# Some threads just need to be locked



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Ya' think?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nope. Some msg might need to be deleted and posters warned but for the most part threads in GC should be allowed to be born, live and die on their own.

But it would have been funny if they had locked this one before anyone could post.


----------



## fordy (Sep 13, 2003)

............We had that non compos mentis justification for thread closure under the old ownership ! Things have definitely changed for the better in my opinion . , fordy


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

I hate locking threads and personally take no satisfaction in it. The last thread I cleaned up and deleted comments, everyone complained that the thread had lost 'it's continuity' and I several pm's indicating locking them was better. 

Ultimately, it's your choice. I can clean it up and reopen it but it would be the last time I intend to clean it up and will lock it if it follows the same pattern or you can start another discussion on whichever of the several topics were covered.


----------



## FeralFemale (Apr 10, 2006)

I think it was unproductive and too personal. 

I hate locked threads, but all that the thread accomplished was making HTGC enemies. I don't understand why we can't just argue? Arguing is fun. Why do folks need to get personal and kinda crazy?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

I love seeing the arguments of both sides even better when I discover there arÃª ten sides of logic to a argument. 
It's the personal insults that aggravate me , eventually I feel like I'm at the zoo watching the chimps throw feces


----------



## Fennick (Apr 16, 2013)

Some threads should just never be started in the first place.

Some threads are nothing but troll bait that should be ignored.


----------



## Wanda (Dec 19, 2002)

As soon as some people figure the formula for locking, it will be added to threads that are not going in there direction.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

I don't mind the thread in question being locked. After X amount of pages, nobody is changing anybody's mind.

Having said that, though, let me say this: I've been on web boards since the wild world of Usenet. I've never complained to a moderator about a thread. Not in the thousands of threads I've participated in. If a board has moderators, I figure they can do their job well enough, without me tapping them on the back constantly.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Wanda said:


> As soon as some people figure the formula for locking, it will be added to threads that are not going in there direction.


This. It's happened for years, if a discussion isn't going the way the majority wants they will get it shut down. They just have to work harder at it now. 

If you can't come up with the better argument the next best thing is to get the thread locked. The Caitlyn Jenner thread is a case in point.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Just an observation, the first page or two of the thread was somewhat interesting and on point. After that it devolved, it became more about the posters, without having any real discussion on both sides.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Irish Pixie said:


> This. It's happened for years, if a discussion isn't going the way the majority wants they will get it shut down. They just have to work harder at it now.
> 
> If you can't come up with the better argument the next best thing is to get the thread locked. The Caitlyn Jenner thread is a case in point.


Been doing this stuff long?

Let me assure you, by the end of about two pages, you ain't changing anybody's mind about anything. People might stay around for the back-and-forth, but they aren't listening. Not really. Sometimes a different facet might be brought to light, but the majority doesn't care. They aren't emotionally invested.

From there on out, it's arguing for the fun of it.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

So for the fun of it, is name calling and threats.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

So for the fun of it, is name calling and threats and personal attacks.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Jolly said:


> Been doing this stuff long?
> 
> Let me assure you, by the end of about two pages, you ain't changing anybody's mind about anything. People might stay around for the back-and-forth, but they aren't listening. Not really. Sometimes a different facet might be brought to light, but the majority doesn't care. They aren't emotionally invested.
> 
> From there on out, it's arguing for the fun of it.


Longer than you, at least on HT.

Like Painterswife, I don't like threats, name calling and personal attacks. Obviously your mileage varies.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

painterswife said:


> So for the fun of it, is name calling and threats.


Geez, can you have a conversation without whipping out the victim card?

There was name calling on both sides. The thread is locked. Nobody "won". Nobody ever does.

The day is good. Go play in the garden or take care of your animals. Or stick around and have fun discussing the off-topic stuff of the board. Make yourself happy. I do.

_Rejoice in the day the Lord hath made and be glad therein_.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Irish Pixie said:


> Longer than you, at least on HT.
> 
> Like Painterswife, I don't like threats, name calling and personal attacks. Obviously your mileage varies.


As I said, I've been around the net since Usenet and that's since the early 90's. The threads around here are very tame compared to many of the flame wars I've been in over the years. But just because y'all want to be argumentative today, let me point out that the name calling went both ways, and I see no apologies from you or any other folks on "your side". Not even an amelioration of hostilities...Just finger pointing. Recriminations. A mis-placed will to win.

Why?


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Irish Pixie said:


> This. It's happened for years, if a discussion isn't going the way the majority wants they will get it shut down. They just have to work harder at it now.
> 
> If you can't come up with the better argument the next best thing is to get the thread locked. The Caitlyn Jenner thread is a case in point.


Uh...those who get threads locked are not the majority. Since this is a homesteading based board and homesteading type people are generally more conservative, conservatives naturally were the majority posting. I'd wager many of them are like me and have NEVER complained to the mods about a thread. As in other things, it is the whining minority that complains and gets threads locked.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Jolly said:


> I don't mind the thread in question being locked. After X amount of pages, nobody is changing anybody's mind.
> 
> Having said that, though, let me say this: I've been on web boards since the wild world of Usenet. I've never complained to a moderator about a thread. Not in the thousands of threads I've participated in. If a board has moderators, I figure they can do their job well enough, without me tapping them on the back constantly.


Me too, with one exception...........spammers, it's hard for the mods to keep an eye on every thread, especially when it pops up while you're sleeping, working your day job or in the bathroom.
I sometimes will click "report" when a first time post is running an obvious spam or scam.




wr said:


> I hate locking threads and personally take no satisfaction in it. The last thread I cleaned up and deleted comments, everyone complained that the thread had lost 'it's continuity' and I several pm's indicating locking them was better.
> 
> Ultimately, it's your choice. I can clean it up and reopen it but it would be the last time I intend to clean it up and will lock it if it follows the same pattern or you can start another discussion on whichever of the several topics were covered.


Yep, being a mod is hard enough without being the sandbox monitor, lol.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

HDRider said:


> Ya' think?


I think no one forces you to continue reading them if they don't meet your "approval".


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Jolly said:


> As I said, I've been around the net since Usenet and that's since the early 90's. The threads around here are very tame compared to many of the flame wars I've been in over the years. But just because y'all want to be argumentative today, let me point out that the name calling went both ways, and I see no apologies from you or any other folks on "your side". Not even an amelioration of hostilities...Just finger pointing. Recriminations. A mis-placed will to win.
> 
> Why?


Nope. I'm not touching the bait today. Have a wonderful day, I know I will.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

I enjoy a lively discussion. It fires up the brain cells that most people forget to use. I would never think of complaining to a moderator because of something someone posted in a thread. Third grade was a very long time ago. If you don't like it, go to another thread.
As far as going out of your way to have a thread locked down, we are talking uber immaturity. Anyone who would behave in such a manner is lying to themselves when they say they are an adult. Such action is the result of a closed and limited mind.
All threads die out. Bad threads die out faster.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

poppy said:


> Uh...those who get threads locked are not the majority. Since this is a homesteading based board and homesteading type people are generally more conservative, conservatives naturally were the majority posting. I'd wager many of them are like me and have NEVER complained to the mods about a thread. As in other things, it is the whining minority that complains and gets threads locked.



You would be incorrect in your belief that conservatives never report threads and you may be surprised at who was reporting and what they reported.


----------



## oneraddad (Jul 20, 2010)




----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

farmrbrown said:


> Me too, with one exception...........spammers, it's hard for the mods to keep an eye on every thread, especially when it pops up while you're sleeping, working your day job or in the bathroom.
> I sometimes will click "report" when a first time post is running an obvious spam or scam.
> 
> 
> ...


I agree.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

oneraddad said:


>


I assure you, ol' Keneau knows what Jolly Ranchers are and it ain't gay farmers. :grin:


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Irish Pixie said:


> Nope. I'm not touching the bait today. Have a wonderful day, I know I will.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Locking threads only creates the same type of posting in another thread. The problem is that, for some, disagreement become way too personal. It may appear that disgreements are over philosophy or issues but when it becomes a vendetta, it spills over to every posting that the targeted individual makes. 
Reading and digesting comments really ceases and wringing out some disparaging comment is the sole goal. 
And that is a serious moderating dilemma. A forum can be thoroughly hyjacked in all aspects subforums if vendettas rule. And they are hard to stop as it is the pattern of posting that is the issues, not so much the words in the indiviual posts that matter.


----------



## Dutchie (Mar 14, 2003)

I think locking threads or removing posts is silly. If a reader is bothered by sonething, either suck it up or don't go back in. What are we? A bunch of 5 year olds?


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

HDRider said:


> Ya' think?


Ya for sure when nothing more can be gained besides just arguing back and forth nobody will give an inch time to close it and move on. Nobody is learning anything nobody is gaining any knowledge, there are one or two that have gone on IMO way too long now. Just back and forth back and forth nobody will compromise into saying oh just maybe that COULD happen that way. Nope all too stubborn and set int their ways.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

arabian knight said:


> Ya for sure when nothing more can be gained besides just arguing back and forth nobody will give an inch time to close it and move on. Nobody is learning anything nobody is gaining any knowledge, there are one or two that have gone on IMO way too long now. Just back and forth back and forth nobody will compromise into saying oh just maybe that COULD happen that way. Nope all too stubborn and set int their ways.


Are you saying that all threads should be locked down after a certain number of pages, certain threads locked down because folks are going to disagree or just lock down those you don't agree with? 

That being the case, who gets to pick which threads get locked down? Those mods who were tasked with the job or the side the reports the most posts? 

You seemed to be actively involved in aforementioned thread and wouldn't it be easier to just walk away and let it die than to participate, inflame and then complain?

Members asked for less moderation in this forum and that's exactly what they've gotten. If members would like to return to a more heavy handed approach, please feel free to start a thread and let members discuss it but I promise you, it will be fair and even for everybody, not just certain people.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

no really said:


> Just an observation, the first page or two of the thread was somewhat interesting and on point. After that it devolved, it became more about the posters, without having any real discussion on both sides.


That's called thread drift and it is what makes things interesting. You can start talking about fleas on a dog and end up talking about the possibility of faster than light travel. Life would be boring if you had to discuss only the topic at hand.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

painterswife said:


> So for the fun of it, is name calling and threats and personal attacks.


Personally I have plenty of big boy undies and am old enough not to give an airborne rodent's rectum what anyone else thinks or says about me. 

I tend to be a mirror. You play nice with me and I'll play nice with you. You get nasty and I'll get nasty but in such a way to not get a mod slap. I'm old enough to know how to do that as well  

Anyone here remember BBSs and fido?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

arabian knight said:


> Ya for sure when nothing more can be gained besides just arguing back and forth nobody will give an inch time to close it and move on. Nobody is learning anything nobody is gaining any knowledge, there are one or two that have gone on IMO way too long now. Just back and forth back and forth nobody will compromise into saying oh just maybe that COULD happen that way. Nope all too stubborn and set int their ways.


The thing is even those threads die some time. Leave them alone and they will wither.


----------



## Shrek (May 1, 2002)

If we lock or delete a thread it is only after we mods have read and re-read the thread and agree that it has drifted to far away from discussion and debate and devolved to nothing more than ad hominem hissing and personal attacking after repeated efforts to restore it to viable discussion and debate.


----------



## Wanda (Dec 19, 2002)

I participate in an ag forum that is UK based. It has an ongoing thread in one forum with 1,550,007 views and 26,899 posts!


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

I gotta come clean. 

I don't think threads should ever be locked, I don't think people should complain to moderators, I don't think there should be any censure other than what one censure of themselves. 

We are supposed to be adults. I don't like cry babies.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Wanda said:


> I participate in an ag forum that is UK based. It has an ongoing thread in one forum with 1,550,007 views and 26,899 posts!


Talking about rainy weather in England? :grin:


----------



## Wanda (Dec 19, 2002)

Jolly said:


> Talking about rainy weather in England? :grin:



Sometimes they complain just like we do.


----------



## Fennick (Apr 16, 2013)

HDRider said:


> I gotta come clean.
> 
> I don't think threads should ever be locked, I don't think people should complain to moderators, I don't think there should be any censure other than what one censure of themselves.
> 
> We are supposed to be adults. I don't like cry babies.


What you're talking about is an unmoderated, self-policing forum. I hate unmoderated forums.

Unmoderated forums always get swamped and brought down and forced to go offline by foul trolls, spammers and hackers and finger pointing, name calling, potty mouthed free-for-all people who delude themselves that they are being adults but they really aren't.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

HDRider said:


> I gotta come clean.
> 
> I don't think threads should ever be locked, I don't think people should complain to moderators, I don't think there should be any censure other than what one censure of themselves.
> 
> We are supposed to be adults. I don't like cry babies.


I censor myself a lot... I try to think about what I post as though I am in some ones living room having a discussion face to face. That generally keeps me from making derogatory posts.


----------



## partndn (Jun 18, 2009)

Well I haven't figured out the new modding yet.

Locking, deleting, whatever. 

There is currently a thread where painterswife expressed disapproval of jolly's posts. When I did the same thing to basketti, I was deleted and reason says "personal attack" :shrug: My post was in response to what was, in my opinion, personal attacks that had remained without deletion. So.. I don't get it.
There are still posts remaining from other members with insults, ugliness, and referencing to being bigoted and racist.. but there's no problem with that.

I didn't use any words that are forbidden, didn't make any ---'s to fill in for words, or say anything different than the type of thing that remains. So it's very hard to figure out what is okay. I just wish it appeared consistent for all.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

partndn said:


> Well I haven't figured out the new modding yet.
> 
> Locking, deleting, whatever.
> 
> ...


You can attack the posts not the poster.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

painterswife said:


> You can attack the posts not the poster.


Yup, that would be the definition of "*personal* attack"


----------



## partndn (Jun 18, 2009)

painterswife said:


> You can attack the posts not the poster.


Okay. I think we are all intelligent enough to know that one pretty much equals the other in a lot of cases. Not all, but a lot.

I may not take the time to craftily phrase words in a way that can only be directed as "at a post" to avoid what is really meant. 
I'm a straightforward person. Sincerity is more important to me than little detail loopholes.
And if anybody here thinks attacking a "post" rather than a person means it excuses hurting someone on purpose, they're mistaken. 

Disagreement is fine. I like seeing 2 or more sides to opinion. I just don't like meanness, especially when done by folks who don't have to face anyone, like here on the web.

Nevada is a great example. I almost NEVER agree with him. And there are a few members here opposing his opinions that can take a hard jab at him, and they know each other long enough here that they realize is kinda in fun. 
I have never, ever read a post of Nevada's in argument with anyone where he got school yard stupid. He is tenacious and continually may argue, and sure, sometimes I want to mentally strangle him. But I have never felt the need to try to hurt him (or his "post"!), nor would I enjoy it.


----------



## partndn (Jun 18, 2009)

Irish Pixie said:


> Yup, that would be the definition of "*personal* attack"


Right. As if your post is attacked, you don't take it personal. 
Samples can be searched and quoted here to prove wrong. We don't need to waste space with that though.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

partndn said:


> Right. As if your post is attacked, you don't take it personal.
> Samples can be searched and quoted here to prove wrong. We don't need to waste space with that though.


A personal attack can be deleted. I don't decide what is personal and neither do you. Quibbling about is a moot point.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

partndn said:


> Okay. I think we are all intelligent enough to know that one pretty much equals the other in a lot of cases. Not all, but a lot.
> 
> I may not take the time to craftily phrase words in a way that can only be directed as "at a post" to avoid what is really meant.
> I'm a straightforward person. Sincerity is more important to me than little detail loopholes.
> ...


Well, I have read lots of posts by people trying to hurt Nevada. You were trying to hurt in that post you made that got deleted. You could have taken it to PM.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

painterswife said:


> Well, I have read lots of posts by people trying to hurt Nevada. You were trying to hurt in that post you made that got deleted. You could have taken it to PM.


Really.... I often see assumptions past off as facts.

Some people read minds far better than I am comfortable with attempting and the pass it out as the gospel. 


You were trying to hurt.

Fact or assumption ..... 

Take a person who feels safe and logical to seriously choose their race... I feel safer not attempting to provide a gender assumption label as required in English... I am not sure but can see if I had used the it vs x someone would claim an act of cruelty to some minority.


Seems like almost a mod want to be in guidance given


----------



## RichNC (Aug 22, 2014)

kasilofhome said:


> Seems like almost a mod want to be in guidance given


Only because is seems that you have it in for this MOD??


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Rich please explain


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Rich, don't bother. You will be accused of being a victim.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

painterswife said:


> Rich, don't bother. You will be accused of being a victim.


Not bashful about giving orders.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

kasilofhome said:


> Not bashful about giving orders.


You say order, I say suggestion. Bashful no, why should I be, it would make me a victim.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I censor myself a lot... I try to think about what I post as though I am in some ones living room having a discussion face to face. That generally keeps me from making derogatory posts.



I think that's a great policy and fits nicely with the "neighborly" idea here. I try to offer advice and discussion as if I were explaining things to my mom. 
Sometimes though I must admit I become riled and don't live up to my own standards.


----------



## Marshloft (Mar 24, 2008)

Not sure about deleting or locking threads. Not my call.
But a _"code word"_ for TROLL might be in order.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I censor myself a lot... I try to think about what I post as though I am in some ones living room having a discussion face to face. That generally keeps me from making derogatory posts.


If everybody remembered that bit of advice and the fact that not every battle is won on a thread in GC, there would be no reason to moderate anything.


----------



## Bellyman (Jul 6, 2013)

Two things have helped me...

1) Sometimes, I will go ahead and type out a response in the quick reply box. Typing it out makes me feel like I've expressed myself. And then, instead of hitting the "post quick reply" button, I move on to the next page without posting, effectively deleting my reply before posting. Helps me blow off a little steam. 

2) I do not need to engage with some posters I don't get along with very well nor do I need to read every post that shows up in every thread or every forum. There are topics and subforums that are just best left for someone else to read. There are posters that I really just disagree with and anything I say will not change their mind and anything they say will not change mine. I don't hold any ill will toward them. Just don't want to go where I know we'll clash.

In a number of web forums, not just this one, I do find that there are people that agitate and stir the pot on a very regular basis. There are times when they just want to start an argument, no matter what anyone else's opinion. I mean no one any ill will but have at times been misunderstood and been drawn into discussions that I'd have been better off to have left alone. 

That said, there are a lot of really good people who post here. It is those people who keep me around, people that when they post, it feels like an old friend posting... Forest Beekeeper, TN Andy, JudyP, VAHomesteader, and more who's handles I can't recall at the moment, good people, who've been kind towards me even when I've had to taste a little shoe leather. 

FWIW...


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

It's not about "winning" to me. It's when people stand up and proclaim about how Christian they are and in the next breath say it's wrong to feed a hungry kid because of something their parents did. Or when they receive government benefits yet shame everyone else that does, or when they obviously haven't been taught right from wrong. That's not being Christian. Christian is following the teachings of Christ and has absolutely nothing to do with the government or political leaning.

This was brought to you by someone that is not religious. If I get it, why can't you (collective religious you)?


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Ah, yes. The hungry kid argument. The made up mantra. Nothing like not liking solutions to problems rather than tossing money at things, but then no one would be able to call Christians foul names, huh!


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Tricky Grama said:


> Ah, yes. The hungry kid argument. The made up mantra. Nothing like not liking solutions to problems rather than tossing money at things, but then no one would be able to call Christians foul names, huh!


Where did I call Christians foul names? Are you reading what you want to read into posts again?

Do you honestly think that Christ would want kids hungry for whatever reason?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Tricky Grama said:


> Ah, yes. The hungry kid argument. The made up mantra. Nothing like not liking solutions to problems rather than tossing money at things, but then no one would be able to call Christians foul names, huh!


Christians call Christians foul names and tell each other they are not Christians. You don't need any help to putting each other down.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Tricky Grama said:


> Ah, yes. The hungry kid argument. The made up mantra. Nothing like not liking solutions to problems rather than tossing money at things, but then no one would be able to call Christians foul names, huh!


You fiend! All kids are going hungry. Don't you notice all the kids around who are skin and bones with pot bellies and flies buzzing around them? In the same vein, all women who get abortions are victims of rape or incest. Ignoring the facts doesn't make the problems go away. Someone (obviously a deep thinker) posted on another thread the other day that something like 95% of women going to college are sexually assaulted. Please wake up and do your part by paying higher taxes to end these atrocities. If you have a college nearby, please also get a spotlight on your vehicle and light up the campus as you drive by, especially the bushes, and report any sexual assaults you WILL see. You'll likely have a lot to report with that many women being assaulted.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

poppy said:


> You fiend! All kids are going hungry. Don't you notice all the kids around who are skin and bones with pot bellies and flies buzzing around them? In the same vein, all women who get abortions are victims of rape or incest. Ignoring the facts doesn't make the problems go away. Someone (obviously a deep thinker) posted on another thread the other day that something like 95% of women going to college are sexually assaulted. Please wake up and do your part by paying higher taxes to end these atrocities. If you have a college nearby, please also get a spotlight on your vehicle and light up the campus as you drive by, especially the bushes, and report any sexual assaults you WILL see. You'll likely have a lot to report with that many women being assaulted.


Just remember that Jesus is watching what you do and say. Don't you follow WWJD? :thumb:


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

wr said:


> If everybody remembered that bit of advice and the fact that not every battle is won on a thread in GC, there would be no reason to moderate anything.


The problem comes when different moderating applies based on the congenial leanings of a poster rather than their tactics.
The people on here complained like heck about Angie's perceived political bias in moderating are the same ones pleased with what they call the lack of bias now. By which they mean their opponents are getting it now and isn't that just dandy.
But, although I did find that moderating cut too many people off, it is clear to those who look that left and right got it in the neck pretty equally.


----------



## FeralFemale (Apr 10, 2006)

This is hilarious. Now y'all are arguing about who's a meaner arguer. 

None of you are delicate flowers and all of you gave as good as you got. And though some of you were more subtle, the intent for personal attack was clearly still there.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Fordy, that is the best explanation of the situation I have heard yet.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Shrek said:


> If we lock or delete a thread it is only after we mods have read and re-read the thread and agree that it has drifted to far away from discussion and debate and devolved to nothing more than ad hominem hissing and personal attacking after repeated efforts to restore it to viable discussion and debate.


I've been a mod and its a once in a life time experience, IOW I'm not going to do that again if at all possible.

But personally in GC I don't see its worth the bother. If two or more people want to have a virtual peeing contest in a thread let them go at it. At some point they will be the only ones on the thread so no one else will get hit with backsplash and eventually they'll tire and the thread will die. 

If things start to get out of control you warn the poster, if he ignores you then you sanction him.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Marshloft said:


> Not sure about deleting or locking threads. Not my call.
> But a _"code word"_ for TROLL might be in order.


Even troll post can lead to some very good discussions. Find just about any thread with a lot of post and read it. You will see that as time go by the conversion drifts. It will some times drift so much you'd never be able to tell what the OP was about. Then it might drift right back to it and you discover someone is saying just what the OP was saying 20 pages back.

You will also often find that there are threads within threads. A few people will have drifted one way, a few more drifted another and some might just still be on point.

That's what makes it fun. It'd be boring as watching paint dry on growing grass if each thread was moderated like a collage debate competition.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> It's not about "winning" to me. It's when people stand up and proclaim about how Christian they are and in the next breath say it's wrong to feed a hungry kid because of something their parents did. Or when they receive government benefits yet shame everyone else that does, or when they obviously haven't been taught right from wrong. That's not being Christian. Christian is following the teachings of Christ and has absolutely nothing to do with the government or political leaning.
> 
> This was brought to you by someone that is not religious. If I get it, why can't you (collective religious you)?


Here's a good example of how threads drift. It would be very easy for me to shift to talking about Christ's teachings, feeding hungry kids, bad parents and/or politics. 

In a strongly moderated thread this post would have earned the poster a warning because the majority of the post has nothing to do with the topic being discussed.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Tricky Grama said:


> Ah, yes. The hungry kid argument. The made up mantra. Nothing like not liking solutions to problems rather than tossing money at things, but then no one would be able to call Christians foul names, huh!


See I told you, thread drift. One post which has a majority of it off topic has lead to another post which is completely off topic.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> Just remember that Jesus is watching what you do and say. Don't you follow WWJD? :thumb:


Care to point out where Jesus went around hunting for and feeding hungry kids?

More thread drift


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

FeralFemale said:


> This is hilarious. Now y'all are arguing about who's a meaner arguer.
> 
> None of you are delicate flowers and all of you gave as good as you got. And though some of you were more subtle, the intent for personal attack was clearly still there.


There are delicate flowers- some who yell the loudest may even be the most delicate but a lot of people simply disappear.

There are people who disagree what is said and that is enough for them to personally attack- that you are mean because of what you say. That is defensible. Others only know one mode- people who disagree are enemies to be searched out and bombed at every opportunity. They don't really read what is said- they just fire.


----------



## Marshloft (Mar 24, 2008)

I got an idea. How's about we all get together and have a kegger?
We might find out we all have much more in common than once realized.
The conservatives can bring the beer, the liberals can bring the doob. And we can 
all share what we brung.
And oh yeah, I'll make sloppy joe's for everyone, including all your starving children.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Make it a non alcoholic brew... with consent forms, just in case.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Irish Pixie said:


> Just remember that Jesus is watching what you do and say. Don't you follow WWJD? :thumb:


Jesus taught people to be responsible, not leeches on society. Paul said "If a man won't work he shouldn't eat". That does not apply to those mentally or physically unable to work. Being unable to get out of bed in the morning because you were out partying all night does not qualify as a disability. Jesus also said that anyone who harms a child would be better off with a millstone tied around his neck and thrown into the sea and yet the pro abortion people press on. Go figure.


----------



## susieneddy (Sep 2, 2011)

poppy said:


> Jesus also said that anyone who harms a child would be better off with a millstone tied around his neck and thrown into the sea and yet the pro abortion people press on. Go figure.


if you want to get started on abortion you will get the thread shut down. Lots of other abortion threads you can go to


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

susieneddy said:


> if you want to get started on abortion you will get the thread shut down. Lots of other abortion threads you can go to


Why, the control?


----------



## susieneddy (Sep 2, 2011)

Just making a comment..take it or leave it


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

I deleted various posts discussing previous admin directly because I can't see any benefit debating or discussing how things were and I'm not certain the person discussed is in a position where their actions or motivation can be comfortably discussed.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

poppy said:


> You fiend! All kids are going hungry. Don't you notice all the kids around who are skin and bones with pot bellies and flies buzzing around them? In the same vein, all women who get abortions are victims of rape or incest. Ignoring the facts doesn't make the problems go away. Someone (obviously a deep thinker) posted on another thread the other day that something like 95% of women going to college are sexually assaulted. Please wake up and do your part by paying higher taxes to end these atrocities. If you have a college nearby, please also get a spotlight on your vehicle and light up the campus as you drive by, especially the bushes, and report any sexual assaults you WILL see. You'll likely have a lot to report with that many women being assaulted.


I'm soo sorry, Poppy. All this time wasted on charities that actually do something and educate others. All this time spent trying to help overweight kids b/c that really is an epidemic. But...there's no made up name for them! The horror!


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Marshloft said:


> I got an idea. How's about we all get together and have a kegger?
> We might find out we all have much more in common than once realized.
> The conservatives can bring the beer, the liberals can bring the doob. And we can
> all share what we brung.
> And oh yeah, I'll make sloppy joe's for everyone, including all your starving children.


Coming to KS next May, I'll hold ya to it.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

I don't know about locking threads. But, I do question the conflict between moderating while participating in a thread.

A lot of people who referee or judge sports or competitions are actively involved in participating in those sports or hobbies themselves. But, in real life, people don't accept them refereeing and playing on the same game.

I don't think on-line it makes sense for moderators to comment and moderate on the same threads. If they're involved in a thread that seems to go awry, I think they should alert another moderator of problems, and have that moderator step in and take action if they believe it's needed.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Good point... but maybe that is a procedure they already do....who knows.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

They may consult each other, which would be good. But, I have seen a few threads where a moderator is posting and deleting posts and closing threads.

It's not wrong for them to be part of the talk. But, I think it invites reasonable questions about conflicts of interest if they don't take the time to get other eyes on it and have the other moderators post the deletions or close the threads.

Seeing a different moderators name listed on those moderating updates is what assures me that the changes were hopefully being reviewed by a person with fresh eyes to the thread posts. Anyone contributing to a thread as a dog in lthe fight so to speak.

It's not a perfect world, and no plan or execution is perfect. But, I do think this is worth attempting to do whenever possible.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

I've often wondered how someone can believe that they are entitled to be incredibly nasty in the name of defending someone else. It must be that a charity or historically disadvantaged group is just an excuse to behave in a horrible way that is in their nature but then even they are embarassed by it and so need to use something as a smoke screen, even from themselves.
Anyone who is truly charitable automatically extends that to all people, even those who disagree.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

gibbsgirl said:


> I don't know about locking threads. But, I do question the conflict between moderating while participating in a thread.
> 
> A lot of people who referee or judge sports or competitions are actively involved in participating in those sports or hobbies themselves. But, in real life, people don't accept them refereeing and playing on the same game.
> 
> I don't think on-line it makes sense for moderators to comment and moderate on the same threads. If they're involved in a thread that seems to go awry, I think they should alert another moderator of problems, and have that moderator step in and take action if they believe it's needed.


Are there many other moderators who are actively moderating these days? Just for example GC has 4 mods. One hasn't logged onto HT in a week. One is really busy and mainly does Tech stuff. The other 2 post pretty regularly on the board. So who should they have check stuff? Mods who are never here?


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

gibbsgirl said:


> They may consult each other, which would be good. But, I have seen a few threads where a moderator is posting and deleting posts and closing threads.
> 
> It's not wrong for them to be part of the talk. But, I think it invites reasonable questions about conflicts of interest if they don't take the time to get other eyes on it and have the other moderators post the deletions or close the threads.
> 
> ...


I disagree. I participate in other forums far larger than this one that have been going on a lot longer. Moderators can and do participate in threads with as much enthusiasm as anyone else. However, when they are moderating, they make it clear they are moderating. I don't assume someone is incapable of being impartial just because they have a point of view.

Moreover, good moderators are hard to come by and the job is tough enough without making it even more miserable by constraining their ability to participate in threads that interest them. 

I think if a moderator is consistently biased, then other moderators and participants will speak out about it and steps can be taken to address it.

I've seen no evidence of bias by moderators in quite some time. It's been wonderfully refreshing. Kudos to them all. It's not easy.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

Raeven said:


> o
> 
> Moreover, good moderators are had to come by and the job is tough enough without making it even more miserable by constraining their ability to participate in threads that interest them.
> 
> I've seen no evidence of bias by moderators in quite some time. It's been wonderfully refreshing. Kudos to them all. It's not easy.


My comments were not meant disparage any particular moderators or forums or even web-sites. It was just my thoughts on what make for best practices

I've been involved in many volunteer groups where lots of people benefit from the thankless job work of a few. I imagine that is similar to moderating.

We frequently laid out our best practices plans. Sometimes volunteer s took advantage of the power trip. Other times, we just didn't have enough people resources to get the job done the way we wanted to.

You just have to make due with what you have. But I didn't think sharing my name thoughts was not worthwhile. Maybe there aren't enough moderators to handle things that way. If that's reality, that's okay. But, I think there's still room to discuss best practices and hold them out as a goal, even if their execution is imperfect.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

OK- I protested to wr my personal opinion that dragging in Christianity to this post was intended to be insulting. She responded with asking, repeatedly, who is insulted. 
So I wonder if it is only me that believe that it was meant to be using a sarcastic throwing back person's own professed religion, in a thread totally unrelated to the idea, is a way of trolling to get a rise out of other posters and is insulting. 

Not necessarily because of opposing Christian ideals but because it is used in a way meant to get to people personally. Sort of like saying to soneone on welfare that all welfare is theft. Not saying 'you are a thief' but that is the inescapable intent- to tell an untruth to provoke.

So, normally finding the solicitation of other's opinions superfluous, I ask if, while not reporting it as an insult yourself, do you find it so? I coukd be misinterpreting sincere remarks as trolling. Let me know.


----------



## Guest (Jun 16, 2015)

It would seem to me that reporting such things are an attempt to bolster ones opinions by soliciting the help of the person with the delete button, profanity and real personal attacks should be dealt with swiftly. HT owns the site, it is their call.


----------



## Bellyman (Jul 6, 2013)

where I want to said:


> OK- I protested to wr my personal opinion that dragging in Christianity to this post was intended to be insulting. She responded with asking, repeatedly, who is insulted.
> So I wonder if it is only me that believe that it was meant to be using a sarcastic throwing back person's own professed religion, in a thread totally unrelated to the idea, is a way of trolling to get a rise out of other posters and is insulting.
> 
> Not necessarily because of opposing Christian ideals but because it is used in a way meant to get to people personally. Sort of like saying to soneone on welfare that all welfare is theft. Not saying 'you are a thief' but that is the inescapable intent- to tell an untruth to provoke.
> ...


I saw the jabs to which you refer. I did think they were out of line but didn't feel the need to jab back. It's kinda like wrestling with a pig... it only gets me all dirty and the pig likes it. And honestly, I am still puzzling over why this thread still exists. I check back every so often, I suppose out of morbid curiosity.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

where I want to said:


> OK- I protested to wr my personal opinion that dragging in Christianity to this post was intended to be insulting. She responded with asking, repeatedly, who is insulted.
> So I wonder if it is only me that believe that it was meant to be using a sarcastic throwing back person's own professed religion, in a thread totally unrelated to the idea, is a way of trolling to get a rise out of other posters and is insulting.
> 
> Not necessarily because of opposing Christian ideals but because it is used in a way meant to get to people personally. Sort of like saying to soneone on welfare that all welfare is theft. Not saying 'you are a thief' but that is the inescapable intent- to tell an untruth to provoke.
> ...


There is and has always been sarcastic throwing around of peoples religion, politics and other things to provoke, insult and troll. How would you suggest the Mods deal with that?

The only rule they have is don't make it a personal attack on one person or a bigoted racist remark. I personally dislike all the bigoted remarks and suggestions that being an atheist makes some have less morals. How are you going to stop that? It goes both ways. You get what you want stopped then I get what I want stopped.


----------

