[Orpheus]

hi.

i've noticed a disturbing trend lately: moderators would post their final word, then close a thread.

this is totally unfair.

first of all, i would like to think the moderator had a legitimate reason for closing a thread in the first place. and, if he did, he should not do exactly what he was trying to prevent in the first place. that would be hypocrisy.

secondly, it's simply unfair to just say something without giving the other side a chance for a rebuttal. there are always 2 sides to every situation. yeah, i know you think you're right... but please do not assume so cause there is at least one person that thinks you're wrong!

so, you wanna close a thread? got good reasons? then do it. but PLEASE do not end with some "last words."

if you want to put in your opinion, then do so. and be ready to hear more opinions in response.

i write this after seeing many threads closed after some moderator puts in his version of his truth. that's bull and makes me upset.

now... i believe most of these moderators to be friends of mine, at least on this board. i am not trying to attack anyone in particular. i just think this practice is really unfair. so, please don't be upset with me. i have contacted 2 moderators already personally about this issue.... but i just noticed others doing the same, so i figure i'd just make my opinion public now.

again, i ain't blaming anyone here. just pointing out an issue that needs attention.

thanks for listening.

 

[ServinginEcuador]

Dean,

I think they now do that in response to the cries of, "Why was this thread closed?" And, "Who closed my thread?" I don't think our mod squad does it out of spite or a childish need to get in the last word.

 

[radrd]

Agreed. I have nothing against any of the moderators, but if you think about it, locking a thread after putting in the last word is not a great way to foster intellectual freedom.

Without a great deal of work, I found a thread that seems to be an example of this:

http://www5.head-fi.org/forums/showt...5&pagenumber=4

If a thread is going to be locked, the final post from the moderator should *only* explain why it is being locked and nothing more, regardless of what role the moderator played in the discussion or lack thereof.

 

[Orpheus]

Quote:

I think they now do that in response to the cries of, "Why was this thread closed?" And, "Who closed my thread?" I don't think our mod squad does it out of spite or a childish need to get in the last word.

i have no problem with pointing out why the thread was closed. but i think if you read some of the closing comments on the closed threads, you'd change your opinion. many of the comments are clear opinions, that were made in response to other points made in the thread. these opinions should not preceed the closing of the thread.

 

[strohmie]

Quote:

Originally posted by radrd Without a great deal of work, I found a thread that seems to be an example of this: http://www5.head-fi.org/forums/showt...5&pagenumber=4

I'm certain this is one of the ones Orpheus is pointing towards. The final post was long and in some ways had points that could be debatable, but given the circumstances the poster removed the opportunity for a rebuttal.

 

[ServinginEcuador]

Dean,

Never mind. I see Robert just found a thread like you refer to.

Did Rick lock that thread? No. Zanth closed the thread, and Rick replied to it seven minutes later. He could, as a mod, reply to the thread after Zanth announced he would close it, making this not an example of what we're talking about.

 

[Orpheus]

heh he.... it's all good s.e.. i don't really care who did what and why. and i certainly don't want to point fingers this time. they're all friends to me... you all are actually. but i just wanted to point out what i think is right and wrong.

 

[Peterg2]

Quote:

Originally posted by strohmie I'm certain this is one of the ones Orpheus is pointing towards. The final post was long and in some ways had points that could be debatable, but given the circumstances the poster removed the opportunity for a rebuttal.

I think we should let this drop for a little while. Two threads have been killed in the last couple of days on this topic, rightfully, in my opinion. Why I believe this particular thread was deserving of final comment (prior to killing) by an operator was that there was a, some one would say highly inflammatory, comment on the whole structure of head-fi with a suggested form of apartheid.

So discuss this later on. Now is not the time.

Peter

 

[Elec]

Orpheus: I agree with you 100%, though I was not going to say anything, had you not brought it up. I participated in a thread a while back where the mod basically said "I don't personally agree with what is being said and am offended, therefore this is being locked." That cheezed me off severely, since it came across as "*I* don't like this, so it's toast", which would be ok, except only mods have that power and nobody else gets to say "Really, it's like this, and there will be no further comment." I went back and visited the thread just now and see that the post/lock I was unhappy with has been replaced by something a whole lot more appropriate and sincere, so I give big time props to that particular mod.

Most of the other forums I visit simply have threads which end with a mod posting something like "locked due to rampant stupidity", "locked: way excessive flaming", or even a simple

if the lock was self-explanatory from the last few posts. I greatly prefer to see something like that to "Here is my opinion and I don't like what's going on here and some of you people are wrong and oh, by the way, LOCK!"

I know it's really tough because the poor folks have to do double duty as mods/members, but I think some caution is in order when it comes to separating here I am member4129 beating the dead horse with my pals and now here I am member4129 doing my modly duties locking threads or editing posts or whatever. I like that the mods here take an active role in the community. It makes them less intimidating when you can talk with them about your phones or DIY projects or whatever. I would only hope that they'd try to be careful about keeping their personal views out of a thread they sense is coming soon to a crispy, padlocked end. Nobody can really fault a mod for simply saying "This thread is inappropriate/has gone too far/is against Head-Fi policy and will be locked" - that's just doing their job

 

[radrd]

Quote:

He could, as a mod, reply to the thread after Zanth announced he would close it, making this not an example of what we're talking about.

IIRC, some time ago we had a thread about this sort of behavior as well. I think a mod replying after the thread has been locked is even worse than putting their "final say" with the final locking post.

 

[elrod-tom]

Quote:

Originally posted by radrd IIRC, some time ago we had a thread about this sort of behavior as well. I think a mod replying after the thread has been locked is even worse than putting their "final say" with the final locking post.

I think you are misunderstanding what transpired in the thread that you linked to.

If you look at the timestamp, it's clear that the last poster (who coincidentally happens to be a mod) was clearly already responding prior to the closure of the thread. It could have been anyone responding...even you. The response still would have been posted, even after the thread was "closed". That's just how things work when a thread is locked. Let's not make a conspiracy out of it, OK?

I don't think GENERALLY that a mod is closing a thread with a "final shot". I think that they are simply shut down, mostly for obvious reasons. I do recall that I shut down a particularly obnoxious "why was my last thread where I started and continuted to fan a flame war with another poster that was loaded with TOU violations shut down" thread once with a parting shot of sorts, but only because it should have been clear why the thread was shut down, and the subsequent thread only served to eat up bandwidth and server space...in short, he asked for it. I think most are simply "thread closed". Unless the reason isn't obvious (which I'm thinking it was in the thread in question), there really isn't any need to explain why it was done, is there?

As for elec's point that mods should keep their personal views out of a thread that might at some point be closed, I disagree. A mod does not stop being a member with an opinion because he becomes a mod. Would that not be asking a mod to censor his opinions, while leaving the membership at large with the freedom to voice theirs? That doesn't seem too fair, does it?

I think most of the mod staff do a reasonable job keeping things relatively neutral when it comes to thread closure. However, we are members first, and we do have opinions. I don't think most threads are being closed with a "parting shot" by the mod that closes the thread. In the most recent example, it just happened that a different mod posted the last response. However, it's worth some discussion I suppose on how we might handle these sorts of things in the future. Perhaps we should simply remove all posts that happen to come in after the thread is closed? Just thinking out loud, but that might cause more trouble than it's worth the next time it happens to a non-mod.

At any rate, I don't think there's an issue here....and with that, I'm closing the thread.











Just kidding

 

[rickcr42]

well i am so glad you guys can't wait to jump my behind but truth be told when i reponded i had no way of knowing it was locked

One of two things could have happened

1-I was posting as it was being locked ,the timing would suggest that

or

2-I entered the thread directly from an email notification link

i will remove my post and you can sleep better

sheeesh

 

[PinkFloyd]

The bad aspect of closing threads is the fact that once a thread is closed an individual cannot go back and edit any posts. I desperately wanted to edit a pretty stupid post the other night but was unable to do so as the thread was "closed" so my comments now remain there for all time and there is no way I can retract or edit.

Very unfair.

 

[Riordan]

if a mod takes part in a heated discussion himself imho it would be fairer if ANOTHER mod took the decision whether to close it down - the referee shouldn't be one of the players...

of course sometimes it's obvious that a particular thread has to die (the "why was my thread closed" variety) and this wouldn't apply - but in some recent cases i would have preferred someone from outside the discussion to step in. this mostly applies to tio, though.

rickcr42,
i for one took your post after the lock as a sign that the lock itself might have been a bit early.

maybe you mods could ask jude to change the locking policy in a way that would allow mods to continue posting in a locked thread - then us players could watch the referees get in the ring for a change

MOD A: i'll lock this now, period.
MOD B: no you don't.
MOD A: yes i do.
MOD C: shut up you two or i'll lock the thread.
MOD D: no you won't.
...

 

[kartik]

Quote:

Originally posted by elrod-tom I think you are misunderstanding what transpired in the thread that you linked to... ...As for elec's point that mods should keep their personal views out of a thread that might at some point be closed, I disagree. A mod does not stop being a member with an opinion because he becomes a mod. Would that not be asking a mod to censor his opinions, while leaving the membership at large with the freedom to voice theirs? That doesn't seem too fair, does it?

YGPM

One point that you should consider is a quote from Spider-Man: "Increased powers bring increased responsibility". You, who sit in judgement, must weigh the consequences of your action with far more seriousnes than any other members. When you decide to accept the job of Moderator, you also have to accept the burden of self censorship because what you say carries tremendous baggage. And life isn't fair! I think a mod HAS to stop being a member with an opinion rather be far more objective when making these judgement calls. Mods that impose their personal opinions on others particularly in thread closures or banning members like me (your pm!

)are on the slippery slope to dictatorship. What is the difference then between an Islamic Theocracy and the relative freedom of speech that Headfi seems to offer!