One of the things I'm seeing is that everyone has different ideas of when threads should be locked by someone. I wanted to see what you all think, maybe that will give some insight. At what point in a thread should it be locked? When things are starting to get iffy? Or when all bets are off? As a preventative or a last resort? And what about threads that are just, well, I guess "dumb" or "pointless" for lack of a better word? Those get locked too just to stop that sort of posting.

i think if a thread devolves into arguing, like real, heated arguing where both parties are noticably at eachother's throats, then staff should step in and issue a verbal warning to get back on track. by that point then it's a matter of going off topic, or at worst flaming, both of which are against the rules. an "argument" is hard to describe since arguments can be entirely civil, would those get locked? it's just better to clarify that if things get heated and personal then it should stop and get back on track.

I chose the second answer. I've always preferred to err on the side of not taking action on a post or topic unless action is clearly warranted. If a topic is obviously against the rules, or if the climate of a topic has become so heated that it's beyond hope of being salvaged, it makes sense to lock it. Generally speaking, I'd rather a moderator or other calming voice come in and steer the topic in a better direction, rather than locking or deleting a topic.

Even if someone is having an argument, I feel its best to let them duke it out for a bit, unless it resorts to petty name calling or gets too aggressive.

There's a difference between "pages of arguing" and "pages of insulting". Shutting down a topic simply because there's an argument doesnt help anything, it just embitters the people having the argument. However if said people have forgone making any actual point and have resorted to petty namecalling, antagonism, and general nastiness then yeah the topic should be closed. THIS DOESNT MEAN A TOPIC SHOULD BE CLOSED THE SECOND SOMEONE DISAGREES IN A "NOT NICE" WAY, IT MEANS THAT IF NO ONE IS ACTUALLY TRYING TO FURTHER THEIR POINT AND IS SIMPLY DIGGING AT OTHER USERS IT SHOULD BE CLOSED. People being rude during an argument doesnt automatically mean the argument should stop: warnings (verbal or otherwise) should be issued, but stopping the topic because of just a few rude people stifles conversation and chance for understanding. Speaking of WHY ARE THE "IS IT RACIST TO NOT BE ATTRACTED TO CERTAIN RACES" TOPICS STILL DISAPPEARED? THEY LITERALLY BROKE NO RULES AND ON THE WHOLE THE CONVERSATION WAS CIVIL. THIS is the kind of shit that needs to stop.

The problem with the lock on the LGBT thread is that it allowed a troll to shut down what could have been a meaningful and supporting topic for those who wanted it. This is exactly what such trolls want. Split the offending posts and replies to those posts from the thread and lock the new thread so that MFGG mods can look at it if needed. The LGBT thread could have continued just fine, in my opinion. However by the point any action was taken, a lot of the damage was already done. Some LGBT members left MFGG as a result of that action and I don't imagine they have any intent to return after such a display.

As for when a topic should be locked, that's not an easy question to answer. I think there are a lot of factors to consider. A topic should NEVER be deleted, in my opinion. Even if there's pornography posted, you can just edit that out and deal with it as normal. Disappearing threads is why you had so many "threads with no value" posted. Why would someone put effort into posting if your moderators are going to just delete whatever threads they want without stating any reasons?

Options 1 and 3 are cutting it a little too early, and options 4 and 5 could and should be considered inaction. As such, I chose option 2, like most of the others in this thread. However, Pedigree raises a good point about when the best time to lock a topic being difficult to determine. Yes, there are indeed a lot of factors to consider, and one of them is drawing a line between arguing and insulting. They're not mutually exclusive, so if one party is throwing insults it would probably be a better idea to post a verbal warning. If both parties start throwing insults, another verbal warning may suffice. Depending on the circumstances, if it continues much longer you could go either way and give a final warning or lock the topic. Once it reaches that point, it does become a difficult thing to consider. However, with the LGBT thread, Psid should have been dealt with ASAP and I feel like that was a major misstep on staff's part. As for deleting topics, I think the only time I would seriously consider deleting one would be spam threads made by an actual spambot.

After a couple pages of a potentially good topic going nowhere fast I would probably lock it, split/delete offending posts, and then unlock it with a warning to keep things back on track. After that if the discussion [i]still[/i] can't be maintained I would permanently lock the topic. So I guess option two? "Pages and pages" sounds like letting the argument devolve a little too long to me. I think two pages worth - forty posts to me - is enough to tell when something's not moving forward.

i think a very simple solution to option 2 that doesn't involve a lock would be to add something like "slow mode", where you can only make one post in an applicable thread per x amount of time. kinda like chat slow mode in streams.

Slow mode sounds cool and forums do have that kind of feature but I think it's by a "whole board" basis rather than individual topics

[font=Comic Sans MS]Locking threads is not a solution to conflict and cannot be treated as such. AT BEST they can stop things but abrupt and foolish use of moderation tools just leads to animosity towards not only the conflicting parties but animosity towards the staff and their haphazard decisions. Certainly rule breaking posts and posters should be dealt with, and threads that themselves are against the rules should be but a thread being big or active shouldn't be a crime. and likewise, I don't think there is a Technical solution that would solve conflict. It's a people problem and as such it has to be dealt with by people.[/font]

i voted the warnable option because it's the only objective one and therefore the only consistently enforceable one

Yeah when I say arguments I don't mean it like discussion, but like when you can tell people are getting pissed off and heated. Then again, I know that some people would want to see it all play out. But that would be like walking around a mall and seeing shouting matches happening and nobody doing anything.

It isn't really a solution which is why I would use it as a temporary measure at first Yeah, it's a problem with the people, but that doesn't mean the problem should be able to continue to escalate in the thread if it's already getting THAT bad, at least, that's how I see it And who knows, it could resolve itself, but there really is no perfect solution

in that case then yea, if it's people getting angry and flaming then that's also something against the rules and should probably get split up. i dunno if a lock would be technically necessary, as threads are for everyone to use.

[font=Comic Sans MS]Moderators should definitely try and step in and de-escalate the situation if it gets to that point. I'm definitely not saying problematic threads are Unsolvable, just that locks aren't a real solution (unless you like upsetting everyone, which by all means carry on).[/font]

The problem there is that it's really easy, in a particularly heated discussion, for the moderator's post to get lost in the noise, especially if they get "paged" or if a post is being made while the moderator posts theirs, unless they use size-million font to draw attention (which might open another can of worms) Mit's slow mode would come in handy in that sort of situation, though

[font=Comic Sans MS]I don't think posts being 'paged' has ever been a real thing. (of course it's hard to tell unless you have post reactions ;) ) I don't really think people would miss official moderator posts but maybe we could add a feature that makes the post stand out (different background or something of the sort) I am pretty skeptical of slow mode- I imagine you'd have the same frustrations as locking a thread except people can (and will) still post, and they're going to know exactly who to direct their anger towards[/font]

i think a post being paged or at least not going where you want it to go can be an issue in a fast-moving thread. slow mode's use means that while the conversation still moves, it's obviously going at a much slower pace, meaning that mods have much more time to post their thoughts and break things up if necessary. the slower post speed might also encourage those affected to take the argument elsewhere, post something else in another thread, etc