Start it up, don't like it, shut it down???

1.4k · October 7, 2003

I was wondering why the person who starts a thread can have the thread shut down.

As the starter of a thread, should I be allowed, after initiating the discussion, to be able to shut it down if I don't like the way that the discussion is heading? Seems to me that if something is worth discussing in a public forum, unless it's gone completely off topic, it should not be at the mercy of a person who may not be willing to let it run it's course.

This is not an attempt to complain about the way this site is run, I'm just curious about the logic behind this policy.

Why is the post that starts a thread different than any other post in that thread?

*****

[This message was edited by Jomarac5 on October 07, 2003 at 11:26 PM.]

1.6k · October 7, 2003

I believe in self moderation first. When a heated topic has run it's course, it's no use leaving it open...

(Your presumption that some people 'don't like the way that the discussion is heading' is narrow minded. That was not why I requested my previous topic to be closed, which is what obviously prompted you to AGAIN raise this issue.)

9.4k · October 7, 2003

I agree with the, 'The question was answered, no need to continue' reason for closing a thread.

I don't agree with, 'The discussion is not going the way I wanted, so close the thread' reason for closing it.

Amazing, Jomarac, we actually agree on something!

Took sun from sky, left world in eternal darkness

1.3k · October 7, 2003

I was wondering why more admins don't give a warning post first. (Some do. Thank you guys. )

[This message was edited by Bloencustoms on March 32, 1999 at 25:60 PM]

2.3k · October 7, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Bloencustoms:
I was wondering why more admins don't give a warning post first. (Some do. Thank you guys. )

[This message was edited by Bloencustoms on March 32, 1999 at 25:60 PM]

Warnings are given where needed. This was not closed for reasons other than a request. no warning was needed. There are those that have been given so many warnings that no more are needed fo those people and no I wont name names. if this thread starts to go sour I will close it. consider this your warning.

CO Admin

I work for the QOFE that works for the Frog

The Frog is my friend

1.4k · October 7, 2003

quote:
CO Admin wrote:
The logic is simple, the owner of the thread asked for it to be closed. I complied. Whats more logical thank that. If you request it I would be happy to close this one for you.

Whoa!!! I'm not referring to any specific thread (although the thread you are referring to, does fall under the scope of this question).

Thanks for the quick reply, but your response doesn't address the question that I asked:

What is the logic behind the starter of a thread being able to have it closed?

*****

1.6k · October 7, 2003

Considering that the person who started this thread is trolling, of what more use is this discussion?

1.4k · October 7, 2003

quote:
Zuuk wrote:
Considering that the person who started this thread is trolling, of what more use is this discussion?

Definitely not trolling. Just asking a legitimate question and seeing what the response is of the community.

*****

1.3k · October 7, 2003

CO Admin,

I was referring to my IP thread. I get home from work, begin to read all of the posts since I viewed it last, and when I click the reply button, it tells me the thread is locked. There was still some actual discussion going on, despite the individual bickering. I believe you were absolutely correct that the bickering needed to stop. But I regret not being able to respond to some of the (discussion) posts.

[This message was edited by Bloencustoms on March 32, 1999 at 25:60 PM]

1.6k · October 7, 2003

Last post for now:

quote:
Start it up, don't like it, shut it down???

You presume I didn't like the way the Captain Urchin thread was going AND that that was why I asked for it to be closed. You started a topic before about a similar situation where I asked for a thread I started to be closed.

You are trolling.

1.4k · October 7, 2003

OK Zuuk, you've mentioned that already and I replied that it wasn't the case. If you continue to acuse me of trolling, I'll have to assume that you are making an attempt to close *this* thread because you don't like the topic.

If it bothers you that much, then don't reply to it. I welcome you to join in this discussion, but please keep your responses on topic. Thanks.

*****

2.3k · October 7, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Bloencustoms:
CO Admin,

I was referring to my IP thread. I get home from work, begin to read all of the posts since I viewed it last, and when I click the reply button, it tells me the thread is locked. There was still some actual discussion going on, despite the individual bickering. I believe you were absolutely correct that the bickering needed to stop. But I regret not being able to respond to some of the (discussion) posts.

[This message was edited by Bloencustoms on March 32, 1999 at 25:60 PM]

I understand, it is terrible when some peoples actions have to affect the whole group. Already its starting again in this thread. I am Sorry that the thread was closed with out notice, however there was notihng you could have done to correct the situation if a warning was issued.

CO Admin

I work for the QOFE that works for the Frog

The Frog is my friend

1.4k · October 7, 2003

Actually, Bloencustoms thread doesn't fall under the topic of is discussion -- that thread was not shut down by the person who started it, it was shut down by an admin (and this is not a discussion about admins closing threads).

CO Admin, perhaps you could shed some light on the logic behind someone who starts a thread to be able to have it closed?

*****

1.3k · October 7, 2003

I think the title of this thread is the best explanation. The person who creates it can shut it down for any reason. ("Don't like it" is a reason.)

[This message was edited by Bloencustoms on March 32, 1999 at 25:60 PM]

1.4k · October 7, 2003

quote:
Bloencustoms wrote:
The person who creates it can shut it down for any reason. ("Don't like it" is a reason.)

But this doesn't explain the logic behind the ability for the thread starter to close it.

*****

1.6k · October 7, 2003

Yawn

1.4k · October 7, 2003

quote:
Zuuk wrote:
Yawn

Not the same thing Zuuk.

Completely different topic -- this thread asks the reasoning and logic for the thread starter to be able to close it.

*****

2.3k · October 7, 2003

It's part of the site rules....logic doesn't have to enter into it.

Remember, wherever you go- there you are!

2.3k · October 7, 2003

Ok last time Jomarac5 the logic is simple, the problem is you do not like the answer and you seem to thank that if you keep asking the answer will change.

I work for the QOFE that works for the Frog

The Frog is my friend

October 7, 2003

I had a private topic thread a couple of weeks ago, with the objective of developing a multi-stage cache with clues provided by participants. Once we were finished, I closed the thread.

I don't like the idea of a person starting a thread and then closing it when there still is active discussion going on -- seems like a cheap way to get out of a discussion.

Are there some specific examples where that has occurred, or is this all hypothetical?

October 7, 2003

No offense meant here, but since this thread is really between two people why don't you start a private thread and take the gloves of to sort it out once and for all?

1.4k · October 7, 2003

quote:
CO Admin wrote:
Ok last time Jomarac5 the logic is simple, the problem is you do not like the answer and you seem to think that if you keep asking the answer will change.

Actually, it's not a matter of not liking the answer, I'm not getting an answer.

*****

October 7, 2003

For the same reason the person who places a cache can archive it I guess. Your thread, your choice.

If someone else wants to continue the discussion they can start their own thread. As locked threads aren't deleted and anyone can start a new thread (where they could link to the locked thread if they liked) I don't really see what the problem is.

________________________

What is caches precious?

October 7, 2003

I am sorry, I know this IS off topic, but I have been "away" from the forums awhile.

Since my return, I see some disturbing changes in the atmosphere. Some old familiar names, which always had a great sense of humor and a wonderful perception of things are no longer present.

I see some new "faces" that seem to bear grudges and throw about a "because I said so"

attitude.

Now, I MIGHT be totally off base, but Canadazuuk, you seem to be on a permanent whine-fest. If you can't enjoy these forums without nit-picking others comments and feel they are all directed at you, why dont ya can the snot and sell it somewhere else?

By the way, my comment IS directed at you, so take the offense.

TO all those who will suffer at the closing of this thread due to my comments, I apologize.

I will look no more at these controversial topics, because I end up irritated rather than relaxed. I'll search out the one or two light-hearted, uplifting threads which seem to be rare nowadays.

Guess I'm doen with this pointless ramble after my unprovoked maligning of another forum goer. Later all.

Two roads diverged in the woods and I,

I took the one less traveled,

and that is how I found the cache.

1.6k · October 7, 2003

Thank you. Your opinion has been received. While your audience of three or four get a laugh, I get a few more points.

J5 started his topic immediately after a topic I had started was closed by request. This topic therefore, is aimed at me, despite what you think, and J5 tries to deny.

quote:
Originally posted by Captain Chaoss:

Guess I'm doen with this pointless ramble after my unprovoked maligning of another forum goer.

This is precisely what I am NOT doing. My response to this topic is genuine. If you cannot correlate my thread closing with J5 starting this thread, then you should have another look at the facts.

[This message was edited by canadazuuk on October 07, 2003 at 04:56 PM.]

October 7, 2003

If I could lock this thread I would.

hint hint

October 7, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Xitron:
No offense meant here, but since this thread is really between two people why don't you start a private thread and take the gloves of to sort it out once and for all?

You know what Xitron, I was thinking the same thing.

Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.

October 7, 2003

It seems that a lot of forums other than GC have the same ability and I, too, have often wondered at the logic behind it. I think it could easily be abused by users posting controversial statements and/or opinions and then closing the thread before anyone can debate the statements or, as was stated, if the original poster didn't like the responses they were getting.

On the other hand, it could also be useful in situations were someone starts a thread with a legitimate topic worthy of discussion, such as the logic behind a particular policy or feature, and someone else immediately hijacking the thread by launching personal attacks accusing the poster of being a "troll" and "narrow-minded" or claiming that the discussion is "useless" and a "yawn".

At that point, the thread is worthy of locking and asking the admins to deal with the attacker.

But that's only my opinion.

__________

Gorak

1.6k · October 7, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by hikemeister:

Are there some specific examples where that has occurred, or is this all hypothetical?

1.4k · October 7, 2003

quote:
hikemeister wrote:
I don't like the idea of a person starting a thread and then closing it when there still is active discussion going on -- seems like a cheap way to get out of a discussion.

Exactly my point!

I'm just trying to understand the logic behind the person that starts a thead to be able to close it -- seems to me that if you ask the question, you should be prepared to accept the answer that is given -- not get in a snit and say "Well, I don't want to talk about it anymore, I'm shutting this topic down". There is no regard for those who might wish to continue with the discussion -- doesn't seem quite right to me considering that we're talking about public forums where the opinions of others are encouraged to be shared.

I'm just trying to establish some viable reasoning as to why the person who began the topic can shut it off if they don't like or agree with what is being discussed.

*****

October 7, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Jomarac5:
I'm just trying to establish some viable reasoning as to why the person who began the topic can shut it off if they don't like or agree with what is being discussed.

Because it the rules. The logic is irrelevant.

__________

Gorak

2.3k · October 7, 2003

Let me put it into the simplest terms.

BECAUSE THEY CAN, there is no policy thats says they cant.

thank you

I work for the QOFE that works for the Frog

The Frog is my friend

spelling edit

October 7, 2003

canadazuuk, contrary to your opinion,I am not seeking a laugh, nor was it meant for my "audience of 3 or 4 " ?!?!?

I menat what I said to you, and since my wife has read the responses, and given her blessing, I will say what I truly wanted to at first anyway : Go take some Midol and a hot bath so the rest of us may talk. When your able to communicate without such childish replies as YAWN and TROLL, come away from the kids table and speak like an adult.

Two roads diverged in the woods and I,

I took the one less traveled,

and that is how I found the cache.

2.3k · October 7, 2003

QOFE??

sigh...just notice I have more posts than finds now..... I have GOT to get out and find some soon (if I ever find the time).

Remember, wherever you go- there you are!

1.6k · October 7, 2003

Have you read the 'yawn' link Captain?

October 7, 2003

I guess it is a good thing that I never had to be in the military, and perhaps a reason I ended up becoming a scientist --

I hate answers like "because it is the rule" or "because that is how we always have done it," etc. When I get an answer like that, it suggests that the person doesn't really have a good defense for their point of view.

Gorak -- definately not attempting to single you out here -- you just happened to post a statement that I have heard before and dislike.

1.4k · October 7, 2003

quote:
CO Admin wrote:
BECASUE THEY CAN, there is no policy thats says they cant.

WOW. That reply will sure open up an awful lot of interesting discussion in other places.

Look, I'm not asking if it is or is not a policy. I'm not asking if it is right or wrong. I'm asking for someone to explain the logic to me. I'm having a difficult time coming up with a reason for the thread starter to be able to close a thead that makes any sort of reasonable sense.

So far, no one has even made an attempt to explain the logic behind this. My question is yet unanswered.

*****

1.4k · October 7, 2003

quote:
hikemeister wrote:

Are there some specific examples where that has occurred, or is this all hypothetical?

Of course there are examples of this, but so that no one thinks that this question is pointed towards them, let's just consider this to be a hypothetical question to some not so hypothitical threads.

*****

October 7, 2003

OK, I thought about it -- there is no logic. If a thread bothers someone, they can just stop responding, and eventually it will slide away to page 2....3.....etc.

1.3k · October 7, 2003

What is wrong with a person having the ability to close a thread? If the discussion turns to a complete attack fest where they posted something no one agrees with, closing it just makes sense. If everyone is already in agreement, there is nothing left to discuss. I see no reason why umpteen people need to reiterate the completely polarized opinions of previous posts. Sure, it might be fun to gang up on some people, (for some) but it's just cruel to remove their only means of "escape".

[This message was edited by Bloencustoms on March 32, 1999 at 25:60 PM]

October 7, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by hikemeister:
Gorak -- definately not attempting to single you out here -- you just happened to post a statement that I have heard before and dislike.

It was sarcasm. It's a weakness.

__________

Gorak

2.3k · October 7, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Jomarac5:

quote:
CO Admin wrote:
BECASUE THEY CAN, there is no policy thats says they cant.

WOW. That reply will sure open up an awful lot of interesting discussion in other places.

Look, I'm not asking if it is or is not a policy. I'm not asking if it is right or wrong. I'm asking for someone to explain the logic to me. I'm having a difficult time coming up with a reason for the thread starter to be able to close a thead that makes any sort of reasonable sense.

So far, no one has even made an attempt to explain the logic behind this. My question is yet unanswered.

*****

OK. I'll go for it. I liken a thread to a conversation. The first post is the opening statement. All the other posts are replies counter replies etc. Just like in a conversation at some point I may choose not to take any further part in it - for whatever reason. That conversation would then be over as I as the starter of the conversation have decided it to be- that is the point at which on here I would close the thread. Now if there are other interested parties they can continue the conversation (thread) but it would be a different one as I am not there. In other words a new conversation (thread) needs to be started.

Not much admittedly but all I got.

Flame on.

Remember, wherever you go- there you are!

October 7, 2003

Jomorac5,

Interesting question. My first thought is that it doesn't bother me at all, but since you were asking for logic instead of feelings, here's an attempt:

Remember the Do You Read the Forums thread? You started it to see how many people hit the forums on a given week. When the week had passed, it was closed, because a week's worth of polling was adequate for you. Perhaps others would have liked to continue the TPBM part, or perhaps others would have rather seen how many people visited in, say, 2 weeks. But since it satisfied the original post, there was no need to continue. If others wanted to, they could have opened another thread to address their issues.

The average thread here differs a bit by not stating at the beginning a goal or time, but the basic premise is the same: a thread is started to gain something - knowledge, attention, feedback or an interesting discussion. When the need is met, there's no need to continue discussion. If others have their own needs, they can open another thread.

Seems logical to me. But I may be way off.

Jaime

Jaime and Jason

Team Cacheopeia

2.1k · October 7, 2003

I think I have the answer:

Why can the topic starter close a thread? The topic starter is in control of their topic. They own the ability to allow or disallow all (but not any) posting beneath their topic. They turned on a switch in a room and invited others inside to discuss something and if they turn off the switch, everyone must leave. If discussion amongst other people in that topic would like to continue, they are more than welcome to step next door to a nearly identical room (minus the original topic starter, more than likely) and one of them can turn on that switch and continue the discussion. The topic starter does not have control over whether discussion can take place on a specific topic in a public forum. The topic starter only has control over whether it happens in their little corner of that forum or not.

Clearly, if any thread that has recently been locked should continue to play out amongst others responding to the original thread starter's topic, then post a new topic and let it continue.

--

http://magazine.audubon.org/features0101/goodwood.html

1.4k · October 7, 2003

quote:
Bloencustoms wrote:
What is wrong with a person having the ability to close a thread?

Lots. But I think that hikemeister summed it best when he wrote:

I don't like the idea of a person starting a thread and then closing it when there still is active discussion going on -- seems like a cheap way to get out of a discussion.

If a person is being 'attacked' then the thread should be closed by a moderator and the reason stated. Generally, a discussion will only turn into an 'attack frenzy' if the person being targeted keeps coming back for more -- and if that's the case, then the moderator should intervene and either say something to calm things down or give a warning that if the attacking continues that the thread will be closed.

Perhaps instead of telling me that there is nothing wrong with a person being able to close their thread, you could tell me why it is right?

*****

October 7, 2003

ju6613r,

I was thinking of the ownership thing too but I couldn't get my thoughts on it to come out as lucidly as I would have liked. Well said.

Jaime

PS: I am growing increasingly fond of your avatars.

1.3k · October 7, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Jomarac5:

quote:
Bloencustoms wrote:
What is wrong with a person having the ability to close a thread?

Lots. But I think that hikemeister summed it best when he wrote:

_I don't like the idea of a person starting a thread and then closing it when there still is active discussion going on -- seems like a cheap way to get out of a discussion._

If a person is being 'attacked' then the thread should be closed by a moderator and the reason stated. Generally, a discussion will only turn into an 'attack frenzy' if the person being targetted keeps coming back for more -- and if that's the case, then the moderator should intervene and either say something to calm things down or give a warning that if the attacking continures that the thread will be closed.

Perhaps instead of telling me that there is nothing wrong with a person being able to cloes there thread, you could tell me why it is right?

*****

I thought I gave a reason why it is right. If you felt you were being ganged up on in conversation, would you continue to "come back for more"? Leaving a topic open for people to "rub it in" under the guise of continuing discussion isn't cool. It isn't a discussion if everyone agrees. If the starter leaves the thread to continue, it is nothing more than a painful ongoing embarassment. They alredy know the concensus on the topic, there is no need to continue the one sided posting.

[This message was edited by Bloencustoms on March 32, 1999 at 25:60 PM]

October 7, 2003

I think Xitron made the best points in a couple of posts. I would like to see the bickering end and the forums move on!

1.6k · October 7, 2003

Just for the record, and to save people time looking this up:

The Captain Urchin thread was closed in excess of EIGHT hours after the previous post on it, and a full 12 hours after the original request.

The topic had run it's course, all had had a chance to reply and reply again, and I did not wish to have the topic continue any longer. (By being brought up again a week later.) I would only ask for a previously 'heated' thread to be closed.

Notwithstanding this, I started the topic, and there was no rule saying I couldn't close it. The topic was not started so I could beek off and then disallow others the chance to reply. I too would be miffed if this WERE actually the case. (Which it wasn't...)

2.3k · October 7, 2003

[Calm and Serenity]

If someone was not done saying what they have to say, then they are free to start another thread to get their comments seen by others.

[/Calm and Serenity]

[Madness and Chaos]...

---------------------------------------------------

Free your mind and the rest will follow

And may no Admin bricks fly your way

Start it up, don't like it, shut it down???

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment