Thread closure policy change?
 

I have a suggestion for a policy change. Over the last week I have run across two instances where a thread was closed due to a single user's objectionable post. In one case, the post was completely ignored by other users. In the other, the post was a full page behind the current discussion.

When I asked about these threads, I was informed that it was the policy when scolding a user to also close the thread so they would not be tempted to lash back in that thread. It was also stated the threads could be restarted.

My suggestion would to be to handle this completely off the board via email, and if the post warrants, simply edit it. If a written notice needs to be made in the thread so others know it was wrong, then doing so after dealing with it via email would curb the possible backlash. Overall, I believe this would save punishing the many users who do post appropriately from having a civil conversation ended/uprooted because of a single person.

http://www.dvdtalk.com/forum/showthr...5&pagenumber=2

http://www.dvdtalk.com/forum/showthr...5&pagenumber=9

Edit: another thread

http://www.dvdtalk.com/forum/showthr...hreadid=289083

Edit: another thread - this one for a flipant comment made 4 days earlier

http://www.dvdtalk.com/forum/showthr...5&pagenumber=3

In addition, I know this has been discussed before, and I understand that the mods are chronically overworked, but I've noticed an increase in thread closures without explanation recently.

I would like to renew an ongoing request that the mod who closes the thread provides even the briefest explanation of why. A quick "dupe" or "derailed" or "personal attacks" or whatever. Sometimes I'll be typing a post, and the thread will get closed while I'm typing without explanation, and I won't know whether it's OK to start a new thread or not.

Sorry, fellow Monkey, if my thread closure request is too far off from your thread closure request. I think it's all part of the same thing, so I posted here, but if it should be a separate thread, that's fine too.

Thanks.

das

Yeah, I asked Dead the same thing and got the same answer as you. It was only one post to edit, so I don't know what's the big deal. There are thousand, if not milllions of threads floating around, I can live without a couple.

Wouldn't mods rather suspend someone after a warning and they lashed backin the same thread? Isn't it more fun that way?





NOTE: I was being sarcastic in that second paragraph! :)

Re: Thread closure policy change?
 

While I think your point has merit, I would point out that this has been done this in the past and there were a lot of complaints about it (along the lines of people wanting to "see" what happenned).

Kind of a damned if you do, damned if you don't kind of thing.

And if you leave it open, you end up having to babysit it because the same crap tends to break out again, and then when that happens warnings/suspensions have to go out, and you have yourself a good ole fashioned crapstorm.

Best thing to do when a thread like that is closed is open up a new one and start where you left off making sure history doesn't repeat itself.

<small> </small>:up: