When trolls cause threads to be locked

[Till Eulenspiegel]

A thread in which Christians were asked to explain why they were Christians was recently locked because one particular poster insisted on repeatedly telling Christians they worshipped a false God. This poster continued this trollish behavior despite despite request by the starter of the thread that such behavior cease. The thread was a good one despite the behavior of this particular poster and should not have been locked.

Would it not be possible to simply lock an offending poster out of a thread rather than locking the thread entirely.

 

[Spud Emperor]

Shit!
I dread threadlockers!
Make my hair stand on end!

 

[Baron Max]

A thread in which Christians were asked to explain why they were Christians was recently locked because one particular poster insisted on repeatedly telling Christians they worshipped a false God. This poster continued this trollish behavior despite despite request by the starter of the thread that such behavior cease. The thread was a good one despite the behavior of this particular poster and should not have been locked.

Would it not be possible to simply lock an offending poster out of a thread rather than locking the thread entirely.

Ahh, well, sure, I guess. But then, ...how does one get around that nasty little ideal of ....oooooh, dare I say it, ......freedom of speech/expression?

Oh, and ....just who makes these decisions? And are you comfortable with people having that kind of authority over all others?

Baron Max

 

[Till Eulenspiegel]

I can understand your point, Baron Max and I would usually agree with you but in this case the behavior was almost constant despite requests to stop it. The poster would not be banned from Sciforums, only from that particular thread.

When someone participates in a thread for the purposes of hijacking it and insulting others they have in effect given up their right to participate in that particular thread.

 

[cosmictraveler]

I can understand your point, Baron Max and I would usually agree with you but in this case the behavior was almost constant despite requests to stop it. The poster would not be banned from Sciforums, only from that particular thread.

When someone participates in a thread for the purposes of hijacking it and insulting others they have in effect given up their right to participate in that particular thread.

Who determines whether the person is doing something wrong, the

moderators? Just when is stating your belief an insult? How can you

determine when a hijacking is happening or just another point of view is

being stated. Just because there's a disagreement within a thread doesn't

always mean something is wrong.

 

[Avatar]

It's technically impossible to lock a particualr poster out of a particular thread.

 

[pjdude1219]

while i have never had a thread locked because of a troll i have had some of my thread derailed by people with trollish actions mainly my universal health care threads

 

[Read-Only]

while i have never had a thread locked because of a troll i have had some of my thread derailed by people with trollish actions mainly my universal health care threads

I don't think that's true at all because I've been all the way through BOTH of those threads. All you had was people, like myself, that strongly disagree with your idea.

Can you not distinguish between trolling and disagreeing? That might actually explain a lot of your problem here. Hmmm...

 

[leopold]

When someone participates in a thread for the purposes of hijacking it and insulting others they have in effect given up their right to participate in that particular thread.

try using the report button on the offending post.

after all, no hijacking and no trolling is official policy.
http://sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1628283&postcount=5

 

[Grandtheftcow]

Locking the thread had nothing to do with members who couldn't help themselves from barging into the thread. It was a lack of community leadership and a desire not to bother dealing with the participants on the staff members part that led to the thread closure.

That thread could have easily continued if the forum mod had requested that the participants stay on topic. If it had continued then the mod should have split the topic then handed out warnings if the split didn't work.

Locked topics indicate a weak moderator.

 

[Baron Max]

When someone participates in a thread for the purposes of hijacking it and insulting others they have in effect given up their right to participate in that particular thread.

Hey, I like that ...can the government and the police use that same logic with protest groups and such? Sure would cut down on all those nasty, insulting protests by mamby-pamby, doo-gooder liberals, wouldn't it?

Baron Max

 

[Till Eulenspiegel]

Hey, I like that ...can the government and the police use that same logic with protest groups and such? Sure would cut down on all those nasty, insulting protests by mamby-pamby, doo-gooder liberals, wouldn't it?

Baron Max

That's a great idea as long as they use such tactics only on mamby-pamby, djo-gooder liberals. They should never use such tactics on right thinking conservatives.

 

[James R]

Would it not be possible to simply lock an offending poster out of a thread rather than locking the thread entirely.

Technically, I don't think that is possible on a thread-by-thread basis.

It is possible to lock problem posters out of the entire forum, though, and I've recently decided to be a little tougher on that. (See the recent announcement in all forums.)

Locking the thread had nothing to do with members who couldn't help themselves from barging into the thread. It was a lack of community leadership and a desire not to bother dealing with the participants on the staff members part that led to the thread closure.

That thread could have easily continued if the forum mod had requested that the participants stay on topic. If it had continued then the mod should have split the topic then handed out warnings if the split didn't work.

Locked topics indicate a weak moderator.

That is true, to an extent.

I think the moderators here have been a little too forgiving of thread hijacking for quite a long time now. And you are correct that it is easier to lock a thread than to deal with a problem poster by sending warnings or banning them. That will change.

 

[Thoreau]

A thread in which Christians were asked to explain why they were Christians was recently locked because one particular poster insisted on repeatedly telling Christians they worshipped a false God. This poster continued this trollish behavior despite despite request by the starter of the thread that such behavior cease. The thread was a good one despite the behavior of this particular poster and should not have been locked.

Would it not be possible to simply lock an offending poster out of a thread rather than locking the thread entirely.

That was MY thread started by ME. I was the one that requested it closed if you go back and read. I realized that it was USELESS to keep it open because it was IMPOSSIBLE to keep people from throwing insults around one way or another. Its not my fault that people don't have the RESPECT and DIGNITY to keep to themselves when politely asked. I DO NOT TOLERATE DISRESPECT IN MY THREADS WHETHER IT IS TOWARDS A CHRISTIAN OR AN ATHEIST. IT DOESN'T MATTER. THE ORIGINAL POSTER HAS FULL RIGHTS TO REQUEST THE CLOSURE OF THIER THREAD IF WANTED.

And I agree, it would have been a good thread had some ignorant individuals not thrown insults around and STUCK TO THE TOPIC AT HAND. AND THAT ultimately is why I chose to lock the thread. It was getting WAY off topic with little room to reverse.

That thread was a SPECIFIC invitation to Christians to share their believes. And I SPECIFICALLY asked everyone who wanted to oppose anything said to handle it privately so that it wouldn't get off topic as it did. People did not have the common courtesy to follow one simple rule. You can call me a hard ass or whatever, but again, I do not tolerate disrespect, especially when my requests are disrespected bluntly.

 

[Baron Max]

Its not my fault that people don't have the RESPECT and DIGNITY to keep to themselves when politely asked. I DO NOT TOLERATE DISRESPECT...
You can call me a hard ass or whatever, but again, I do not tolerate disrespect, especially when my requests are disrespected bluntly.

You don't tolerate....? What do you do in real life when that happens and the disrespectful person is bigger and tougher than you?

Baron Max

 

[Read-Only]

You don't tolerate....? What do you do in real life when that happens and the disrespectful person is bigger and tougher than you?

Baron Max

Aw, c'mon, Max! You of all people - who keep telling us (and I agree) - that this place is nothing like real life. Therefore the rules between the two have no comparison at all.

 

[Captain Kremmen]

Shit!
I dread threadlockers!
Make my hair stand on end!

dreadlocks?

 

[Grandtheftcow]

I think the moderators here have been a little too forgiving of thread hijacking for quite a long time now. And you are correct that it is easier to lock a thread than to deal with a problem poster by sending warnings or banning them. That will change.

No no no I'm not calling for more warnings and bans. Those should be used as a last resort. I want to see mods take a more active role in the community by stepping in when things start to get out of hand. You can do more with a guiding hand in a thread than throwing warnings from afar.

That was MY thread started by ME. I was the one that requested it closed if you go back and read. I realized that it was USELESS to keep it open because it was IMPOSSIBLE to keep people from throwing insults around one way or another. Its not my fault that people don't have the RESPECT and DIGNITY to keep to themselves when politely asked. I DO NOT TOLERATE DISRESPECT IN MY THREADS WHETHER IT IS TOWARDS A CHRISTIAN OR AN ATHEIST. IT DOESN'T MATTER. THE ORIGINAL POSTER HAS FULL RIGHTS TO REQUEST THE CLOSURE OF THIER THREAD IF WANTED.

And I agree, it would have been a good thread had some ignorant individuals not thrown insults around and STUCK TO THE TOPIC AT HAND. AND THAT ultimately is why I chose to lock the thread. It was getting WAY off topic with little room to reverse.

That thread was a SPECIFIC invitation to Christians to share their believes. And I SPECIFICALLY asked everyone who wanted to oppose anything said to handle it privately so that it wouldn't get off topic as it did. People did not have the common courtesy to follow one simple rule. You can call me a hard ass or whatever, but again, I do not tolerate disrespect, especially when my requests are disrespected bluntly.

Easy there Capitan CAPSLOCK.

Really threads shouldn't have to be locked at all. They especially shouldn't be locked at the request of the thread starter when discussion is still continuing. It's unfortunate some members couldn't follow your instructions in the thread but you should deal with the cards you're dealt not take all your toys and run home.

 

[Thoreau]

Easy there Capitan CAPSLOCK.

Really threads shouldn't have to be locked at all. They especially shouldn't be locked at the request of the thread starter when discussion is still continuing. It's unfortunate some members couldn't follow your instructions in the thread but you should deal with the cards you're dealt not take all your toys and run home.

1) CAPSLOCK highlights the important parts of my message.

2) The discussion was not continuing. It was discussing something totally different than what the OP stated.

3) I warned people to stay in line and on topic. It's my thread, I can do what I want with it. If I don't feel that what is being discussed is productive or proves any point, or does not contribute to the original post, there is no reason why I shouldn't have had it locked. It started off as meaningful, then thanks to a few individuals, it quickly went to meaningless.

4) If the conversations that was being discussed prior to the closure of the thread was SOOOoooo important, someone else is more than welcome to start one of thier own to continue the debate. As for me, I had one simple request, and if people disregard that request, why should I give them regard?

 

[Grandtheftcow]

1) CAPSLOCK highlights the important parts of my message.

It makes you look angry and downright funny to boot.

2) The discussion was not continuing. It was discussing something totally different than what the OP stated.

Topics often shift and move away from the initial idea presented. Its just a part of message board discussion.

3) I warned people to stay in line and on topic. It's my thread, I can do what I want with it. If I don't feel that what is being discussed is productive or proves any point, or does not contribute to the original post, there is no reason why I shouldn't have had it locked. It started off as meaningful, then thanks to a few individuals, it quickly went to meaningless.

Whatever I do what I want!

It should have stayed open because discussion was still continuing among other members in the thread even if it was outside your narrow guidelines. It doesn't matter if you like where it was going or not or how much importance you place on the subject matter. You cut off discussion based on your inflated sense of self importance.

4) If the conversations that was being discussed prior to the closure of the thread was SOOOoooo important, someone else is more than welcome to start one of thier own to continue the debate. As for me, I had one simple request, and if people disregard that request, why should I give them regard?

Because it makes you comparable to those spoiled rich girls who throw a hissy fit when their birthday party doesn't go exactly as planned thats why. You need to look at this in a more mature manner.