Closing threads too often.

I totally agree that threads shouldn't be locked when it can be helped, and it's for the exact reasons you have pointed out. It is unfair that a few people can ruin an entire thread for everybody else.

Although, one of the things I would also point out that the process of closing a thread isn't a simple thought process. We do have thread bans on standby, which we can use, but we also need to take into account how a thread can progress beyond the troublesome discussion. In some cases that is possible, but in quite a few cases on EC we also get threads that don't really go anywhere. For example, political threads tend to get people deriding each others opinions on the basis that they perceive each other to be on opposing sides of the political spectrum, and it becomes difficult for a discussion to progress very far when those who seem glued to these types of topic can't even muster up a bit of respect. Instead we get people disregarding what other people have said simply because they disagree with the ideology, and it all turns into a series of ad hominems.

Now it is a fair point to argue that the thread should still be left open for those who still want to contribute to the discussion, but the reason we tend to lock them is because the discussions don't often have an audience beyond the frequent people who require the staff to intervene. You get members who occasionally will respond to the first post and perhaps even a follow-up, but we often don't perceive there being enough demand to warrant keeping a thread open and dealing with the troublesome members in another way. Infact, troublesome threads have, based on my observations, had the opposite effect by pushing members away from certain areas of the site. I've lost count the amount of times I have seen people complaining about how LGBT news is more of a reactionary forum because of certain members, so the problem itself likely goes beyond simply having a more 'liberal' policy on closing threads.

One of the things I would say is that I don't necessarily think we do close threads that often. I've just had a look at the staff logs for the month of December, and a quick glance indicated there were only about 4 threads that got locked, and two of them were because the OP wanted it closed, so our frequency for closing threads is rather loose compared to some other forums. However, that doesn't detract away from everything that has been said, and I think the comments here have totally given the staff something to think about when developing more appropriate ways to tackle troublesome threads, members and posts.

By the way, the rationale for issuing 'warnings' in threads is to offer chances to members before further action is taken. We like to assume that members will respond positively if we try and point them in the right direction, and that type of policy is more user-friendly than simply issuing a thread ban or forum ban. We could 'warn' them privately, but you then have the risk of other members reacting to the behaviour of members who have previously been warned, so it can be more efficient to simply remind members and prompt them to keep the thread on topic and civil. The thread ban hack is still there and probably isn't used as much as it could be, but we also have to be careful that we don't jump to the other side of this and become far too trigger-happy with restricting members access to topics without any sort of chance/warning.

As an organisation we'll soon be embarking on an overhaul on site policy so that everything is more formal and maintainable when moderating the site. At the moment we tend to moderate troublesome threads on a case-by-case basis, but there will be an opportunity for staff to develop a clearer and consistent policy for dealing with these types of issues, and the posts on this thread can play an important part in shaping that process as it gives us the best indication on the direction that members would like us to head in.

But yeah, if peeps have anything they'd like to add then I'm all ears. It's vital that the staff maintains a close relationship with members on issues like this so that the supportive vibe of the community doesn't become jeaporadised. It would be unrealistic to expect members to feel comfortable here without allowing them to have a voice on how site moderation should work, so for that reason members should always feel able to offer their thoughts on anything they think can be improved.

Martin.

 

We do actually ban specific users from a given thread on some occasions, and on very rare occasions, staff will ban a user from the entire site for some period (usually a few weeks) where the user is constantly argumentative in numerous threads to such an extent that it disrupts the overall tone of conversation in the community.

It tends to be the same dozen or so people who will always jump into the same arguments (or take a thread totally off topic to engage in an argument) and, for the most part, all of those posters are helpful contributors to the community except when a given topic comes up. So we try to balance the desire to not stifle discussion and discourse with the need to keep the tone of the community such that no one feels threatened or intimidated to post their opinions.

Finally, most people at EC "get it," but one of the issues that we look at most in banning someone from a thread or closing a thread is when the posts go from debating a topic to personally insulting or attacking a member posting in the thread. When people start personally attacking and getting off of whatever the topic is, that's the circumstance where we're most likely to intervene. And, honestly, with the current group of members, it's pretty rare that we have any serious problems in that regard because most people do seem pretty respectful, particularly for an Internet-based community.