# Locking threads



## X Royal (17 Aug 2005)

I can understand locking a post that is getting out of hand but *WHY* a post with *NO Replies*.
This is in ref: to a posting by aesop081 on 14 Aug. in the Canadian Army Forum titled "The Canadian Military Ethos".
If the oridginal post is objectionable Delete the thread.
If replies were deleted before locking to leave only the oridginal post this is not a thead but a forum for opinions that cannot be questioned. _Delete it or reopen it and moderate._

Just my opinion


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (17 Aug 2005)

Because it came from a thread that was going on at the time and it was "stickied" to be a "stand alone" read-only thread.

It was not locked for any bad reasons...


----------



## X Royal (17 Aug 2005)

Thanks Bruce for the explanation.
I just feel when a certain member is mentioned in the title of a thread it is only fair to give them the opportunity to make a intelligent reply. To be singled out without recourse seem not right.

Pro Patria


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (17 Aug 2005)

Quote,
I just feel when a certain member is mentioned in the title of a thread 

Sorry, I don't understand....... Edit, OK I got ya, the person in question had her chance to respond in the original thread but, you are correct, it is not appropriate in this context, thanks.


----------



## X Royal (17 Aug 2005)

No Problems.

Cheers


----------



## MOOXE (28 Mar 2006)

I keep seing threads locked all the time with comments like "this is covered in another thread perform a search and read it." Really, whats the point. If someone wants to start a new conversation why not let them? Locking a thread simply because its a topic thats been talking about in the past just discourages new thoughts and opinions. Why make some wade through pages of other peoples posts that eventually always go off topic. The main focus should be actively encouraging communication rather than shutting it down (ofcourse I am talking within the rules of what can be talked about in the public). Locking a thread is essentially making a one way conversation with somebody when theyve done nothing wrong. 

Moderators... Is this just a way to exersize your mod rights or is there really a good reason to lock a thread like these..

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/41471.0.html
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/41516.0.html

....just to name a couple.


----------



## aesop081 (28 Mar 2006)

MOOXE said:
			
		

> I keep seing threads locked all the time with comments like "this is covered in another thread perform a search and read it." Really, whats the point. If someone wants to start a new conversation why not let them? Locking a thread simply because its a topic thats been talking about in the past just discourages new thoughts and opinions. Why make some wade through pages of other peoples posts that eventually always go off topic. The main focus should be actively encouraging communication rather than shutting it down (ofcourse I am talking within the rules of what can be talked about in the public). Locking a thread is essentially making a one way conversation with somebody when theyve done nothing wrong.
> 
> Moderators... Is this just a way to exersize your mod rights or is there really a good reason to lock a thread like these..
> 
> ...



MOOXE, i hate to say it but......your question has been answered here many times  ;D

do a  :'( search  :'(

hahaha


----------



## Mike Bobbitt (28 Mar 2006)

aesop's right.... here are some good start points:

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/28552.0.html
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/34043.0.html
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/36008.0.html
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/33516.0.html
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/27660.0.html
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/27567.0.html
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/26408.0.html


----------



## old medic (28 Mar 2006)

Can't...... Help....... Myself...........

Thread.......locked


----------



## George Wallace (28 Mar 2006)

Well MOOXE......my only words to you, and I am sure we will all agree, that some day soon you too will feel like this:

 :brickwall:

and I am sure that you too will enjoy the incessant call of juvenile enthusiasm and inability to listen to reason with something like this:

 :argument:

I suppose, there is one recourse that you may try.  You can open up and Moderate your own web site and enjoy all the joys of "Moderation".   ;D


----------



## MOOXE (28 Mar 2006)

Even as I was replying the thread was locked... Anyways..

My reply to the 1st reply..

How ironic, I wish I could say that those threads were locked but I didnt even check. Further proves my underlaying point that not many people want to use the search functions and wade through everybody elses posts. Maybe what a mod can do is post the link to the corresponding thread that already covers the topic in the new thread and then lock it.


----------



## Mike Bobbitt (28 Mar 2006)

To be specific to the 2 threads you listed:

The first was answered (correctly) in the initial reply and then we started to see some speculation. The thread was locked because no additional *facts* could be added to the thread.

The second thread is regarding a book that has been discussed several times already, so rather than opening a new thread, it makes sense to keep the discussions together. That way when someone searches, they can read a single "mega" thread instead of many disjoint ones (see my post above for an example of that!). Furthermore, the author of this particular book has been known the threaten legal action when his name comes up here, so we try to keep a lid of any discussions about him (positive or negative).

I hope that helps.


Cheers
Mike


----------



## aesop081 (28 Mar 2006)

MOOXE said:
			
		

> Even as I was replying the thread was locked... Anyways..
> 
> My reply to the 1st reply..
> 
> How ironic, I wish I could say that those threads were locked but I didnt even check. Further proves my underlaying point that not many people want to use the search functions and wade through everybody elses posts. Maybe what a mod can do is post the link to the corresponding thread that already covers the topic in the new thread and then lock it.



this is going to be one of those nights

Lock ?


----------



## Mike Bobbitt (28 Mar 2006)

MOOXE said:
			
		

> How ironic, I wish I could say that those threads were locked but I didnt even check. Further proves my underlaying point that not many people want to use the search functions and wade through everybody elses posts. Maybe what a mod can do is post the link to the corresponding thread that already covers the topic in the new thread and then lock it.



We can't help it if people don't _want_ to use the search function. It's the way the site works, and those who chose to "go their own way" will find they won't have much success in their posts. DS have no obligation to spend their volunteer time searching for answers to your questions.

Spend a couple seconds typing the keywords in and reading the responses. If it's not important enough for you to do that, then move on.


----------



## Michael OLeary (28 Mar 2006)

MOOXE said:
			
		

> Even as I was replying the thread was locked... Anyways..
> 
> My reply to the 1st reply..
> 
> How ironic, I wish I could say that those threads were locked but I didnt even check. Further proves my underlaying point that not many people want to use the search functions and wade through everybody elses posts. Maybe what a mod can do is post the link to the corresponding thread that already covers the topic in the new thread and then lock it.



MOOXE, the point isn't that no-one will use the search function .... the point is that even if we do not lock the threads with advise to search - there's hardly anyone who will type out (again) the answers the posters are looking for.  Now, if you're volunteering to do that, I am sure that we can direct the next hundred or so "simple" questions your way.

Would that work for you?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (28 Mar 2006)

Mike Bobbitt said:
			
		

> We can't help it if people don't _want_ to use the search function. It's the way the site works, and those who chose to "go their own way" will find they won't have much success in their posts. DS have no obligation to spend their volunteer time searching for answers to your questions.
> 
> Spend a couple seconds typing the keywords in and reading the responses. *If it's not important enough for you to do that, then move on.*



...and if it's not important enough for you to do it...it certainly isn't important enough for me.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (28 Mar 2006)

Quote,
Maybe what a mod can do is post the link to the corresponding thread that already covers the topic in the new thread and then lock it

Mooxe,
When I post a link to another thread that covers the question someone has asked without searching it is because I did the search for it. We have no different search function than any other user, why should we have to, among our other unpaid duties, do somebodies searching for them........?


----------



## George Wallace (28 Mar 2006)

Thanks Bruce

mooxe doesn't realize the amount of time that we already spend merging threads, that newcomers or those just too lazy to search, start up on a Topic that has been covered in thorough detail and brought to a satisfactory conclusion.  Sometimes it is only a day and someone else asks the same question over again.  A question that may have been answered successfully only a day before.  What a waste of bandwidth. 


(mooxe you have been demoted to lower case, for your attitude.   ;D )


----------



## MOOXE (28 Mar 2006)

My point is try to encourage talk by not locking so often. For example if someone asks what the minimum age is to join, big deal, someone will answer him, as a mod just dont jump on it and lock it because its been covered 100 times over. Its discouraging, why discourage? I am merely suggesting a better way to deal with posts. George I actually do admin some other forums aside from the site listed in my profile, I like to remain transparent to the board, but thats just me. Maybe I am a bleeding heart, but I just hate to see threads locked so quickly. From the amount of quick replies it looks as if I stepped on someone toes, clearly not my objective. 


Edit... The fact that this thread was locked in like 5 minutes from my post sort of proved my point that some people are a little to quick to lock. Lets talk, not lock!


----------



## Mike Bobbitt (28 Mar 2006)

So what do we do if someone jumps in with the wrong answer? It clearly needs to be corrected, taking our time and confusing people in the process. All of that can (and is) avoided by preventing the re-discussion of clearly factual items like minimum age to join.


----------



## Michael OLeary (28 Mar 2006)

So how is having an extra few thousand threads with 'simple question-simple answer' an improvement?  Then, when someone is actually searching for a real discussion thread, they get an extra hundred hits offering the few simple pieces of information they already know.

You might think that over the past few years we've done our best to develop a workable option, even if it doesn't please all the people, all the time.

Edit:



			
				MOOXE said:
			
		

> George I actually do admin some other forums aside from the site listed in my profile, I like to remain transparent to the board, but thats just me.



Close Combat Series: Forums
http://www.closecombatseries.net/CCS/modules.php?name=Forums


> Our users have posted a total of 11667 articles



Army.ca Forums
http://forums.army.ca/


> Forum Stats   	  351,856 Posts in 23,274 Topics by 9,458 Members.



Maybe you just haven't see all the repetitive question in your forum yet.


----------



## MOOXE (28 Mar 2006)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> So how is having an extra few thousand threads with 'simple question-simple answer' an improvement?  Then, when someone is actually searching for a real discussion thread, they get an extra hundred hits offering the few simple pieces of information they already know.
> 
> You might think that over the past few years we've done our best to develop a workable option, even if it doesn't please all the people, all the time.



That is a good point. However, even locked threads come up in searches so the user will be likely to read it.

Mike, Michael, George & Bruce you have all made good points,  I do realise the rules and customs of this board do not change overnight. I only ask that you consider what I have had to say.


----------



## Mike Bobbitt (28 Mar 2006)

MOOXE said:
			
		

> That is a good point. However, even locked threads come up in searches so the user will be likely to read it.



That's actually our argument for merging similar topics into "mega threads" but it also lends credence to simply deleting repeat posts altogether. (Something we generally feel is too strong an action.)


----------



## Dankai (24 Jun 2006)

Im just curious as to know why Shaynelle's post was locked. I wanted to write my condolences out to her.   To me it seemed like she came here to get some support on her situation... it's not like she can go out on the street and talk to any "neighbour" about this.  She came here, to express her feelings and to tell us about her loss.   I dont think its very fair to lock that topic because someone started that whole childish "I know you know, I accuse thing" . Why not just give that person a warning that that wasnt needed in a public forum via PM and delete that persons remark?


----------



## Michael OLeary (24 Jun 2006)

I'm just curious why you would state that the attacking post should have been sent via PM, but your condolences need to be in the public eye.  It was locked to avoid unnecessary tangents, the staff cannot watch it 24/7.  PMs can be used for personal condolences.


----------



## Dankai (24 Jun 2006)

I thought Id just post my condolances (sp?)  since this is a forum.   I just thought that a persons remark such as that , should be done via PM since it could potentially cause some drama, and not just lock a post where someone came here for help and support on such a delicate issue. Because one person decided to post such a thing , I dont think its really fair to the original poster to have it locked.    I just thought that I'd ask   Sorry if that bugs ya  :-\  Thanks for getting back to me so quick


----------



## Michael OLeary (24 Jun 2006)

The potential for further susch post got the thread locked.  It's a better approach than trying to clean it up repeatedly.


----------



## Dankai (24 Jun 2006)

Gotcha  8)


----------



## Jarnhamar (22 Jul 2006)

How to word this without being crushed 

I have to admit I'm a little (very) frustrated at all the posts being locked recently. I'll click on a thread, read a bunch of posts I want to reply to, write down my points and when I get to the end I find the thread locked. (yes I need to pay better attention to detail)

Now I agree there are VERY obvious reasons why these suckers get locked. People going off topic, people making silly personal attacks instead of attacking someones argument (which is a BIGGIE i've noticed recently) and people personally involved with the issue (as seen by the recently friendly fire incident).

The mods do an awesome job at interjecting exactly when it's required.  
"Get back on topic or this will get locked."
 People however continue to derail a topic and the thread gets locked.  Thats not very much fun. We post on this forum because we love it, it's full of some expert opinion on all things military and it's a great place to discuss issues that are on the front page in the news. 
It's just very frustrating comming to this great site and not being able to contribute to these topics because they have been locked.

Instead of locking posts after mods give warnings, what about singleling out posters who continue to derail threads and simply stop them from either A) posting on that thread or B) stop them from posting on the forum for a few days.   Give them 2 days to relax, take a breath, let their emotions come down.  This way the remainder of us can still enjoy the threads and contributing.  If said person comes back after their 2 or 3 day break and just goes berserk (as we've seen done in the past) then give them a ban. No big loss.

It's annoying when someone with 40 posts and no profile information comes in, causes shit and gets an interesting thread locked. The thread ends up turning into an argument where everyone fights with this guy asking for his pers info and the thread topic gets forgotten.

The rest of us who are mature and able to control our emotions with a _few thousand posts_ and a few years on this site end up loosing out in the end. The shit disturber just ends up quitting w/mission accomplished. 

In no way am I critisizing the staff or their decisions to lock threads when they do, no doubt they've helped avoid many headaches.  
I am only suggesting an alternate course of action that punishes shit disturbers and not the remainder of army.ca posters

With respect
Ghost778/Grant


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (22 Jul 2006)

you can also PM the Mod who locked the thread and tell him why you feel it should be unlocked. We will unlock threads if warranted on a case by case basis.


----------



## muskrat89 (22 Jul 2006)

Ghost - PM inbound

Just a note to all - occasionally we get suggestions to deal with offenders on a one-on-one basis. I agree that would be more effective in some cases, but remember, it is usually more time consuming, and labour-intensive. We are all volunteers here, with real lives away from Army.ca


----------



## the 48th regulator (22 Jul 2006)

and that is a lock,



dileas

tess


----------



## 737pilot (2 Feb 2008)

Hi there,
I recently posted a question, and was promptly answered by a few of you.  Thanks for your help!  The topic was then locked, and I don't know what that means.  I have tried seaching the site for an answer, but was unsuccesful.  Can someone shed some light on this for me?  Just curious, that's all.  Thanks a lot.


----------



## midget-boyd91 (2 Feb 2008)

A locked topic is a thread that has been 'locked' by the site Moderators, for any number of reasons. Locked meaning there can't be anything new posted in the thread, unless it has been un-locked by the Moderators.

Midget


----------



## the 48th regulator (2 Feb 2008)

To save bandwith, and not allow threads to be highjacked, we Moderators lock the topic.

Any thread can be unlocked, if something relevent can be added, by asking any Mod.

And with that, this is a lock.

dileas

tess

army.ca staff


----------



## Loachman (2 Feb 2008)

Just to clarify Tess' remarks, it doesn't necessarily mean that you or any poster on the thread has done anything "wrong", only that the discussion has run its course or the question has been answered and there is no need for people to just ramble on. We like to keep a tidy shop here.


----------



## Reccesoldier (31 Mar 2008)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> This will just become another long drawn out battle of the opinions of religion, much like the one that was just locked.
> 
> Do we really need to drag another one out into the mud again??
> 
> ...



Well the locking of specific threads around here is a topic for other discussion.  Like why a topic such as the one you referred to, in which no-one was foaming at the mouth was summarily locked and yet in other topics the flame wars go on forever, get quite vitriolic and are never locked.


----------



## the 48th regulator (31 Mar 2008)

Reccesoldier said:
			
		

> Well the locking of specific threads around here is a topic for other discussion.  Like why a topic such as the one you referred to, in which no-one was foaming at the mouth was summarily locked and yet in other topics the flame wars go on forever, get quite vitriolic and are never locked.



Have you asked the Mod who locked it for his reasoning behind it?

dileas

tess


----------



## Reccesoldier (31 Mar 2008)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Have you asked the Mod who locked it for his reasoning behind it?
> 
> dileas
> 
> tess



I've asked the questions before.  I know the answer I'll get and it is just as unsatisfactory now as it was then.


----------



## the 48th regulator (31 Mar 2008)

Reccesoldier said:
			
		

> I've asked the questions before.  I know the answer I'll get and it is just as unsatisfactory now as it was then.



Do you have a solution?

Maybe that can help us to better moderate the threads, as opposed to just outright locking them.

dileas

tess


----------



## Reccesoldier (31 Mar 2008)

Ok.  since I have raised this before, what is it about certain threads that causes them to be locked but others go round and round the mulberry bush ad nauseum to the tune of 941 replies and are never locked?

Seems to me that there is an inequitable application of standards here.  Either all topics should be summed up at the point where the participants are chasing themselves in ever diminishing circles or none are.


----------



## aesop081 (31 Mar 2008)

Well, speaking for myself.....

I'm only doing this job in my spare time. When a thread catches my attention as going nowhere , i lock it. I dont have the time to read everything and be in every single thread. Also, my idea of what deserves a lock might be a little different that the other mods. We talk about as much as we can but sometimes its just not possible.

Reccesoldier, This isnt my full-time job and i'm not going to make everbody happy. If you think you can do better, i will give you my mod spot.


----------



## Yrys (31 Mar 2008)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Reccesoldier, This isnt my full-time job and i'm not going to make everbody happy. If you think you can do better, i will give you my mod spot.



Why not an internship's' mod  of a week for people that are dissatisfied  ^-^ ?


----------



## Reccesoldier (31 Mar 2008)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Well, speaking for myself.....
> 
> I'm only doing this job in my spare time. When a thread catches my attention as going nowhere , i lock it. I dont have the time to read everything and be in every single thread. Also, my idea of what deserves a lock might be a little different that the other mods. We talk about as much as we can but sometimes its just not possible.
> 
> Reccesoldier, This isnt my full-time job and i'm not going to make everbody happy. If you think you can do better, i will give you my mod spot.



That's not what I'm saying.  I don't want your spot, I am and have been a mod on other boards, I know what it entails.  

I guess I really don't want all threads to be locked at some point, I want no threads to be locked for no reason.   The antagonists in a thread will either give it up after a point or the subject will morph, like MCG's recent resurrection of the Accommodation thread.  

This is the only forum I am a member of that arbitrarily locks certain threads because mods see no point in continuing the discussion. Others with bandwidth concerns may conduct a prune, but as far as I know that isn't a problem here, and those sites that do do it resurrect ongoing subjects and archive the rest so that they can be restarted if necessary.

And yes, it is the fact that it is _certain_ threads and certain ones only that experience this attention that really pisses me off.


----------



## armyvern (31 Mar 2008)

Reccesoldier said:
			
		

> Ok.  since I have raised this before, what is it about certain threads that causes them to be locked but others go round and round the mulberry bush ad nauseum to the tune of 941 replies and are never locked?
> 
> Seems to me that there is an inequitable application of standards here.  Either all topics should be summed up at the point where the participants are chasing themselves in ever diminishing circles or none are.



I am also a volunteer.

Your chosen example is a highly debatable topic. It IS news ... you may not agree with Global Warming -- that does not render climate change irrelevant however. The debate will rage on from both sides.

Simply put, there is nothing to sum on on either side regarding that topic as of yet. Scientists on BOTH sides of the issue are still arguing it, so any new studies etc or discussion is worthy of posting. It may not be your particular topic of choice; if so, you have the choice to avoid the thread. Just as others do avoid threads which do not interest them.

For the most part, topics that find themselves locked pertain to policy etc. And, those will find themselves unlocked & then relocked if policy changes.

Some threads are locked as a result of their delving down to the personal insult level. Those topics are usually cleaned up & then unlocked again for relevant conversation.

Others are locked because the question orignally asked was of a specific nature, and when the answer is given ... it serves no other purpose.

Others that become locked are usually locked because there IS other threads running on the same issue. 

Would you rather us volunteers lock up the global warming thread so that a new one could be started this afternoon to post the results of yet another cities "results" for Earth Hour? You certainly won't be saving us mods any work if that's your thought. Because then we'd have to delve into 10 new and different global warming threads to wade through them. It also makes thing more difficult for new users when they get 20 or 30 results for their search -- only to find it locked. Guess what they are going to do? That's right. They'll start a new one. 

Then the mods look bad for invoking the "use the search function" or "read"; sometimes it really seems as if we can win for losing.

I do the best I can here on my free time, thank you very much. And, there's not a mod in here who doesn't attempt the same.

ArmyVern
The Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## McG (31 Mar 2008)

Personally, I do not close threads because I feel the discussion is complete.  If it is going nowhere that's fine.  Members can choose to participate or not.

If a thread is in a violent downward spiral, it gets locked.  If a question has been asked & answered somewhere else, then a link is posted and the thread is locked to consolidate discussion (or there is a thread merge).

I believe this it the typical approach here.  Am I wrong?


----------



## the 48th regulator (31 Mar 2008)

Reccesoldier said:
			
		

> That's not what I'm saying.  I don't want your spot, I am and have been a mod on other boards, I know what it entails.
> 
> I guess I really don't want all threads to be locked at some point, I want no threads to be locked for no reason.   The antagonists in a thread will either give it up after a point or the subject will morph, like MCG's recent resurrection of the Accommodation thread.
> 
> ...



So when the Moderator that has locked the thread states that anyone who has a post of relevence to add, may just PM that mod, you are in the belief that this is just fluff and no one should do anything?

As for pruning a thread, then we just feed the ones saying we are sanitizing and oppressing peoples views by deleting posts.

A double edge sword, wouldn't you agree?

dileas

tess


----------



## George Wallace (31 Mar 2008)

Reccesoldier said:
			
		

> Ok.  since I have raised this before, what is it about certain threads that causes them to be locked but others go round and round the mulberry bush ad nauseum to the tune of 941 replies and are never locked?
> 
> Seems to me that there is an inequitable application of standards here.  Either all topics should be summed up at the point where the participants are chasing themselves in ever diminishing circles or none are.



Ah!  The long drawn out "Global Warming" thread.  One reason it is so long is that many started up a number of similar Topics, all dealing with the same premises.  Once merged we have one mega thread.  The question now is, do you want one "Mega thread" or dozens of redundant threads?

I suppose we can do the same thing with all the Religious threads and put them all in Radio Chatter as "Mega Threads" so that they can spiral down whatever drains they want, and stay out of the main Forums.  It is getting rather tiresome having some newbie start up a thread on Religion, that we have already put to bed months/years earlier.


----------



## armyvern (31 Mar 2008)

Reccesoldier said:
			
		

> And yes, it is the fact that it is _certain_ threads and certain ones only that experience this attention that really pisses me off.



Let's have them then.

Which specific threads and why/why not should there be a lock in your view?

Hopefully, it's not just because you personnally feel the topic is irrelevant (like Global Warming) ... because there's a lot of others here who find it IS relevant.


----------



## Reccesoldier (31 Mar 2008)

MCG said:
			
		

> Personally, I do not close threads because I feel the discussion is complete.  If it is going nowhere that's fine.  Members can choose to participate or not.
> 
> If a thread is in a violent downward spiral, it gets locked.  If a question has been asked & answered somewhere else, then a link is posted and the thread is locked to consolidate discussion (or there is a thread merge).
> 
> I believe this it the typical approach here.  Am I wrong?



And this is all I'm asking for.  

I'm done with this.  This is almost word for word exactly the same reaction, I got the last time I brought up a thread that was arbitrarily locked.  

It's your play pen.  Have at it and run it as you see fit.  

I will not censor my displeasure about this kind of action when I see it in the open forum though, and I will not subject myself to a Mod dog pile in here either.


----------



## Michael OLeary (31 Mar 2008)

Reccesoldier said:
			
		

> That's not what I'm saying.  I don't want your spot, I am and have been a mod on other boards, I know what it entails.



I'm interested in better understanding your frame of reference.  Can you tell us how large the forums you monitored were, how broad their scope of subject matter was and what nature of topics were the hot-button subjects you had to deal with the most intractable user interactions?

Further, can you explain in detail exactly what methods you used to ensure that every Moderator used the same balanced approach that ensured that no threads were ever locked that you might disagree with the decision?


----------



## muskrat89 (31 Mar 2008)

I locked the religion thread last night, because I felt, personally - that is was getting heated, no progress was being made, and that it was destined to end up the same way all the other religion threads have ended up. As I said, it would be discussed in the CP (which it was). Also, I don't lock a lot of threads here, but when I do, I am always willing to consider a full re-open, or at the least - posting some additional information on behalf of a member. As stated, most of us don't read every single thread, most of us cannot moderate the exact same way, 100% of the time. Every thread is different, and we are all human.



> yet in other topics the flame wars go on forever, get quite vitriolic and are never locked



If that is the case, then a "Report to Moderator" should be initiated. Again, for the umpteenth time - there are 2 resolutions to Mod Ineffectiveness/Inappropriateness here: "Report to Mod", or a PM to Mike. Piping up in open "complaint" threads, is not one of the legitimate options, in my opinion. Yes, many of us do take it personally, when compalints are made in this way. Almost everything is discussed behind closed doors, and we are always trying to improve the way things are done. It irks me that people can pipe up from the peanut gallery, but don't have the huevos (or interest) to ask Mike via PM about the perceived shortcomings in moderation.


----------



## Michael OLeary (31 Mar 2008)

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> If that is the case, then a "Report to Moderator" should be initiated. Again, for the umpteenth time - there are 2 resolutions to Mod Ineffectiveness/Inappropriateness here: "Report to Mod", or a PM to Mike. Piping up in open "complaint" threads, is not one of the legitimate options, in my opinion. Yes, many of us do take it personally, when compalints are made in this way. Almost everything is discussed behind closed doors, and we are always trying to improve the way things are done. It irks me that people can pipe up from the peanut gallery, but don't have the huevos (or interest) to ask Mike via PM about the perceived shortcomings in moderation.



[Godwin's Law]

Personally, I feel that it all falls under some sort of presumption that everyone gets to have an opinion, except the Moderators.  When a Moderator makes any staff action or statement that crosses the expectations, beliefs, prejudices or wishes of any of the _18,443 Members_, then we can immediately be denounced as a virtual _Gestapo_ with impunity.

[/Godwin's Law]


----------



## armyvern (31 Mar 2008)

Reccesoldier said:
			
		

> And this is all I'm asking for.
> 
> I'm done with this.  This is almost word for word exactly the same reaction, I got the last time I brought up a thread that was arbitrarily locked.
> 
> ...



And I'm done with the "Mod Dogpile" crap.

YOU aksed a specific question TO the mods regarding an ADMIN action that WE take on this forum.

Each one of us who has responded has tried to give you the reasons that we personally utilize in determining whether to lock or not.

YOU asked. WE answered. 

That's NOT dogpiling, we are trying to answer YOUR question. Nice playpen huh? I was correct, sometimes we just can't win for losing. 

I'll take my rattle and go play with others who are willing to share. Because it seems that you want answers about MOD actions, you just don't want them from mods. That really doesn't seem like you're playing fair to me.


----------



## medaid (31 Mar 2008)

IMO... I've been here a few years, and I've been members of other forums as well. I willcompare military/LE/PMC/Operator forums to this one. 

I often think that we at milnet.ca are way too lenient on some of the users. The Mods are too nice and are often slow at times to ban or kick useless posters from this forum. I will give you an example from another forum which shall remain nameless, but if you belong there you'll know what I'm saying. This forums have majority of the Mods being mil/LE. They all know there stuff and doesn't suffer fools lightly, and I mean at all. The Mods rarely have to get involved in any of the discussions, and when they do it's because they are posting as a member. The atmosphere there is one of family, jovial and warm. I think the reason for that is because the members there police themselves. They are quick to help out people who seek info, and just as quick to destroy a useless thread. When the Mods ban someone they ban them swift, fast and often with one simple explanation. Cheats, fakes, liars and thieves do not survive there. They're rooted out and banned. I like that. It takes no time to establish yourself because we can all relate and the friendship extended is overwhelming. Now, how does that compare to milnet? The Mods are encumbered with the constant scrutiny from the masses, and never allowed to go about their business unhindered and unwatched. The thing that many members forget is that the Mods are not here to serve our individual needs, but rather the needs of our commnity. At the other forum I mentioned we're all mil/LE/ex-mil/LE. A few cicies but not many and the reason for that is because they're not really welcomed there. Their thought and ideals often clash with those of the members, and that's what gets them removed. Now, that's the community over there, but ours is different. We foster and teach and we allow questions to be posed,discussions to be had freely and openly even though some of us may not agree with the topics discussed or the membership of some of the poster, but that's what sets us appart from the other forums. We allow discussion and include the membership of the public, but we also moderate and control the content so that it doesn't get out of hand.

We at milnet.ca whine too much at times. Forgetting the big picture and how this community has brought many of us closer to our brothers and sisters. So what if the Mods seem overly harsh to you? They don't answer to you, they answer to the community and the site owner. If he's got no problems with the methods to which they're conducting their roles, why do you think you've got the need to criticize them for almost every single action that they take?

It's the internet folks. If you don't like it here, feel free to leave or find another forum.


----------



## Reccesoldier (31 Mar 2008)

I was just going to leave this mess alone, but I've realized that won't solve this to anyones satisfaction and besides, I never did understand the concept of "Discretion being the better part of valour" 

I am going to do this as dispassionately as possible and I would hope that those who wish to comment will do the same.

Here goes.



			
				the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> So when the Moderator that has locked the thread states that anyone who has a post of relevence to add, may just PM that mod, you are in the belief that this is just fluff and no one should do anything?
> 
> As for pruning a thread, then we just feed the ones saying we are sanitizing and oppressing peoples views by deleting posts.
> 
> ...



If you read what I wrote in regards to the pruning of threads you will see that I was talking about other site on which I am a moderator.  this site does not support itself with advertisements and therefore periodically a prune is done to archive inactive threads in order to save bandwidth.



			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Let's have them then.
> 
> Which specific threads and why/why not should there be a lock in your view?
> 
> Hopefully, it's not just because you personnally feel the topic is irrelevant (like Global Warming) ... because there's a lot of others here who find it IS relevant.



This topic http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/72459.0.html was closed because 





> I locked the religion thread last night, because I felt, personally - that is was getting heated, no progress was being made, and that it was destined to end up the same way all the other religion threads have ended up.


 22 minutes after this inflammatory post by NL_engineer. 





> Well as T6 said, after the US gained Independence they were faced with huge debt.  So with a 70 Mill debt in the 1700's how do you think their economy was?
> 
> I am still not seeing your point



Why?  because a mod thought 





> This thread is going 90 miles per hour down a dead-end street.


 but worse than that, it was a preemptive strike against a specific subject based on nothing more than a feeling.  Why is it that some topics like this one for example http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/71458.0.html can be managed with a warning and others get the preemptive boot?

With the complaints of Mods  concerned about how much effort it takes to properly moderate such a large site (which I agree with by the way) why on earth would you want to spend your time locking innocuous threads?

I guess I see the role of Mod as a policeman who watches and is bound to observe but can not legally act until the law is actually broken.



			
				Michael O`Leary said:
			
		

> I'm interested in better understanding your frame of reference.  Can you tell us how large the forums you monitored were, how broad their scope of subject matter was and what nature of topics were the hot-button subjects you had to deal with the most intractable user interactions?
> 
> Further, can you explain in detail exactly what methods you used to ensure that every Moderator used the same balanced approach that ensured that no threads were ever locked that you might disagree with the decision?



What are we going to play a game of my site is bigger than your site?  Tanknet, heard of it?  

Yes, basically to avoid arbitrary locking of threads each and every topic was allowed to die a natural death as the people in the forum lost interest.  Conversely if a topic morphed into another subject the new subject was split from the old one and the old one was permitted to die.  Also it was very rare that a topic got locked at all, the mods instead dealt with the individual causing the problem.  None of what I call the old army "Collective discipline" mentality.

So there you have it.  

I have a philosophical disagreement with locking a thread on a *discussion* board while *discussion* is ongoing.  When you stop to think about it that action makes no sense and is counterproductive to the purpose of a discussion forum in the first place.

There is a huge debate, possibly the most important debate going on in this country right now on freedom of speech.  Now I know and acknowledge that this site is privately owned and as such it is Mike's to do with and manage as he pleases but if we can't at least have open and complete dialog here, in a place where we all agree with that principal, what does that say about our commitment to free speech?

By the way muskrat89, I'm not trying to single anyone out here.  I too have a full time job (quiet you  ) and did not have the time or inclination to sort through all the posts it would have taken to make a more complete argument.

Oh, i will avail myself of the contact the Mod thingy more from now on.  That's a promise, and a threat.


----------



## the 48th regulator (31 Mar 2008)

Now,

Wouldn't you agree your views would have been better served here, as opposed to taking a swipe like;



			
				Reccesoldier said:
			
		

> Well the locking of specific threads around here is a topic for other discussion.  Like why a topic such as the one you referred to, in which no-one was foaming at the mouth was summarily locked and yet in other topics the flame wars go on forever, get quite vitriolic and are never locked.



On another thread?  Find a problem, present the solution at the same time.

dileas

tess


----------



## Fishbone Jones (31 Mar 2008)

Reccesoldier said:
			
		

> And this is all I'm asking for.
> 
> And you got your answer(s)
> 
> ...


----------



## Reccesoldier (31 Mar 2008)

Yes Dave, I can be an ass sometimes. There feel better.  :-*


----------



## Fishbone Jones (31 Mar 2008)

Reccesoldier said:
			
		

> Yes Dave, I can be an ass sometimes. There feel better.  :-*



I knew you'd feel the kindred spirit in all that


----------



## muskrat89 (31 Mar 2008)

Luckily I don't have to endure the (obvious) burden of being perfect.

I don't know why this seems to be such a difficult concept.



> Why?  because a mod thought
> Quote
> This thread is going 90 miles per hour down a dead-end street. EndQuote
> but worse than that, it was a preemptive strike against a specific subject based on nothing more than a feeling.



*So....* you type a PM to Mike, or hit "Report to Mod" and say "I don't understand why that thread was locked. It doesn't seem justified, examining the tone and content currently being presented in the thread"

Then.... Mike looks at it, or the other Mods (or even me), depending on which option you chose and say either "The lock was justified and it stands" or "You're right, we'll re-open it".

Since you seem to have no problem making this black and white while pointing in our direction, I don't understand why you are struggling with the solution, which is also black and white.


----------



## armyvern (31 Mar 2008)

All good Muskrat ...

As long as one realizes that for every 20 reports we get asking why a thread was locked ...

We probably recd 20 beforehand asking "Why the hell is this thread spiralling at 90 miles an hour and not locked yet?"

Don't presume that by using the "report" button, that things will occur the way you wish them too either. We get it from both sides -- and in end it always comes down to a judgement call.

We use our judgement as best as we can ... and make the best attempts that we can.

We'll never satisfy everyone, and in the end -- someone will be unhappy with what Admin action has been taken. I'm good with that. I'm far from perfect myself, so I'll just continue doing the best I can at whatever given time.


----------



## Michael OLeary (31 Mar 2008)

Reccesoldier said:
			
		

> What are we going to play a game of my site is bigger than your site?  Tanknet, heard of it?



Thank you for your open-minded willingness to continue a line of discussion *you *brought forward in an attempt to further *your *own case.  Since you found it more appropriate to dismiss and deflect my inquiry, I will just assume you have nothing useful to offer on that tangent.


----------



## Reccesoldier (31 Mar 2008)

Michael O`Leary said:
			
		

> Thank you for your open-minded willingness to continue a line of discussion *you *brought forward in an attempt to further *your *own case.  Since you found it more appropriate to dismiss and deflect my inquiry, I will just assume you have nothing useful to offer on that tangent.



Why don't you read what I wrote!!!!



> Quote from: Michael O`Leary on Today at 12:31:59
> I'm interested in better understanding your frame of reference.  Can you tell us how large the forums you monitored were, how broad their scope of subject matter was and what nature of topics were the hot-button subjects you had to deal with the most intractable user interactions?
> 
> Further, can you explain in detail exactly what methods you used to ensure that every Moderator used the same balanced approach that ensured that no threads were ever locked that you might disagree with the decision?



To which I replied


> What are we going to play a game of my site is bigger than your site?  Tanknet, heard of it?
> 
> *Yes, basically to avoid arbitrary locking of threads each and every topic was allowed to die a natural death as the people in the forum lost interest.  Conversely if a topic morphed into another subject the new subject was split from the old one and the old one was permitted to die.  Also it was very rare that a topic got locked at all, the mods instead dealt with the individual causing the problem.  None of what I call the old army "Collective discipline" mentality.*



This is truly telling.  3 comments on previous comments I made and apologized for, and one that willfully ignores the answer that was asked for in a futile attempt to intimidate/castigate me, and not a single solitary admission or even an attempt to discuss that the self professed "overworked" staff, in closing topics that are "going nowhere" and do not have ongoing flame wars are essentially making work for themselves and tilting at windmills.

Wow.

You asked for an answer, I gave it to you and I admitted that I'd been an *** but you just won't let it go. And you won't even discuss any of the suggestions you asked for 

Play on boys and girls I'm done!!!


----------



## muskrat89 (31 Mar 2008)

> that by wasting their time closing topics that are "going nowhere" and do not have ongoing flame wars they are essentially making work for themselves and tilting at windmills.



Says you. Obviously, Mike (the guy that owns this site) doesn't agree. By the way, I indicated that we are not above re-considering how we do things, or even locking/unlocking threads. My point is that there is a mechanism to bring it to our attention. That's all. That, to me - is an "admission".


----------



## Reccesoldier (31 Mar 2008)

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> Says you. Obviously, Mike (the guy that owns this site) doesn't agree. By the way, I indicated that we are not above re-considering how we do things, or even locking/unlocking threads. My point is that there is a mechanism to bring it to our attention. That's all. That, to me - is an "admission".



Point taken. I missed you admission, just as it seems you missed the fact that I already stated prior to your referenced post that I would bring it up with the mod the next time a thread is locked for what I see as no good reason.

Even?


----------



## muskrat89 (31 Mar 2008)

Even.  

Pinky-shake?


----------



## Yrys (31 Mar 2008)

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> Pinky-shake?



I'll need a civilian (or francophone) translation toward that, gentleman   .


----------



## Reccesoldier (31 Mar 2008)

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> Even.
> 
> Pinky-shake?



Naw, we'll just call it a do-over.  ;D


----------



## armyvern (31 Mar 2008)

Reccesoldier said:
			
		

> Why don't you read what I wrote!!!!
> 
> To which I replied
> This is truly telling.  3 comments on previous comments I made and apologized for, and one that willfully ignores the answer that was asked for in a futile attempt to intimidate/castigate me, *and not a single solitary admission that the self professed "overworked" staff  that by wasting their time closing topics that are "going nowhere" and do not have ongoing flame wars they are essentially making work for themselves and tilting at windmills.*



Why don't YOU read what I (or other mods) wrote!!??

This "overworked" volunteer staff member is tired of YOUR self-righteous posts which seemingly infer that you can do our jobs better than we can. Why don't you come on in and give us a hand and fix 'er all up??

Word up --- there's a HUGE difference between working with 18000 users in a forum which sees hundreds of new posts a day in hundreds of threads, whether YOU want to admit that or not.

As to the bold bit of your post (my emphasis), I suggest that you go back and review one of my previous responses to you ... I (and other mods) have already TOLD why we lock topics --- and it isn't only because they've run their course <--- that is actually one of the very minor reasons why they are locked around here. Perhaps you should swallow your own advice ...

and start reading.

And, from now on, if you want to ask an Admin question but DO NOT want responses from ADMINS (or more than one of them), lest you claim "dog pile" when we answer, then don't be childish and start up a new thread. PM a mod, or better yet, the site owner. Or does that not garner enough attention?? Play on Reccesoldier. Just as you'd have us play on.  :

Mark the week on your calendars ladies & gentlemen. It's that time ... and this bit of a childish thread started asking for mod input but crying foul when he gets it --- is EXACTLY the kind of useless thread that'd I'd love to see locked.

Hope you feel better now with whatever your intentions were. Have fun in the playpen. Feel free to pick up the slack and start helping users yourself ... instead of bitching about the shitty job you seem to think we mods are doing. Your last post and the italicized "self professed overworked mods" seems to infer that your belief is that we do nothing around here except exist to piss yours truely off. Well, if you think we've got it so easy, and no work -- what's stopping you from joining us?? Congrats on that. Plug away. I'll refer users to your humble expertize and sound judgment from now on. Be prepared for the influx:



> Hey, ArmyVern, you have 1202 messages, 0 are new.



No pinky shake coming from me.


----------



## Reccesoldier (31 Mar 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Why don't YOU read what I (or other mods) wrote!!??
> 
> This "overworked" volunteer staff member is tired of YOUR self-righteous posts which seemingly infer that you can do our jobs better than we can. Why don't you come on in and give us a hand and fix 'er all up??



I already told you I didn't want it.  What's the matter I answer questions and people think I mean the opposite?  I use the english language very specifically.



> Word up --- there's a HUGE difference between working with 18000 users in a forum which sees hundreds of new posts a day in hundreds of threads, whether YOU want to admit that or not.



Yo homie! as I have already stated I am a MOD on a site just as big and just as active as this one. Whether YOU want to admit that or not.



> As to the bold bit of your post (my emphasis), I suggest that you go back and review one of my previous responses to you ... I (and other mods) have already TOLD why we lock topics --- and it isn't only because they've run their course <--- that is actually one of the very minor reasons why they are locked around here. Perhaps you should swallow your own advice ...
> 
> and start reading.



And I acknowledge the reason and the appropriateness of the staffs actions but dealing SPECIFICALLY with the issue which I have been raising here IE the locking of innocuous threads, fer gods sake WHY WASTE YOUR TIME!!!!



> And, from now on, if you want to ask an Admin question but DO NOT want responses from ADMINS (or more than one of them), lest you claim "dog pile" when we answer, then don't be childish and start up a new thread.


  

Please note I NEVER started a thread on this topic, check your facts Vern.  48th regulator reopened this with a comment I made in another topic when he mentioned shutting down the religious accomodation thread.



> Mark the week on your calendars ladies & gentlemen. It's that time ... and this bit of a childish thread started asking for mod input but crying foul when he gets it --- it EXACTLY the kind of useless thread that'd I'd love to see locked.
> 
> Hope you feel better now with whatever your intentions were. Have fun in playpen. Feel free to pick up the slack and start helping users yourself ... instead of bitching about the shitty job you seem to think we mods are doing. Congrats on that. Plug away. I'll refer users to your humble expertize and sound judgment from now on.
> 
> No pinky shake coming from me.



Cry me a river Vern I feel like swimming.  I'll have you know, just for the record and just so that the facts don't get lost in the shrill I have never said that the Mods do a shitty job.  

I know exactly what a thankless job it is but hey.  I made a comment, I have since admitted that not only did I go out of my lane and not only did I not make my complaint known in the proper manner but that my specific complaint was misconstrued as an overall attack on the moderation of this site, and that was NEVER my intent. 

However, an interesting side note.  Since this has started I've received 4 PM's from other users on this site complaining about their own experiences with the mods, about their own frustration with the locking of topics and get this, most of them have complained through the chain, but alas, the quiet complaint, the one that no-one ever sees but the complainer is the easiest to dismiss as "whining" or "bitching".

And since the problem seems to remain, one can only infer that it was never rectified.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (31 Mar 2008)

Now, if someone doesn't think this has dead ended, they can send their comments to a mod for inclusion. Now it's just neighbors yelling over the fence IMHO.

So.............

Locked.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------

