When and how should thread locking be used?

I think in every case, the mod or admin or councilor - should attempt a discussion with the original poster first-

I will actually take this one down !

Nakis wrote: 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.

It's been awhile for me but I've locked a few in the last couple of years. There is a range of circumstance which might see a thread lock, it's not very often that it happens but the reasons it can happen can vary.

A learning environment is different from an open sand box anything goes environment, as it has structure to facilitate positive progress as defined by that structure. And since no rule book can cover every iteration of whatever might be considered 'bad' by a system, other mechanisms need to exist if a system is expected to function according to its design. That is probably why we still have a judiciary in law, to assess if its written and make decisions in the absence of precedent. I don't think it's realistic to have a jury for mediation of normal activity, and at the Temple the jury for abnormal activity tends to be the Council. It's the former where the concept of the spirit of the law starts to manifest. All it means is trying to make decisions equivalent to the body of existing rules based on the particular circumstance etc

And without reiterating too much of what Alexandre said, I'd add my personal approach was when people have stopped talking to each other and started talking at each other that rules start to get flirted with and the blurry line between the letter of them and their 'spirit' starts to be utilized by participants to dig at each other a bit deeper each time. Basically when a discussion goes off topic it also goes onto a new topic - and if that new topic is attacking the messenger instead of the message, then its considered 'offtopic', being off any topic rather then off the OP. Lots of tricks can be employed to have disingenuous communication, sarcasm, anonymous authority, double entendre etc and while those things can be denied or excused as humour etc, as someone in authority you do not want to see people getting hurt by morons trying to cheat the hard rules of a system for their own thrills. What to do!! lol, as people get hurt by all sorts of things, so its not about stopping people getting hurt but rather stopping people who are trying to hurt. It's a big difference, and while yes a sword is forged in extremes, the forum is not here so people can entertain themselves by pressuring people under the false pretense of teaching (a lesson) - which is why teaching was previously only a thing for Knights and above.

So its not like we have a thermometer in each thread measuring the heat, but rather whether anyone is being lazered by any particular narrow focus of heat. For while a clear rule breach is easy, as the person is contacted about it (which might include a thread lock and temporary deletion or partial edit until resolved).... its when its not a clear rule breach but an activity against the spirit of the law, that the options available become instead to try and participate in the discussion in such a way as to nudge the conversation in 'better' direction (in this context), or to contact the 'offenders' to try and clarify and point out how it might be coming across different from what they intend (and if they did intend to cause offense then give them a gentle nudge LOL).

There could be lots of other reason though. The concept of a cooling off period for example has been in use here for as long as I can remember, where a thread would be locked for a few hours, or a day, just so people could indeed cool down. This was I assume because the people in power feel responsible for the welfare of all members and consider themselves to be teachers and guides in everyone's progress to various degrees, which is easier with members who might be here for that reason. At least that is how I see it. But each mod/admin/etc has always been told to make their best decision, record all mod actions in their moderation forum log, and then these can be talked about by everyone with that level of permission to agree or disagree - so if any member also disagrees it can be discussed and reversed or endorsed on a case by case basis. And if its a big problem it gets escalated into a Council decision. Again, it''s always been like that since I can remember here, and AFAIK it probably is still the same. It's usual not a problem when it stays and is kept in PM by all involved, but sometimes people have been known to take things public and not participate in genuine dialogue - because they don't like being in the wrong and instead create a narrative where the wrong is being done to them. And there is a few folk that over the years have tended to play the system for their own agendas, in various ways... but there is only so much that can be done and they will always exist in various guises in all communities. Another reason might be a thread gets a serious complaint, and it might be locked to give it time to be assessed before it gets worse. Or another reason might be a moderator needs to spit a thread, and its easier to do that if its locked because no-one is posting to it while they are trying to work on splitting it etc.

OB1Shinobi - Fantastic questions! Certainly worth putting some thought into. I don't really have answers for them, other than I haven't seen debating banned...just a yay/nay preference. I myself don't like to debate because deep down I don't have a lot of conviction concerning ideas....their always changing! How can I stand firm behind it if it will turn into smoke?

There are two ways I see them locked that I very much agree with.

First, when rules are being broken after a warning. It serves as a simple "go meditate on what you've done, cool those jets, and Jedi up."

Secondly, when its being chewed to death for no reason. You know when you have a nice big chunk of steak? First few chews are great, you get to enjoy the juices and texture. Its amazing. But eventually, if you keep chewing, it becomes impossible to swallow. The locking of such a thread where that is the issue is essentially someone telling you to spit it out before you choke on it.

Other than that, really no reason to lock a thread imo, no matter how "heated" the debate is. If its engaging and people don't break rules or make things personal (after all, its us against the issue, not us against each other), then there is really no reason to lock it.

I personally don't believe I have locked a thread unless requested. But there are circumstances already mentioned where I could find it necessary. That being said there is one line from our doctrine here that would prevent almost all mod action. I shall never seek so much to be understood, as to understand.
Is debating allowed? Absolutely. We are not the thought police. I've read Alexander's reply and I don't see where he implies it's not. He does touch however on a general inability to stop, reflect, and find meaning that we all fall too(myself included). There are times where we talk AT each other, not TO each other. We'd rather point out errors than consider how or why they feel that way.
Is it emotional attachment to our ideas that prevents us from trying to understand? That makes us defensive? What can we do, members and moderators alike, to keep our talks productive and unrestricted?

I agree with thread locking when it's a spammer posting advertisement or something illegal.

I strongly disagree with thread locking when feelings get hurt or discussions get heated. I think, in general, people are better served by experiencing their whole range of emotions and learning to deal with the fallout. I see no particular reason for moderators to run in and try to micromanage interaction (unless it is crossing the line into spam or illegal behavior).

I shall never seek so much to be understood, as to understand.

Like the other lines, this one means nothing, it just looks pretty to its admirers. No need to understand if you don't seek to be understood... the totjo drama club lives by it, but the rest of us don't find it particularly entertaining.

I personally dislike locking threads or preventing people from saying what they have to say... And I do enjoy putting them back in their place by saying what i have to say in an unlocked thread, and wish others would do the same.

ren wrote:

I shall never seek so much to be understood, as to understand.

Like the other lines, this one means nothing, it just looks pretty to its admirers. No need to understand if you don't seek to be understood... the totjo drama club lives by it, but the rest of us don't find it particularly entertaining.

Sign me up for that drama club then. I apply this principle to the individuals I serve in the mental health field. I don't want them to understand my point of view, rather, I would seek to understand them in the way that they do in order to help them work through whatever problem across the various life domains they are struggling to overcome.

I don't know diddly squat about them or their experiences, but if I could, then I would know which way to point them to fall, trip, and maybe even run on their own path. I know I don't have the answers or that magic phrase that just *poofs* everything away.


I like how Manu put it. Through our emotional reactions, we learn more about what aspects in our own lives that we need to work through. I wouldn't go as far to say we need people whose intent is to hurt others, but through our discussions, it's okay to be wrong, even if we are wrong most of the times, if we allow ourselves to work through it and don't let it become a spitting game for our ego or turn the tables and start poking at people, rather than the ideas.

Its a problem when person A does not seek to understand B yet person B seeks to understand A, not realizing there is nothing to understand, resulting in B getting brutalised by A, something i am sure you are familiar with considering your line of work.

We certainly are familiar with it at totjo and we're no mental health institution.
Either way i'd avoid the drama club at this time if i were you.

But I just bought some glittery tights. :silly:

I think I see what you're getting at. I did have to draw it out on a piece of paper, though. Although, I do find that B does have some choice in how much brutality they accept by A, but you're definitely right that A can be a tough one to understand at times and often acts just to stoke the fire. Sometimes, it's best to avoid that bitter, succubus ex-wife that leeches all of our joy and happiness away, but if that's not possible, just minimize that contact to preserve our own sanity. Love them from a distance....a very, very far distance...if possible.