Locking posts-parting comments

[Yrys]

You deserve a break from all the shenanigans we mods cook up for you as it is!

OR the mods need to take cooking lessons  > !

Seriously, thought, even if I'm sometime annoyed at some parting comments by a mod, that may or may not have realised that the tread was locked,
I tend to look at it as a "sidebenefit" of their volunteered job ...

Seems to me that all volunteering job should have a side benefit, however light it may be.

 

[armyvern]

I agree,

Can we quantify the amount of times this has happened?

dileas

tess

When "quantifying", can we also break down the percentage of times that it was an intentional post after a lock vice an oversight on our part when not realizing the thread had been locked?

Mike, besides his programming skills, will have to be utilizing his ESP to figure this one out I fear. Is it really worth the effort? I'd say not.

Rather, I agree that mods should refrain from intentionally entering a locked thread to impart a "parting shot" when the recipients of that shot are precluded from responding by virtue of that lock; that, quite simply, is NOT playing nice. That should solve the problem.

 

[George Wallace]

In all fairness, when Topics are "LOCKED" and a Mod has posted after the Lock has been applied; just check the time of the post that was being made.  I have found myself guilty of posting after a Lock, as in the amount of time it was taking me to word a post, some other Moderator has compiled a post and applied a Lock, just as I was hitting the Post button.  On several occassions when a Topic has really been "HOT", there have been several Mods posting, one of which may have applied a LOCK.  The end result being, several Mods posting replies within seconds of a Topic being 'Locked'. 

Would the membership now want the Mods to go back and DELETE their posts, or leave them stand?





[PS.  I didn't post in a Topic that someone "LOCKED".  ;D ]

 

[Yrys]

Would the membership now want the Mods to go back and DELETE their posts, or leave them stand?

For some, it would depend on which mod post or the subject or the nature of the post.

For me it would depend of the lapse of time in between the lock, the post, and the realisation there was a lock.
Also, did the mod choose a side in the post, did it had arguments, did it explain the reason(s) of the lock ?

If the delete option get choose, does it mean that mods can't posts past lock, while members might get a message post,
if a mod agree to it ?

  I have found myself guilty of posting after a Lock, as in the amount of time it was taking me to word a post, some other Moderator has compiled a post and applied a Lock, just as I was hitting the Post button. 

Would it improve things if as soon as a mod decide to lock a topic, s/he post "LOCK" then come back and modified the post to reflect why ?
Some mods explain in rather long post why, while some other people may be in the process of typing. So by accelerating the process,
would the frustrated people be reduced in number, and mods aware faster ?

... and the first mod to post in a locked topic get the job to police others mods  >

 

[zipperhead_cop]

How about a compromise?  If the topic is locked "cleanly" by the non-involved mod, then it is done.  If there are a cascade of mod posts after the topic is locked, thus barring the rest of us from replying to anything that was brought up then I would leave it up to the individual mod to either remove their own post, or be obliged to leave the topic open for rebuttal.  I think that would avoid the frustration some of us have felt from the perception of an "enforced one way conversation". 

 

[Jarnhamar]

How about a compromise?  If the topic is locked "cleanly" by the non-involved mod, then it is done.  If there are a cascade of mod posts after the topic is locked, thus barring the rest of us from replying to anything that was brought up then I would leave it up to the individual mod to either remove their own post, or be obliged to leave the topic open for rebuttal.  I think that would avoid the frustration some of us have felt from the perception of an "enforced one way conversation". 

This is what I attempted to say with my previous thread about locking threads.

 

[Greymatters]

Shouldnt this thread be merged with the previous topic that was locked?  It sounds like the same discussion but just in a new direction...

Personally I look at the Mod getting in the last word as no worse than any other 'perk'; work hard, argue fair, put in long hours, and you too can get the same bonus as part of your work.  Considering who some of the people are that cause the lockups, better the Mods get the last word than some intellectual monkeys causing most of the problems... 

 

[the 48th regulator]

Cleaned and merged.

Again, I reiterate, a quantification of the amount of times this has happened to those that have not would help the discussions.

Let us be candid here, it is impossible for Mike to electronically do this, but I challenge anyone to find a comparison where the post by Mods after locks, greatly overwhelms that are left alone.

You would agree that the post after the lock is very rare, and most times they were unintentional or valid.

Show me a thread, or for that matter, a unbiased slant of threads where Mods have abused their authority and posted after the fact.  If you can prove this is a rampant action, then I believe this is cause for debate.  If you find some that was done in error, or added to the lock, then that defeats your reason to start the thread.

However, if you have found valid reason that this is rampant, by all means show the locked threads.

dileas

tess

 

[Greymatters]

Fast work on that merge!


In the end, its safe to say the lock/post is being made much too big a deal of...

 

[Kat Stevens]

Seems to me the "did not!"  kids are making it a much bigger deal than the "did so!" kids.  But I'll shut up now, I've already made a huge fuss about this, evidently.

 

[zipperhead_cop]

I've already made a huge fuss about this, evidently.

No you didn't. 


;D

 

[Kat Stevens]

Why, I oughta.....

 

[Nfld Sapper]

 

[Blackadder1916]

The system doesn't differentiate a post made after a lock from one made before a lock. I suppose if I wanted to get really fancy I could tally up the number of locked threads where the last two posts were from moderators. Then compare that result to the overall total of locked posts. It wouldn't be a completely accurate count and probably a bear to figure out, but would be as close as we could come.

If I find I've run out of productive things to do I may give it a try.

As I've had an otherwise nonproductive day, I've taken a half-assed approach to the question of how often.  A search using the word "LOCKED" and restricting it to 100 days yielded 5 pages on which I found 83 topics which had been locked.  An examination of those topics came up with the following numbers.

Number of topics with a posting by the locking DS after he had locked it. -  2 (one of these topics also had 2 add-on posts by non-DS)
Number of topics with a posting by another DS after it had been locked. -  8  (Two of these topics had multiple added-on posts, one with 4 posts, one with 2 posts)
Number of topics with a posting by a non-DS after it had been locked. -  2

(In my opinion) While some of the posts by the locking DS did contain comments that may have been viewed as a "shot across the bow" by someone with a very thin skin and a room temperature IQ, none were what I would consider a true "parting shot".  Most of the post-lock comments by other DS were usually additional (factual) information or an reiteration of DS frustration with the idiot of the moment.  Only one of the additional posts by other DS did not (again in my opinion) add anything of value to the discussion or could not reasonably be considered a true moderator comment.

The numbers quoted are definitely not accurate as the search did not produce a topic in which I posted a comment after the DS had locked it. (It was temporarily opened following my request by PM.)  In reviewing that topic found the DS did not use the word "locked" in his post closing it down.  As this is only a half-assed analysis, I did an additional search using the phrase "Milnet.ca Staff" which had 93 locked topics; looked much like a total overlap with my "locked" search with just a few additions.  My numbers above probably won't change much.

 

[Kat Stevens]

Edited:  Original thought removed, I just really don't have the energy

 

[Blackadder1916]

Ah, I see, so noticing something, and mentioning it in passing, grants me a tepid intelligence in your estimation.  Thanks awfully, other than my kids, nobody's assumed I'm an idiot all day, and i was starting to get a complex.

Actually, no.  When I began reading this topic, I agreed with your supposition about DS.  Now I think that it doesn't happen as often as I previously thought.
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/72198/post-690777.html#msg690777

My only real beef with thread locking, is that frequently 3 or 4 DS get to pile on after the lock.

More than once I thought that the posting to a locked thread by DS was "bad form" even if it did not include a dig at someone with whom they had been jousting.  I still think so.  Even an eloquent "reiteration of DS frustration" could be considered just "+1" after a fellow DS has closed the thread.  My previous post included only my opinion of comments made in the locked threads I reviewed and were not aimed at any specific individuals.  My review was focused mainly on the jist of the post-locking comments and I did not review those threads in their entirety to see all who were involved.  But of those that I followed in the normal course of visiting this site, many seemed to be in conjunction with threads heavily inundated with posts from seemingly young, inexperienced, brash individuals who may have just enough education to make them think they know something important.  Unfortunately some of these come from (are still attending) an institute of higher learning heavily subsidized by the federal government.

Though it has been explained that DS are not hampered by the lock when posting into a locked thread, do they not encounter the notice that a post (or X number of posts) have been made while they were drafting their latest.  I know I always stop and read what was added before I hit the post button again (or decide that I was too slow, my post unnecessary or in need of editing).  Perhaps the DS, on deciding that they must continue, should acknowledge the lock in place with a statement in their post.

 

[George Wallace]

Though it has been explained that DS are not hampered by the lock when posting into a locked thread, do they not encounter the notice that a post (or X number of posts) have been made while they were drafting their latest.  I know I always stop and read what was added before I hit the post button again (or decide that I was too slow, my post unnecessary or in need of editing).  Perhaps the DS, on deciding that they must continue, should acknowledge the lock in place with a statement in their post.

Often the DS have more than one window open, and perhaps another computer as well.  Often after doing a Spell Check, I hit "POST" and flip to another screen.  I often have to go back and hit Post again, as while I was posting, several others were also and beat me to the punch.  Last night I hit "Post" at least three times on one of my posts.  I found one still sitting awaiting, fifteen minutes after I hit "Post" and switched to another screen due to just that fact.  We try to keep it "honest" as best we can, but sometimes circumstances don't permit.

 

[Kat Stevens]

Perhaps "frequently" was an incorrect way to put it, in retrospect.  Let's just say that it has been done before, and some with a little vitriol behind them.  I seem to come off as some kind of malcontent at times, I guess, purely not my intent.  If I see something, I sometimes feel the need to comment, consequences be buggered.  Anyone who served with me will verify that, it's the reason I was a Cpl for life.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I can't believe this thing is stil running. If there's something you don't like, hit the 'Report to Mod' button for cripes sake. We'll look at it and take care of it.

I guess this is just turning into another of those 'damn Mod threads'. If I hadn't posted this and joined the fray, it'd be locked right now.

 

[Michael OLeary]

As I've had an otherwise nonproductive day, I've taken a half-assed approach to the question of how often.  A search using the word "LOCKED" and restricting it to 100 days yielded 5 pages on which I found 83 topics which had been locked.  An examination of those topics came up with the following numbers.

Number of topics with a posting by the locking DS after he had locked it. -  2 (one of these topics also had 2 add-on posts by non-DS)
Number of topics with a posting by another DS after it had been locked. -  8  (Two of these topics had multiple added-on posts, one with 4 posts, one with 2 posts)
Number of topics with a posting by a non-DS after it had been locked. -  2

So, 10, maybe 15, threads given the unscientific nature of the stats above?  Call it 15.

http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php?action=stats

Average topics per day:  27.96

100 days = 2796 new topics during the same time frame (not counting those that had been started before the "0 day" point.

Possibly 15 locks with follow-on staff posts out of 2796 possible threads - 0.54 %

Shall we next examine who the presumed targets of the staff vitriol were, to see if there are trends there that should be brought to light and debated as well, or are we preuming these were all just random acts of violence by the staff?