Is it necessary to lock a discussion

My opinion is that I do not think it is good idea. Eventually commom sense will prevail with members agreeing to disagree. Also we are about education where disagreements should be encouraged. It is nice to see when the establishment is challenge even if the established me is correct. Eventually we all find our own equilibrium and most of us will accept our lowly positions on DI.

 

I do agree that sometimes threads do get locked prematurely. On occasion another moderator will "reopen" one -- such a treat. But I agree with Kizmet's decision to lock the IUGS-Thread-Turned-Rathole. It was spiraling out of control faster than an unnamed political campaign at this present moment.

 

I used to support of a forum being totally censorship free, then watched as a slew of newbies took a single thread at DD and engaged in such incessant whining that it literally killed the entire forum.

I presume that your question relates to the ten-page discussion that was locked this evening. Not a two or three, or even five or six-page discussion, but ten pages of that included lots of mud slinging. Is it appropriate for a moderator to lock such a thread? Damn right it is.

What average members do not see is how often one or more moderators delete messages that amount to hype, spam, or shilling for degree mills, how many shills are banned, and how many people who sign up under more than one name are banned (yes, there are ways they can be identified). Some would call that censorship. I call it consumer protection, and feel that the moderators exercise appropriate restraint on censorship, locking threads, and even banning users.

Some newbies who have not read the TOS (I mean, how many people in general have actually read the TOS for this forum?) become gluttons for punishment by turning every thread in which they participate into a joust. Certain participants in this are so easy to bait that it's pathetic. But it gets old after a while.

FWIW, I predict that this thread will be hijacked by at least one whiner and, ultimately, this thread will be locked. I won't name anyone in particular because I find my "J" key is sticking.

(Okay, that was below the belt, but I couldn't resist.) :biglaugh:

 

How quickly we forget.

If you want to see an unmoderated forum then find something like the original Anandtech forum. Sifting through the truly psychotic posts there became more than I could tolerate. The owner of a different forum explained that circumstance in saying she couldn't actively moderate the forum without incurring the legal obligations of a Letters To The Editor section of a newspaper. Those presumed legal obligations were somehow lifted.

Only government can create censorship as only government can eliminate options.

 

This.

We have tens of thousands of spammers that we catch before the forum is subjected to their posts. This forum would be unreadable if unmoderated.

 

Some people got a sneak peek yesterday when a few spam messages from a "slave" wanting to "serve and obey" snuck past the moderation filter before we caught them.

At least those were entertaining! Imagine that X100, but about the usual Viagra and term paper "editing" service crap, and that's typical for us.

 

Our moderators are indispensable. However, is it necessary to lock a discussion where there is a lack of consensus? There is a TOS that must be enforced. However, if disagreements and consensus are TOS, then groupthink may be the norm, which is boring. I'm being provocative, our moderators are excellent.

 

I support Kizmet's decision to close the accredited-nonaccredited thread. There was no longer anything of substance being said there regarding any of the many issues that had been raised in the course of the thread. It was just juvenile stupidity (fuck you! No, fuck you!) being kept alive by shameless trolling.

Thank you Kizmet.

 

Urban legioned.

 

It was the right time and thing to do.

 

The thread was not locked because of a difference in opinion and I think you know that. Characterizing my actions in that way erodes your own credibility in this discussion. The thread had crossed the line into the realm of personal attacks. If members learn how to express themselves without that kind of snark then locked threads would become a much less common event

 

I think he meant Jan.

 

NO, the humor actually comes from your dining with the director of NAB and your using this as a basis to support your perspective regarding the validity and credibility of NAB accredited schools! :veryhappy:

 

Really. You need to listen to yourself and be very disappointed. There are more than one moderators. There have been more than one closing of discussions, most likely correctly. You actual do a great job.

The proximity of my question to your closing of a discussion has nothing to do with that discussion per se, and it was not addressed to you. My question was about shutting a discussion where there are disaggrements. I actually don't mind losing my credibly asking that question. I could have done something worst like limiting discourse.

 

Quick! Lock the thread!

 

Oh, the basis is apparent alright to those who do not have a conflict of interest, resulting in their not wishing to see it or cannot disprove it.