Anonymous thread locking
Phil Pilgrim (PhiPi)
Posts: 23,514
I've noticed two threads in the past couple days being locked anonymously. I'm not going to comment here on whether the locking itself was called for or not, only to say that the anonymity aspect is (I believe) unprecedented in this forum. In the past, the moderator doing the locking has made the last post in the thread, identifying himself and giving the reason for the lock. This was a good policy, as it reassured forum users that the moderator was taking responsibility for his actions and that the locking authority was not being wielded capriciously. I would like to see this practice resume going forward.
-Phil
-Phil
Comments
Things like posturing, jockeying, calling of names (profane or not), attempting to call out another forum member or making anyone feel that they or their opinion is not welcomed (we have a history of these complaints), grandstanding as a means to rally support for an unjust cause, and so on; these are all behaviors we would like to avoid on our forums. I had received complaints about the post in question, and I read through the post before deciding it needed to be locked; not only for the exhibited behavior but because the topic had gone off-thread [Propeller] and needed to be taken to the general discussion forum. In hindsight maybe I should have just moved the thread, but it did stop the bickering and gave you a new enemy 'the heavy-handed mysterious forum moderator' so maybe it wasn't all that bad.
How we, Parallax Inc, allow our community to act reflects upon us just as much as it reflects upon your digital identity. Secondly, we're not babysitters nor do we wish/want to have to closely monitor all the conversations; it is not a carebear environment, but it does bear our reputation: keep it civil, if you can't then it will be halted. You can be yourself, but if yourself needs moderating then we have a response.
If you haven't caught on the gist of this reply: I locked the thread, and I apologize for not giving warning; I had no idea there was an unspoken protocol when dealing with banning or locking threads. In my past experience dealing with forums, some larger than this one, no notice was required. In the future I will give full explanation about why threads are closed, why action is being taken against certain forum members, and other notes as deemed necessary to ensure that the reason for action is fully understood.
I will be amending the Forum Guidelines to show these modifications to the accepted protocol.
In short:
Sorry if you feel personally slighted; I haven't taken this personally nor did I mean for anyone to take it personally.
Also, remember we want everyone to feel welcomed here and we wish to do so without requiring moderation; don't give us fodder, because I am not wont to concern myself with it.
If you wish to discuss any topic or if you want to speak directly to someone handling the forums please feel free to email me bump@parallax.com and I will bring up your concern, complaint, or suggestion to the Forum Management Staff. PMs, comments, and posts are also good means to give voice to your desires as well; I read them, but email comes straight to me.
Again, I was not disputing the reasons for the locks, although I do think that locking a thread for bad behavior should not be done without prior warning and only if that warning goes unheeded. I think you will find that even the most egregious offenders respect the moderators and are willing to amend their behavior if they're called on it. In any event, I appreciate your concurrence that locking should be done openly and with an explanation. Doing so helps to maintain the feeling of community that we all enjoy.
-Phil
-Phil
One point that you didn't bring up in your original post is that locking a thread without explanation does little to deter the conduct that lead to it being locked in the first place. The same conduct just continues in another thread. I can cite recent examples.
Paul
Good point! I agree.
-Phil
From what doggiedoc has alluded to if we lock a thread, another will spawn; if I close an account, another will be made and the event will continue... so on and so forth. A moderators main objective is to be objective and think of the integrity of the forum's environment, we don't take sides and we can't correct behavior; attempting to change a man's demeanor through digital means whilst upon a digital media, could be proven or rather, is folly. Also, it really doesn't look that great if I have to use the time-out feature and use hour-bans or day-bans on anyone.
We're not nannies, nor do I think anyone believes us to be; however if behavior on the threads is getting out of hand we sometimes have to play a similar role, which is unfortunate. I know we can all move on in time, I don't expect immediate change, and we'll have a nice place to discuss engineering, robotics, programming, Parallax, and all else that is awesome and good. There should be no need or reason to goad another forum's member into a response, aggravate a situation and force retaliation, or other synonyms to what I've just mentioned.
I've come to respect everyone on the forums, you're all great contributors and posses a vast knowledge; please don't force us to come down from the progression of Parallax Inc to deal with petty squabbles. I would like the time to be spent on promotion of materials, advancing features, and other more secretive plans. Muhahaha?
Yes, Muahahaha.
Anyway, I guess my point is that locking a thread is a "big stick" that should be wielded only as a last resort after "speaking softly". (Four times in one week is probably a forum record.) OTOH, one really nice thing about locked threads is that they drop out of sight very quickly. This can be a bonus for those who've said things they later regret!
-Phil
The case for why is solid. It eliminates the inferences that would otherwise occur about why it was done, and eliminating those cuts down on meta-conversation too. The record is clear and people can see that and respond how they will with eyes wide open.
As for who, I'm of two minds on it. One is it's a great check on the responsibility to moderate. And thanks, BTW. Anybody who is moderating has my support and appreciation. I don't want to do it, and am glad I've not even been asked to do it. Not my thing. I personally believe it's not all that practical to moderate and participate. Inherent conflict of interest, IMHO, but that's just me too, so don't take that as anything other than my own personal way.
However, there is also the potential for a particular moderator to be seen in a less than favorable light, for simply performing a necessary task. IMHO, that makes who a personal decision as it could have long reaching implications, again, even if the actions taken were perfectly just and true. So, that's why I don't care about who. Could be a group decision too, don't care, as that's the business of the moderators, who all need to insure that their role doesn't impact them in a way that's negative.
Cheers all, and I think the "four in one week" was just a contributor getting things sorted out the hard way, that's all.