However, Dex is certainly not the only one to use this practice.
If you’re going to post as a poster, then do so, and wait for your response just like any other poster would do. If you’re going to post as a mod/admin, then please just cut-off the discussion without comment other than the (non-snarky) reason why you’re closing the thread.
TubaDiva has shown exemplary behavior in this regard lately. See for example this link:
> CRACK! < ::: Moderator cracks whip for attention :::
friedo: Official Warning: disguising a personal insult by making it plural doesn’t make it not a personal insult. Cease and desist, NOW.
Liberal: Responding to a personal insult with another insult is NOT cool. Proper response is to REPORT the post (little ! in red triangle in upper right corner, for any newcomers reading this) and NOT to respond in kind. You know this, full well.
tacoloco: You’re “getting away” with it because technically you’re discussing what the person says, rather than the person. However, it’s only a technicality, and I probably SHOULD issue an Official Warning, but I’ve issued too many this morning and I don’t want to overdo. Cool it.
Now, back to the OP:
Threads are closed when they’ve been answered/resolved or when they’ve gone so far off track as to be irrelevant. The thread in question:
(1) had evolved to a discussion about music, and was no longer reasonable for ATMB;
(2) the issue at hand was pretty much resolved – at least as much as it can be; and
(3) there was another thread on the same topic.
Any one of those would be adequate reason to close a thread, and I did. TubaDiva convinced me that people would complain if we closed any thread involving mod policies (even though this thread DIDN’T involve mod policies) so I reopened it.
Substantively speaking, the mods are all volunteers. So frankly methinks a certain amount of capriciousness is their prerogative: the shocker is that I personally perceive but trace amounts of this behavior, though as always YMMV.
IMHO, it behooves posters to wrap their critiques and recommendations to concerned parties within a cocoon of empathy and deference. This admittedly is a minority opinion. (That said, we should expect rolling of the eyes, snark and outraged accusations of disingenuous and even irony to those implementing my preferred approach-- within the appropriate forums of course.)
I’m afraid there has been a misunderstanding, likely due to my own weak expository skills. I’m not complaining about the closing of a thread. I’m asking that, when threads are closed, mods and admins not use it as an opportunity to have the last word.
Let me give you a hypothetical example, completely unrelated to any actual mod or admin closure:
Okay, hold it. That’s ENOUGH. If Martian albinos wish to carry on their ridiculous and snide attacks against the United Federation of Planets, they can do so in another thread — preferably a Pit thread where nonsense like that can be haggled over by the people who care about it. This thread is closed.
versus
This thread has veered too far from the OP, and therefore is closed.
One of those is getting in an opinion on a discussion to which someone cannot respond, while the other is informational only. No insinuation that dissent of the Federation of Planets is Pit-only material.
It depends on the topic and the discussion. True and Current Example: if the first N posts were about some board rule, and then the topic digressed into music, we could move the thread. However, that would be confusing for several reasons: title would be wrong, and someone coming new to the thread would in Cafe Society would be confused by the first N posts. Better to let people start up the discussion in a fresh thread.
Please see post 11, above. The question that you answered in post 8 was not mine. For convenience, I’ll restate it here:
My question is whether the mods and admins would be willing to cease and desist from using the “close thread” tool as a means to have the last word about a topic. It is the social equivalent of slamming a door in someone’s face. It is rude and unnecessary. If a thread should be closed, then it should be done like this, with no personal commentary about which side of the discussion you’re on — only rules citations.
OK, sorry about misunderstanding what you were asking.
Usually, I think, we do try to close threads with just a formal comment about the reason. However, some one will always have the last word in the thread before it’s closed; and why should it NEVER be the mod?
Nonetheless, I hear you, and we’ll try to be better. Certainly the ideal is as you suggest.
(There is no reason that the person with the last word should never be a mod. If a mod happens to post as a poster, and then no one else responds, then it’s just like if anybody else had the last word. My only concern was with COMBINING having the last word with the power to close the thread and thereby shut out any and all responses. I hope that helps clear things up. And thanks again for having another look. Kudos.)
You make a very good point, Liberal, and I’m pleased to see that Dex acknowledged it. Closing a thread while having a final say on the subject matter gives the inevitable impression that moderator authority is being used to buttress one’s opinions, an abuse of power which, however minor, is quite unfair to members and should never be sanctioned.