Hello,

I'm just wondering how objective or subjective are the rules for locking threads?

What are the rules?

And since this site has lots of ads....................

what would happen if threads couldn't be locked?

No ads= no revenue = no forum for us to post on?




ps not commenting on any specific threads or mods - just wondering

No set rule.

Sometimes we act of our own volition, but most times we are hesitant to step in (sometimes people get baited into saying unreasonable things by someone deliberately provoking such a reaction aka trolling) ... but when we start getting complaints via PM or "report a post" about threads we are already wondering whether to step in or not, we usually take that as a signal that it is indeed the time to step in.

Locked threads are usually unlocked after a few days to allow people to regain their composure and perspective. However, if the bickering flares up again in an abusive manner, the thread gets permanently locked (or occasionally a participant will get banned).

thanks

Are the offending trollers or the "baitors" notified of their violations?

Trollers (which encompasses baiters) know exactly what they are doing.

When a thread is locked, they darn well know why (as does everyone else). Despite their sad need for attention, we credit them with as much intelligence as anyone else.

I guess I should have said "baited".....and you have to wonder if the punishment(to others who wish to participate in the thread) fits the crime. Perhaps you should consider "locking out" the offender rather then the thread?

I think FoxRun has hit the nail on the head. Consequences have to be felt and seen if we will ever change behaviours. Locking threads alone won't change things. The troll/bully just moves on, feeling satisfied that they have had accomplished their goal of disruption or abuse.

And when one of the troublemakers is quietly dealt with, the member who has endured the abuse never knows if anything has been done about the problem, and therefore just assumes that the issue was ignored or it was decided it was not worth dealing with. The abused member goes away and other members who clearly read the abuse never know that there were consequences, so they assume that it is accepted behaviour. And in some ways, encourages it.

I hope that some have found these comments more constructive then criticism.

It must be nice to be able to be an "armchair moderator"

We do appreciate the input but as anyone who has been a member of this board for any length of time knows, we don't take public discussion of board policy seriously. Most times, such discussions are generated by trolls or someone with an axe to grind. We generally only take privately communicated "constructive criticism" under advisement because that gives us the assurance that the concern is genuine and not just an attempt to stir the pot.

But I am in a generous mood today

I've been doing this for 8 years now. We've tried the "locking out" tactic (aka suspensions or banning) before (several times, in fact). It almost never works. The offender just comes back under another ID. Or the offender who gets a warning/suspension feels they've been wronged and make it their mission to make life miserable for the admins. See the aforementioned "axe grinding". The biggest flareups of discontent and anger amongst PEIinfo members that have occured over the last 8 years are after someone gets a slap on the wrist that they don't feel they deserved (in my experience, most people never feel they deserve the punishment they got ... "how dare you?").

The tactic of locking a thread to put a lid on contentious discussions for a cooling down period before opening it up again for discussion is a proven successful moderation tactic. I can't take credit for it because it is a tactic successfully used for years by other discussion boards. It doesn't assign blame, so no one feels a need to get revenge against the board administration. It also acknowledges that we give board members credit for their intelligence ... the guilty parties are intelligent enough to know that they are guilty, the innocent parties are intelligent enough to know that they are innocent and the bystanders to the argument are intelligent enough to evaluate the situation. And if someone really feels the need to add a point of fact or reasoned opinion to the contentious discussion, they can do so after the thread is unlocked.

After some expressed their displeasure with the thread locking system recently, we tried to give the old methods a try. That didn't go over very well, did it?

Let me ask the "armchair moderators" how they would have judged the thread that lead to this discussion.

Who would you have assigned "blame" to in that thread and sent to the sidelines with a slap on the wrist?

Would you blame FoxRun for "baiting" the readers by saying that he found amusement in a comment that the majority of people would find offensive? Or would you blame Manzig for calling FoxRun a racist because he found humour in a racist comment. What about EunoiaBeauregard and jlyman.1970 for saying the same thing as Manzig but in a nicer way? Mulligan for inferring an agenda behind Manzig's reasons for creating the thread? Manzig's response to that accusation? Raider's response to Mulligan's accusation? Could we blame Ex-Racer for baiting since his comments drew an angry response from ajc and jlyman.1970? Maybe we should have banned everyone, eh? I got complaints about all but two of the members named above.

Not as easy as it looks in assigning blame, is it? Hard when you respect most of them for their previous contributions to the board and harder still, when you know some of them personally.

The above question is, of course, rhetorical. No answer necessary because the "discussion" ends here. Now.

We are never going to be able to satisfy everyone's opinion on how to run the board, so it is going to just have to come down to how we, the board owner and the board administration, want to run the board. However, as always, we will try to address any privately communicated concerns as best we can.