How to lock a thread.

[GoSeigen]

Thee OP of this thread locked the thread when they thought there had been enough discussion. How does a thread owner lock the thread? I've never seen that done before.

viewtopic.php?p=325361#p325361

GS

[Itsallaguess]

The OP of this thread locked the thread when they thought there had been enough discussion.

https://www.lemonfool.co.uk/viewtopic.php?p=325361#p325361

How does a thread owner lock the thread?

By being a moderator as well as the OP...

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

[Mike4]

I was curious about why that was done. Is it normal practice on DAK to lock threads once answered?

On another forum I used to use there would allegations of mods abusing their powers! But it is more civilised here.

[jackdaww]

perhaps it should be an independent mod who decides if and when to lock .

[Lootman]

The "owner" of any topic can request that his topic be locked, if for instance he has his answer and the discussion is going off topic.

It is just that if that owner is also a Mod he can bypass that step. I don't think that is really abuse.

[kempiejon]

From the title I was going to suggest superglue. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Loctite-225968 ... 711&sr=8-1

[Mike4]

The "owner" of any topic can request that his topic be locked, if for instance he has his answer and the discussion is going off topic.

It is just that if that owner is also a Mod he can bypass that step. I don't think that is really abuse.

I agree really. By way of explanation for my comment, on the other forum I mentioned a mod was appointed who developed the habit of editing people's posts and changing them from what they actually said to what he thought they ought to have said. To this day he still does it occasionally, or locks threads where he personally disagrees with the turn of convo, or deletes posts criticising his views. And the site owner sees nothing wrong with any of this. It's one of the reasons I left.

As you can imagine, that forum got rather sensitive about mods abusing their powers. Not saying this forum is the same but RS locking the thread poked a sensitive spot for me, which is why I commented as I did.

[gryffron]

on the other forum I mentioned a mod was appointed who developed the habit of editing people's posts and changing them from what they actually said to what he thought they ought to have said. To this day he still does it occasionally, or locks threads where he personally disagrees with the turn of convo.

LemonFool has quite a corps of moderators. Pretty sure any moderator who did that here would quickly be hauled over the coals. Posters can of course appeal to the administrators on the Room 101 board

Gryff

[Gengulphus]

I think the point is that a moderator who moderates discussions that they are personally involved in takes the risk of being suspected of abusing their powers. In an ideal world, they would pass the job to another moderator who is not personally involved in the discussion and that moderator would deal with the issue just as quickly as they would themselves. But in the real world, the other moderators of the board concerned might all be off on holiday or otherwise unavailable, and even if they're available, it's unlikely that they will be able and willing to instantly drop everything to do TLF moderation... It boils down to balancing the risks, of being suspected of abuse of power on the one hand and of delayed sorting out of the issue requiring moderation on the other. That balancing of risks is something individual moderators need to do on the fly and probably without any help being available immediately from other moderators, so IMHO it's unreasonable to expect them to do it perfectly every time.

So basically, moderators need to be cut some slack on such matters. (By the way, there's no implied comment there about whether the moderator who did the thread-locking that prompted this thread needs any slack cutting - I haven't even looked at the specific incident.)

Gengulphus

[Mike4]

Getting back to the OP, there is another point to make.

I disagree with the concept of there being a "thread owner". By starting a thread, one launches a conversation and the argument that the OP retains a right to shut down that conversation at any point of their choosing, is weak. The convo has a life of its own and the OP should not in my opinion, have any control or rights over its direction or termination.

In the case under discussion the thread-locking was for a different reason. i.e. it was a DAK question which had been answered, and the thread was teetering on the brink of turning into general chit-chat, (arguably) justifying it being locked.

[csearle]

Getting back to the OP, there is another point to make.

I disagree with the concept of there being a "thread owner". By starting a thread, one launches a conversation and the argument that the OP retains a right to shut down that conversation at any point of their choosing, is weak. The convo has a life of its own and the OP should not in my opinion, have any control or rights over its direction or termination.

In the case under discussion the thread-locking was for a different reason. i.e. it was a DAK question which had been answered, and the thread was teetering on the brink of turning into general chit-chat, (arguably) justifying it being locked.

I don't see it that way at all (well except for the last sentence). I feel the OP of the thread sets the stage for the discussion. So if you want to discuss a particular nuance of something and other posters quasi hijack your thread to discuss something else, possibly related, then I can imagine this being quite frustrating. They could start their own thread.

So I tend to steer discussion back to the OP's point. I also heed the OP's opinion quite closely regarding the direction the thread is taking.

It is always best to allow another moderator to moderate when one is personally involved in a discussion. This can be done by self-reporting when necessary. On DAK it is an established thing that discussion beyond the point where the OP's question is effectively answered is deprecated. Locking is a fairly innocuous way of bringing the discussion to a close without losing all the content.

In a case where a mod is the OP on DAK and can therefore uniquely determine that the OP's question has been answered I see no harm in bypassing the step and doing the locking oneself.

Chris

[redsturgeon]

As the OP and a mod I was in that privileged position to decide my question had been answered and lock the thread before it went off topic. It being DAK then once the original question has been answered to the satisfaction of the OP then they can always report the thread and ask for it to be locked and I have answered that request several times in the past.

Moderator Message:
Usually when acting in my mod capacity I will use a mod box like so, and perhaps It would have been clearer if I had done so in this instance.

I hope nobody really feels it was an abuse of power.

John

[Mike4]

I hope nobody really feels it was an abuse of power.

John

For the avoidance of doubt I certainly don't think that.

It was a casual throwaway remark of mine that kicked it all off, which I meant as a contrast between how civilised it is here and and what a sheet-show of a forum it was that I left, in comparison.

[stooz]

Can I also add here- the mods are all volunteers who do it out of kindness and love of the subjects discussed.