When and how should thread locking be used?

I would like to open a discussion about when and how we, as a community, think that thread locking should be used. I have no idea if there are any current written policies on this; but I see no reason we can't hear some creative ideas.

I think it would be useful if those on the moderating staff post how they handle lockings currently and their considerations before we delve too deeply on the matter to ensure we all start from a position of understanding of the current policies so we know which direction we need to go in.

Too many written rules are not particularly helpful. When the rules are written - even sometimes when they are not - they tend to make us litigious about how and when to enforce them. If they would not be enforced, then they would not be rules (written or unwritten) and if they have to be enforced, then it is because someone, or several someones, want to do things differently (at least as it applies to them).

Secondly, written rules are not the best way to "transparency". Indeed, they impede it. Since not every contingency can be tended toward in clear, written policies (how many of us have actually read all the ones we have ? I don't think I have ...), as soon as one or another with the authority to do would apply a rule in an uncertain way, then people get disgruntled about 'lack of transparency' and we're all untrustworthy again.

It is much more preferable to just be fair and sincere. Rules can't do that. On the other hand, we can incline ourselves a little more toward understanding than making convincing points. By engaging in dialogue rather than debate, we can advance our perspective whilst also taking the other's perspective into consideration. We can loosen our grip on our "rights" to our opinions and to say whatever we feel like saying in order to comprehend how others may have come to the opinions they hold and the feelings they harbour.

There are some general rules for locking threads. We don't just shut down a conversation because we disagree with what someone is saying. We do not lock threads that are fun or silly or enthusiastic. Yet, when a thread goes on for several pages and it is evident that the participants are trying harder to convince, persuade and advance their own 'side' of the debate more than trying to encounter the other and integrate other points of view ; when there are two or three 'camps' trying to out-jedi one another... that is when a thread needs to be ended.

And as to 'how' -- by clicking the "Lock" button. It really is just that simple.

So, we're not allowed to have debates anymore?

No one said you can’t . Have at it !

I prefer discussion to debate.

It's a reasonable point Nakis, but I'm gonna assume they will stick their own oars in and contribute at whatever stage this discussion reaches in their own time. I hope it's understood that my original post very much steers clear of any kind of "lets re-write the rules" approach - rather that it promotes creativity and perspective sharing. No-ones ideas are better or worse than anyone else's.

Only a handful of people in TotJO have the power to enforce their rules, but their decisions affect us all. This is what I meant in this post about making decisions "two-way" - it's worth discussing the rules we use (would like to see being used), not so anyone can "follow" them or "get litigious"; but rather so that the temple can have an impact on it's self - so that handful of folks can be influenced by us just as much as they can influence us because we're all listening to each other's ideas. There's no "win and loose" game to be played, really.

I hope that a discussion built on those lines would build trust, and promote "transparency" in a way that the formulation of another code of conduct probably can't. I think that based on a gut feeling... Nothing more nothing less.

I think thread locking has a place where:
- The original poster requests it (e.g. they see thread hijacking)
- The thread itself breaks the temple rules (e.g. promoting kitten drowning)
- Culture and tone... Yeah. This is tough, as it's really subjective, and we have a billion disagreements about "what the temple is for"... there are times though, when threads are not directly breaking rules; but a thread is BASICALLY becoming the "rants far and wide" thread - back and forth between two people/two groups of people that's becoming more anger-filled, frustrated, and stuff only seems to be getting uglier. Everyone will have a different perspective on when that point had been/is being reached. I'd not like to see this power used often, because I love free speech; but often even only a 1 hour lock can cool off what was becoming a rant, so I see and appreciate the benefits of that, even if I feel really grumpy about it.

I think thread moving has a place where:
- The original poster requests it (was in open discussions, but actually it fits better in offline activities)
- A mod thinks it's in the wrong place (I feel the original poster should be asked first in this case, in case the post is misunderstood by the moderator)

I think thread "deletion" (nothing is deleted here, just "made invisible" to mortals) has a place where:
- It's a blatant advertisement for a product, with no interest or connection to the temple's activities (eg. this device for walking your fish)



I think in every case, the "person of power" should attempt a discussion with the original poster first, and also with any perceived antagonists; but where this is not possible in a reasonable time frame (maybe as short as 30 minutes if the guns are really going and people are getting caught in the crossfire) the original poster should always be informed of the decision with a reason why, and right to appeal. The decision to lock should also be declared in the shout box, so people don't loose their hard-written out work by hitting send and getting a "denied" response back (who doesn't really hate that!) AND so other council members/empowered people don't keep responding to a locked thread (I've noticed that this has been perceived as pretty rude in the community).

Discussions are nice - even nicer when fruit or blossom results from them. Those are my favriot !

Carlos.Martinez3 wrote: No one said you can’t . Have at it !

I believe thats what this part means....

Alexandre Orion wrote: ....when a thread goes on for several pages and it is evident that the participants are trying harder to convince, persuade and advance their own 'side' of the debate....that is when a thread needs to be ended.

rugadd wrote: I prefer discussion to debate.

I can respect that. Sometimes i feel the same way. But must the rest of the community be forbidden debate because you prefer discussion? And isnt the nature of your own interactions something that is solely under your own control? I could be debating with you right now and it would still be up to you whether you debate back or just discuss, wouldnt it?
And what if the only way that a person knows how to "discuss" a different opinion is to say it in a way that seems like a debate?

All though I can ONLY speak for
My self ever - I would gladly listen to a round table type here about what you all think. Moderation is left to the moderators and their discreasion. I personally use my mods - I actually more frequently use the report button. I don’t like locking threads ... what seems worthy of locking a thread ? Honestly ! ?? Not arguing or pointing any fingers - help me understand what the general consensus is and I will gladly apply it to my own - application. I’m open to a round table type of listening.
Shoot - when should the body think it’s needed to lock a thread . ? When is it not needed. ? I’m subscribed to this now so feel free !