Just a suggestion:

When locking a thread, an explanation might be helpful. Also, when retitling a thread to give an entirely different (and false) impression of the thread content doesn't seem to be conducive to an open marketplace of ideas.

Again, the reasons for doing so would be nice. Assuming that only mods/administrators have the ability to lock & retitle.

Thanks!

Counterpoint: this is a private forum run by a private company. They are free to do as they please.

edit: yes, it would be nice to have explanations, but I'm not one to dictate how mods/admins run this place.

@ marketplace of ideas

Re: Locking threads

This has been talked about before. And yes, the correct and most logical approach would be to give some idea as to why the thread in question is being locked/closed.

The response is sometimes that the thread is being discussed among the mod team or others before some kind of "action" is taken. If that's the case, logic would then dictate posting just that so everyone knows to expect a later explanation.

OP should know that DVD talk is only an "open marketplace of ideas" if your ideas are inline with what the vocal minority think they should be. It is curious that a thread was locked, while another thread on the same topic with a different source is still around. Turns out the topic is an actual news story and not "fake news" as someone, who has not come forward, labeled it.

Fake news is like porn

Counterpoint to what?

Counterpoint usually implies an opposite view. In this case, a suggestion was made...not a demand. Of course the private owners are free to do as they please. Why even bring that up?

If the owners didn't want feedback, presumably they wouldn't have a FEEDBACK FORUM.

But thanks for clearing up any misconceptions that you might want to dictate how people run the place, just in case anyone had their doubts. Everyone can sleep much more easily tonight.

at the implication that the forum isn't open to a variety of ideas. Again, only presuming, but one would think the owners see it that way and not just as a clearinghouse for a monolithic point of view.

Aww, creek. I'm sorry your thread was locked. It happens to the worst of us
I agree that it was wrong of you to imply that.

I won't comment on any specific moderator action, but I do agree that a reason should be given for locking threads and thread titles should not be changed to such a degree that it creates a misleading impression on the original poster's intent.

A reason should be given, why was the thread title changed (what was it before the change)?

Why was it was locked?

Hi guys, to be honest, I get where you're coming from. Especially since if you get banned or suspended, you're shown a reason. However, the reason we don't show a reason is because there isn't anything to put. There's not a field that displays it to other users, that's all.

So why not post in the thread before locking it? The way this happened makes it appear that there is a moderator out there that was taking a cheap shot at a member by changing the title and then locking the thread. At least have the balls to own up to it, since they did end up being wrong, after all.

I tend to agree that this particular case represents questionable moderating. Ideally, the following would happen:

• The forum or sub-forum (as applicable) would have a sticky which states the conditions under which threads will be locked.
• When a moderator decides to lock a thread, they would post in the thread before locking something as least as minimal as, "Locking the thread due to condition #X".
• Thread titles wouldn't get changed unless requested/permitted by the OP or the original title violates posted forum rules for thread title content.

On other forums that I frequent, if a moderator locked a thread without explanation and changed the thread title arbitrarily, they would in many cases be at least temporarily relieved of moderator duties. Moderators are supposed to, well, moderate. They should be above the pettiness that forum members sometimes engage in. If a moderator thinks a particular forum member needs to be reigned in, hand out a temporary suspension with explanation - don't play games with threads that only moderators could play.

I do agree that an explanation of why a thread is locked should be added to the thread. The locking mod should just post the reason for the lock in the final post.

I generally feel that thread titles changes should be done in the spirit of fun. If the OP disagrees with the title change that should be taken under consideration.

I enjoy the title changes. Rock on.

But if a thread is locked, the locking moderator should explain why it was locked.

In the referenced case, it seems like it was a an uncool move.

But all I really wanted to say was 'live by the mod, die by the mod' which makes no sense anyway.

Never liked when thread titles started getting renamed. It's what the creator of the thread title wanted so just leave it alone.

at the private company thing, it's a forum, meaning it wouldn't be around if "people" weren't using it

The thread title changes can be fun in Other.

In Politics, though, since there is the rule that posters can't "fixed" other's posts, it would seem to extend that the mods shouldn't be doing what is essentially the same thing to titles.

Ok, I'll admit, it is funny to rename threads at times - I guess as long as it's done in a comedic way (I'm sure some will disagree with this). I feel proud that the GTA "5" thread was renamed because of me

Agreed. I've also seen plenty of mod posts made in threads before locking them, so it's clear it can be done.

I’m disappointed that this thread hasn’t been renamed and/or locked by now. The mods truly are slipping.

Ibtl

I'm very temped to hit the thread re-title button, but what could happen?

I'm just fascinated to learn that the mods employ temps on occasion.

But, hey...even mods deserve a break!