[discussion] On locking threads

[Internationalist Bastard]

Sometimes, I feel that threads that could be a good source of debate are locked for seemingly no good reason. I'd like for you to consider only temporarily locking threads, rather then shitting them down outright. The other day,(yesterday? My memories shot) there was a thread on reducing the age of consent which was seemingly locked only because the intervening mod didn't like the topic. I simply feel that threads should only be locked in cases such as when a similar thread exists, or it hits 500 pages. Thank you for reading this.

--Alex Bao

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

fwiw - that's what the Powers that Be do. Or used to. I've no idea, I don't keep track anymore. A lock is a lock is a lock - the only thing 'temporary' about it is if they choose to unlock it.

Sometimes they merge, sometimes the OP is lacking, sometimes there's another earlier thread, sometimes there's another more informative or better-written thread, and sometimes it's just plain off-the-cuff 'this is what I decided to do because reasons' that may or may not be forthcoming.

I figure if you have a specific one, y'all can probably post in this forum about your request, or hit up the Getting Help bit and file a report. Other than that, rather doubt you'll get much of a response or change from this particular thread, all things considered.

/$.02

[Shazbotdom]

If you dug through their threads, you'd find This from Reppy. Apparently the person who started your "lower the age of consent to 16" is a known Delete on Sight.

[Leppikania]

I figure if you have a specific one, y'all can probably post in this forum about your request, or hit up the Getting Help bit and file a report. Other than that, rather doubt you'll get much of a response or change from this particular thread, all things considered.

If you filed a GHR to get a thread unlocked, I'm pretty sure all that would happen would be the mods responding telling you to go to Moderation.

[Ularn]

Typically there's nothing preventing a locked thread from being re-started. Unless a particular thread or topic has had an extensive history of rulebreaking whenever it's discussed (in which case the mods usually say "Do not repost this thread," in their locking message) a thread lock usually just means that this particular thread has become so toxic/had such a poorly written OP, etc. that they're not letting it continue, but there's nothing wrong with someone trying again if everyone plays nice next time.

If you're unsure though, it's not a bad idea to ask the mods for permission to repost a locked thread. Sometimes a topic isn't permanently banned but the mods have put it on hiatus for a few months so that some of the problem posters can cool off and mature. Such was the case with the Gamer thread in Arts & Fiction a while back. Asking permission will also generally get a few suggestions on how to make the new thread iteration better and avoid whatever pitfalls got the last one locked.

[Farnhamia]

Sometimes, I feel that threads that could be a good source of debate are locked for seemingly no good reason. I'd like for you to consider only temporarily locking threads, rather then shitting them down outright. The other day,(yesterday? My memories shot) there was a thread on reducing the age of consent which was seemingly locked only because the intervening mod didn't like the topic. I simply feel that threads should only be locked in cases such as when a similar thread exists, or it hits 500 pages. Thank you for reading this.

--Alex Bao

The age of consent thread was locked for a very good, very specific reason. Reppy said, "These threads invariably draw pedo-apologists who start trying to argue why kiddie-fiddling is somehow okay. We still have a moratorium on discussions like this for that reason." Threads are locked because they repeat other ones or because the OP is too thin, among other things. I shut down the one on why aren't our sexual organs located more efficiently because it was bound to descend into a giggle-fest of sexual innuendo. As always, individual cases are judged individually. Thanks for your input, IB.

[CoraSpia]

Sometimes, I feel that threads that could be a good source of debate are locked for seemingly no good reason. I'd like for you to consider only temporarily locking threads, rather then shitting them down outright. The other day,(yesterday? My memories shot) there was a thread on reducing the age of consent which was seemingly locked only because the intervening mod didn't like the topic. I simply feel that threads should only be locked in cases such as when a similar thread exists, or it hits 500 pages. Thank you for reading this.

--Alex Bao

The age of consent thread was locked for a very good, very specific reason. Reppy said, "These threads invariably draw pedo-apologists who start trying to argue why kiddie-fiddling is somehow okay. We still have a moratorium on discussions like this for that reason." Threads are locked because they repeat other ones or because the OP is too thin, among other things. I shut down the one on why aren't our sexual organs located more efficiently because it was bound to descend into a giggle-fest of sexual innuendo. As always, individual cases are judged individually. Thanks for your input, IB.

So you lock a thread because it might attract more reports?

That's amazingly lazy moderation if ever I saw it. NSG is a discussion and debate forum: sometimes, some topics are more controvercial than others. It's the mods jobs to get rid of the rulebreaking statements, not the topics themselves.

[Imperializt Russia]

The only thing that annoys me is when a mod locks a topic and says it's due a trawl, and then it's never unlocked.
At least saying "yeah, we're not going to bother unlocking this" would be nice.

[Idzequitch]

The age of consent thread was locked for a very good, very specific reason. Reppy said, "These threads invariably draw pedo-apologists who start trying to argue why kiddie-fiddling is somehow okay. We still have a moratorium on discussions like this for that reason." Threads are locked because they repeat other ones or because the OP is too thin, among other things. I shut down the one on why aren't our sexual organs located more efficiently because it was bound to descend into a giggle-fest of sexual innuendo. As always, individual cases are judged individually. Thanks for your input, IB.

So you lock a thread because it might attract more reports?

That's amazingly lazy moderation if ever I saw it. NSG is a discussion and debate forum: sometimes, some topics are more controvercial than others. It's the mods jobs to get rid of the rulebreaking statements, not the topics themselves.

And there are some topics that attract so many rulebreaking posts that those topics are simply not up for discussion on this site. Some, like the one cited in the OP, tend to attract posts that break national laws. They aren't equipped to deal with that, nor can I blame them for not wanting to deal with it. They don't create a moratorium on subjects lightly. There are good reasons behind them, and to attribute it to laziness is frankly just wrong.

[Imperializt Russia]

I simply feel that threads should only be locked in cases such as when a similar thread exists, or it hits 500 pages.

Pah. I remember the days when they weren't locked until 1000 pages!

[CoraSpia]

So you lock a thread because it might attract more reports?

That's amazingly lazy moderation if ever I saw it. NSG is a discussion and debate forum: sometimes, some topics are more controvercial than others. It's the mods jobs to get rid of the rulebreaking statements, not the topics themselves.

And there are some topics that attract so many rulebreaking posts that those topics are simply not up for discussion on this site. Some, like the one cited in the OP, tend to attract posts that break national laws. They aren't equipped to deal with that, nor can I blame them for not wanting to deal with it. They don't create a moratorium on subjects lightly. There are good reasons behind them, and to attribute it to laziness is frankly just wrong.

They are perfectly well-equipped to deal with it.
People who post bad things get smacked.
People who don't post bad things don't get smacked.
It's quite simple really.

[Idzequitch]

And there are some topics that attract so many rulebreaking posts that those topics are simply not up for discussion on this site. Some, like the one cited in the OP, tend to attract posts that break national laws. They aren't equipped to deal with that, nor can I blame them for not wanting to deal with it. They don't create a moratorium on subjects lightly. There are good reasons behind them, and to attribute it to laziness is frankly just wrong.

They are perfectly well-equipped to deal with it.
People who post bad things get smacked.
People who don't post bad things don't get smacked.
It's quite simple really.

Threads with too much rule-breaking get locked.
Threads with too much law-breaking get locked.
Threads that have neither don't get locked.
It's quite simple really.

It's really not fair to ask a mod to spend hours repeatedly trawling a thread that has proven to be a breeding ground for rule-breaking, especially when they're not even getting paid for it.

Plus, once potentially law breaking posts come into play, it's not simple at all, and allowing some of these topics would require the mod team to be in contact with the authorities a whole lot. That's not part of their job description.

[Internationalist Bastard]

Sometimes, I feel that threads that could be a good source of debate are locked for seemingly no good reason. I'd like for you to consider only temporarily locking threads, rather then shitting them down outright. The other day,(yesterday? My memories shot) there was a thread on reducing the age of consent which was seemingly locked only because the intervening mod didn't like the topic. I simply feel that threads should only be locked in cases such as when a similar thread exists, or it hits 500 pages. Thank you for reading this.

--Alex Bao

The age of consent thread was locked for a very good, very specific reason. Reppy said, "These threads invariably draw pedo-apologists who start trying to argue why kiddie-fiddling is somehow okay. We still have a moratorium on discussions like this for that reason." Threads are locked because they repeat other ones or because the OP is too thin, among other things. I shut down the one on why aren't our sexual organs located more efficiently because it was bound to descend into a giggle-fest of sexual innuendo. As always, individual cases are judged individually. Thanks for your input, IB.

I understand that, but it feels like unnesseicarilry shutting down a legitimate debate because someone might break the rules. While I get that it's easier, it would seem more beneficial to allow the debate to go and punish rule breakers as they appear.
As for DOS nations, sometimes they do start legitimately good or interesting threads, and it seems odd to lock the thread for its creator.

[Twilight Imperium]

I understand that, but it feels like unnesseicarilry shutting down a legitimate debate because someone might break the rules. While I get that it's easier, it would seem more beneficial to allow the debate to go and punish rule breakers as they appear.
As for DOS nations, sometimes they do start legitimately good or interesting threads, and it seems odd to lock the thread for its creator.

If you allow DOS nations to OP threads, then it sort of defeats the purpose of banning them in the first place. Also, as far as age of consent threads go, there's a difference between soaking a house in pesticide because you might have seen an ant, and burning down an old, rotted shed because it's full of termites.

(aos threads are the shed, and pedos are the termites in this metaphor)