-the-padlock/514993/17 "2009-10-25T19:10:41Z")
> [@twickster](#): > > 1. The OP posts the confessions in anonymized form. \*\*This violates our rule against socks. \*\* Snipped and bolded. How, please? No additional account is created. Nobody is posting under under a false name. ---
**Author:** ![srzss05](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/898d66/32.png) [@srzss05](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/srzss05)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2009, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-etiquette-of-the-padlock/514993/18 "2009-10-25T19:29:28Z")
> [@brownie55](#): > > Snipped and bolded. > > > [@](#): > > > > 1. The OP posts the confessions in anonymized form.\*\* This violates our rule against socks.\*\* > > How, please? No additional account is created. Nobody is posting under under a false name. The first time I read it, I knew exactly what she meant. I now read it again, and I too have to say “HUH?”. ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2009, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-etiquette-of-the-padlock/514993/19 "2009-10-25T20:08:50Z")
The thread was closed because of what happened in ANOTHER board? Talk about jusrisdiction issues! Whatever the wisdom of the closing per se, saying that it was being discussed somewhere else seems like a pretty bad argument, even if it wasn’t the most important ---
**Author:** ![twickster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ec9cab/32.png) [@twickster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/twickster)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2009, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-etiquette-of-the-padlock/514993/20 "2009-10-25T20:16:54Z")
> [@brownie55](#): > > Snipped and bolded. > > How, please? No additional account is created. Nobody is posting under under a false name. Our expectation is that people stand behind the posts they make – there is the anonymity of your username, of course, but we expect that username to be attached to any posts you make here. If someone else is posting something you want to say, you are posting under a false name. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-etiquette-of-the-padlock/514993.md?page=2)