An open letter to the mods
 

Why do moderators feel it necessary to lock a thread that is getting responses? Sure, occasionally an initial post does not have the posters opinion/experience but his next post often explaines a little more why he/she was posting. Perhaps he/she was testing the waters to see if others had the same viewpoint as his/her own. Perhaps he/she did not want to post his/her viewpoint for fear of being ridiculed. If one can not ask questions in an open forum such as this how will they find the knowledge they seek but to try a different forum?

If a thread is getting responses it will stay active until it is played out, if it gets no responses it quickly slides onto page 2 and is likely forgotten. If the participants in a forum can not speak freely and easily due to excessive moderation the "community" will suffer . I've noticed that the TFP is not the thriving site it once was. Perhaps others, like myself, do not like being condecended to and told what we can or can not post/read.

I'm not saying I want a forum with no moderation but perhaps you should think twice before locking down potentially lively threads.

Anyone else here have an opinion they'd like to share?

The threads are closed for a reason: they are incredibly redundant. I'm sorry you broke up with so and so, but we've already answered most questions about such things a thousand times over.

this forum is about participation... if someone asks a question -- then runs off... they aren't participating... in many cases, it's a person doing the posting with a very low post count - who knows why they are asking the question... You want to start a topic - -make sure it's worthy of discussion... start the discussion...

the person is given the opportunity to rephrase their initial question and add their comments and the thread will be reopened-- most often, they choose not to...

So you're saying that newbs do not have the right to ask a question?

Take a look at the DP thread that was posted for example. The initial poster posted a little more info after being prodded. The thread was at 7 replies before it was locked. It likely would have gone on to achieve a much hight count given a chance. That would only mean one thing, the members are interested.

I agree with the incredibly redundant argument to a degree. How many times do we need to hear someone asking about thier breakup? On the other hand sometimes a repetative tread will bring about new life to a subject that bumping an existing played out thread will not. Often these are locked just as they are getting going. If you've replied to a subject and don't want to participate again it is your perogative to keep quiet if you wish. If you want the community to grow you've got to allow the members a measure of freedom or they will fade away. If no one is interested in a thread because it has been beaten to death previously it will quickly slide to obscurity without the help of the lock.

Sometimes people ask questions and then lurk their own thread. If you can track that it is the case that the OP never revisited the thread to see the answers... actually it's still silly to lock on active thread because it means other members are getting something out of the thread even if the OP isn't.

It also bugs the shit out of me the number of message boards that have policies against both of the following: Posting the same shit that pops up every couple of weeks; and resurrecting old threads.

The active membership of a healthy board is a constant flow of new members. A really good way to destroy the life of a board is to lock all topics that the new people want to talk about because the previous cycle of active users talked about it when it was their turn.

People don't post on message boards because they are looking for an answer to their question. They post because they want to have an interactive discussion about their question... reading/bumping months old threads on similar topics is less likely to fullfill that need than posting a new (redundant) one. You're essentially saying "You can't have that fun because we already had it."

I've not noticed this to be a problem. Sometimes I feel like the moderators are unnecessarily short when explaining why something's been locked, but on the whole I notice that there are actually a fair number of almost redundant threads that are allowed to remain open, especially when the original poster initiates at least some degree of original thought on their seemingly overdone topic.

To me, the locking of threads merely encourages us to get better at searching for existing threads on the same topic. If you feel the topic would benefit from a fresh thread, then it would follow that there is some area of discussion that the old thread did not address. It's your responsibility to then focus on that new angle.

Analog DID mention that if the OP pms him a new opening post, he will re-open the thread, which I think is fair. The whole point is to provide your experience/thoughts/whatever even if you have few/none. "I've never had DP but I interested in it because _________" etc.

Why is this in sexuality?

This is generally where a lot of the closing of threads happens. especially threads where people are having a conversation, but it gets shot down anyways because the opening post isn't a good OP.

Hmmm... ok. Good enough for me.

It is often the OP that sets a new thread about a talked about topic apart from the rest - if someone feels that something is actually worthy of creating a thread to discuss it, you've got to get the rest of TFP inside your head a little to see where you're coming from. We can't do that on "So what do you know about DP?".


TFP is about evolution .. not just about the science but also our evolution as people. TFP should be a place that challenges you to evaluate, grow, and strengthen your mental thought processes, your values, etc. This can't even begin to happen if people get their feelings hurt that our gentle nudge to start this process occured in a thread they started.

theres a fine balance between good moderation and over moderation...

its hard to get it perfect... I think overall the tfp mods do a great job... occasionally theres a little over moderation... but I'd rather have that then massive undermoderation...

The TFP goes through cycles, right now, it is less active because most of the participants are college aged people. We have rules and guidelines for how to post a thread based on the founder of the site, if you can't abide by our rules then by all means no one forces you to come here.

Let me clarify for you some of your questions:

1. We ask for people to SEARCH before posting a thread, if a thread has to be revived from the past, it gets revived.
   
2. We ask for people to POST their opinions instead of just solicitiing other's.
   
3. We ask that members DO NOT RIDICULE other members.

These guidelines were handed down to us by the founder and owner admin Halx. The moderators all agree on lots of these things and most of the closures are discussed by several moderators more often than not.

If you don't like them, you should discuss them with him.

To answer your sig: But who shall moderate the moderators?

Halx does. He's the final word here.

ADDED IN EDIT
The OP shouldn't have to be prodded to get more information out of them, there are plenty of threads that the OP doesn't ever post in again. It's not fair to the community for the "Who did it and ran" approach to posting.

If you expect someone to open up their thoughts then you have to be willing to share yours. It's not that far fetched, it's simple currency to trade. A discussion doesn't happen if it's ONE SIDED. If you go to somewhere and someone asks you your opinion on something and says they just want to know your opinion for a survey, well that's dandy, you'll know that walking into it.

But here we try to get people to know each other, not just have lists of discussion questions without the OP bothering to let a little about themselves out as well. Otherwise, why don't we just use a book like "Complete Book of Questions, The : 1001 Conversation Starters for Any Occasion" or "4,000 Questions for Getting to Know Anyone and Everyone" to pose questions for people to answer? Why don't we do such a thing? How different would it be than one of those lists that generates something like "You're Legolas!"

Part of evolution is learning how to evolve, how to interact, how to stretch yourself from your comfort zone.

And sometimes, we don't bother to lock a thread because we know that it's going to just fall to the bottom.

Yes, it's true...sometimes a bad opening post can still lead to a good thread. Most of the time it doesn't. Closing threads with bad opening posts serves to encourage the thread starters to learn to create good opening posts. The fact they were lucky and it started off as a decent thread anyway is irrelevent. If the importance of a GOOD opening post isn't stressed, the lesson isn't learned for the NEXT time. And, if the thread starter cares about the topic, the closing of such a thread does not need to lead to any stifling of discussion. As it has already been pointed out, most of the time the thread starter can PM a mod with a better opening to the thread and the discussion can be reopened.

so, why would this OP not give their opinion?

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...75#post2064975

because maybe they were into Topher Grace and thought he was cute????

This thread in sexuality, Lack of Sex the OP finally posted some small bit at #36.

OP
Do you think a lack of sex after a number of years marrige is sufficient excuse for an affair?

#36
I am not sure that I used the right word by saying an affair. I guess I really meant find "sex" outside of the marrige, perhaps without the complications involved in an affair. Thanks for all your replies. They have certainly given me food for thought.

As you read in between, the discussion is all over the place. People are GUESSING what the OP intends for the thread, and there is still little direction afterwards because everyone generally reads the OP but not all the posts buried within, and then some read the latests posts and then respond. This is especially true for those threads that are old like this one.


and from a community member:

So using this logic, shouldn't 90%+ of the threads in the computer section be locked?

Good question as I pondered that very thing last night.

There are a number of forums where it is okay to post something with no opinion. People wouldn't post, "Look at me how beautiful I am" in the Portraits section, (well maybe some, but others would shy away.)

Computers, Programming, Cooking, Photography, Motors, Literature, Portraits, all are good examples of this.

There are places we are tasked with stimulating discussion, Sexuality, Coming Together, General Discussion, Living are places where that is a requirement.

Don't forget politics. Opinions/interpretations definitely required there.

It's also noteworthy that a lot of the computer threads start with a bunch of questions asked of the original poster about their set up - questions that they should have anticipated and written down in the OP. :)

When you want to discuss something you believe in or something you experienced providing your own insight is necessary.

But no one knows everything, and there are times when you just want to see what OTHER people think. Maybe you haven't formed an opinion at all, maybe you want honest answers and don't want them skewed by reading your opinion. Maybe you don't even know where to start forming an opinion. Maybe you just heard about something and wonder if other people have more details.

What about THOSE cases? Regardless of the forum they're posted in, there are issues that we can be completely CLUELESS about yet still want to hear the opinions of others. I shouldn't have to spit out some random opinion just so that I can hear the opinions of others.

There's a line where it's obvious that conversation isn't going to happen because the OP is so boring -- but that line is too far out, especially when people are replying to the thread. It obviously had enough of something to spark a discussion.

You aren't spitting out RANDOM opinion. You are putting out YOUR OWN opinion, right, wrong, misinformed or whatever.

The idea is that you get out of your OWN head and interacting with the other people within the community. It's being a part of the community and giving something or contiributing to it.

One can be clueless, but that doesn't mean they don't have a preconceived notion about it. It maybe right or wrong, but it's still something about it. It again helps to FRAME the discussion as needed by the OP. If it's not framed by the OP then the discussion can go in a completely different direction and STILL NOT ANSWER the OPs question that they truly have.

I don't know anything about molecular biology, but if I was to post something here, I'd have to at least state what little I did know about it, even if it was as simple as stating,"I know nothing about this subject but here is what I know..." It still frames the discussion to some degree.

For some reason everytime I go pee I think of new things;

Many times when I want to know more information about a belief, a case, or a principle, I'll hide my own position. Why? Because I know that by presenting my own opinion, the respondent will be less likely to give me his honest response. It will be tailored to counter my beliefs, rather than give me information about their own.

If, for example, I want to know why someone believes in Christ. If I tell them I'm an Atheist, the discussion is ENTIRELY different than if I simply ask them why they believe in Christ and listen. Since the board enforces the "Post your opinion first" idea, I'd have to denote that I were an Atheist or completely lie and say I was a Christian. Neither is really productive when I just want information or perspective from real people that I won't get from Google.

What is so hard about this???

I don't believe in God, I want to understand why someone believes in Christ.

In 1 single sentence I fulfill the requirements of giving my opinon.

Personally I am thinking you are now being gunshy by the fact that your previous posts didn't go the way that you thought about them.

They may never. It's not in your realm to control it. It is what they become.

This forces an unnatural state of discussion. Now everyone tries to justify why they SHOULD believe in God, rather than why they DO.

1) If you post in a thread or join a conversation where one person has made their opinion clear, it is quite unnatural to contribute your opinion without also (in some form or another) stating whether you agree or disagree with the original position.

2) If you post in a thread or join a conversation where one person has NOT made their opinion clear, it is quite natural to contribute your opinion without being agreeable or disagreeable. You can simply your position.

That's what's "so hard." You seem to prefer 1 and I prefer 2. And it seems the OP does too, or he wouldn't complain when mods shut down conversations of type 2.

if that's what you think, but my question didn't say please tell me what I should believe in God. I asked why SOMEONE (preferable you) believes in God. But stating someone can still allow for an athiest to state their opinion as to why their best friend bible banger believes.

In fact if that's truly what I wanted to know, then that's how I should have framed my sentence.

I don't believe in God, Why do YOU believe in God?

Now, there will still be the off person who will say,"Which God? Why God why not Allah?" etc. etc. etc.

But that's the nature of discussion. That's the nature of people. When I answered this initially did I know I would get bombarded? No. In fact the more I try to control this conversation by answering it, the more direction turn it goes that I don't want it to.

In real life face to face conversation do you appreciate when someone walks up to you starts with a subject asking you a question for your opinion and when you are done walks off?

How about these paradigms:

WRONG
Why do you believe in God?

RIGHT
I'm interested in hearing about religious beliefs in God. Why do you believe? I've been an atheist since 1963 but want to hear some honest and open thoughts about religious beliefs, but no conversions please.

BANNINATION
Why do you believe in God, punkass?

For the record, i'd like to note that pretty much all threads I close for this reason, whether I announce it or not, gets a PM AND an email to the opening poster.

If not, It's because i've posted the link to the "ALL MEMBERS- READ ME ABOUT POSTING ARTICLES!" sticky at the bottom of the thread.

From the sticky: "It's not hard- and if you really can't come up with something to say about it, it can't really be something to discuss, now can it?"

It's not a difficult concept. The rules have been in place as part of the rules of the TFP for a very long time. That sticky just mentioned was created as a wake-up call due to the extremely low number of people following this very basic request.

We understand that everyone wants their questions answered, and we understand that everyone is entitled to think their question is of merit. The problem is, this is a discussion board. It behooves you to create conversations, because that is what the TFP has always been great at, and it's one of its strongest assets. At the very core, the heart, of the TFP is respect and communication. Discussions are very rarely born of one-liners and short curiosities like, "hey i came across this last night while I was on the internets, what do you think?"

I also understand that many of you have been here for a little while, some much more than others- but if there's one thing I can tell you for a FACT, it's this... and here's the shocker...

Every time this issue comes up, from time to time, I take a quick (informal) survey of the public profiles of the people who are supportive, and the people who are voicing opposition to this policy. And you know what? People with the most participation? They're thankful for it. They're happy we do it. They're supportive of it because they KNOW what such threads do to the community. The people with the most vocal dissent? These are those members who rarely post. Those who may have been around for a little bit, but have a 0.4 post-per-day average... after having been a member for a year and five months. Real world creeps in, not everyone wants to write a volume in every single thread they come across.... but it's very telling, and very consistent, the correlation between the members I recognize and are participating, with support, and the people who are hardly around who are the most vocal (or the ones who are at all vocal) to oppose it.

This does not, of course, apply to everyone who offers support or dissent- but it's an overwhelming, and constantly repeating majority.

Not to mention, the people who write and constantly reconsider the foundation rules of this board... the admins... the long-standing super moderators... have seen the issue over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over again. And you know what? If it wasn't detrimental to discussion, we'd have changed the rule by now. We don't make up rules as we go for no reason, pull them from our collective asses, or make rules just to piss you all off. Our rules, like any rules, come from a need. The need for this rule is to preserve the cornerstone of any community... communication.

The bottom line is... I'm sorry if you feel it's harsh... but we've seen it more times than you could possibly imagine, and they just don't work. Also, this rule has been in the TFP rules for a very long time. It's not new to any of you- especially considering you're supposed to read the rules of the site when you join. When you hit that "accept" button, it's not a "ok i've scrolled to the bottom of the page, now where's the button to keep going" button, it's the "i've read and understood the very easy rules you've set for us" button.

If you have any questions on any rules, you are always welcome to PM any Mod for help. Just pick one you see on the boards, and maybe you like or at least recognize, and see if we can help you.

If you have any questions specifically on what I've said here, you are more than welcome to PM me to discuss it. :)

- analog.

Analog, I'm sorry I don't have enough time to waste posting daily drivel. This user name may only have been around for a year and 4 months but I have been posting for about 3 times as long as that. I have constantly found this place to be overmoderated which is part of the reason for my low post count.

I have set up the rules for moderation, though strict, to influence a high degree of intelligent discourse. I'm delighted by small post counts if it means that each of those few posts were well thought out with content and context. This forum could have 1/10th of the posts it has on it now, and I'd be absolutely delighted just the same if each of those few posts were provocative to read.

I'd appreciate it if people came to the TFP and left their impressions of other forums behind. We are an entirely different animal.

Word of advice to all, if you're trying to sneak back in after being banned multiple times for being a dick, don't draw attention to yourself.

Well now...I suppose the inordinant amout of moderation comes into play when someone makes multiple accouts.....three in fact, that have all been banned for similar reasons. Then they make a fourth, and have the nerve to complain about getting banned....uh....three times.


Buh Bye

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Mods, you rock.

When I was very new to this forum, my impression was that the moderation was a bit heavy handed. As I stuck around, and participated more, I began to see things in a different light. I became more tilted so to speak, and started to aprecciate TFP for what it is, rather than what I thought it was. I checked my ego, and began to understand that in order for this community to be as incredible as it is, it needs to have some guidlines. Having been here for a little while, I don't see the rules or moderation as a hinderance, but rather an asset to TFP.

Yes! I knew this one smelled, but I admit I thought it was someone else.

I've resurrected threads before that have had many subsequent responses, and I've resurrected some that had few/none. Such is the life of a TFP thread...some just don't generate interest.

I've never thought that the moderation here heavy-handed...the rules are clearly stated when you join and it's up to you to obey them or not. It's nice to know that there is a place online that you can talk about something without someone throwing insults at you just because they disagree, or having the board spammed up with advertisements, or having every other post be OMG!! UR SO GAY!!!!!!11

I don't think I've said this before...but I appreciate you, mods. Like snowy said...you guys rock.

If there was no point in reviving old threads, there wouldn't be a search function. 'Nuff said.

Question:
How hard would it be to set the "new thread" button to perform a search before the post can be submitted??

For example: I go to sexuality, hit the new thread button, the title box pops up, I type in my title hit continue, automatic search shows results, I find something similar read it and I'm satisfied. Or I don't find a thread that says what I'm trying to say, click continue and start my own thread.

Que the "were all adults here and we SHOULD be searching before we post" replies but think for a minute:
It might help a little, it might not do fuck all, it might help make the mods jobs a little easier and less frustrating, what I'm saying is the search function is great IF used, why not try and make it used automatically???

Just my .02

If you can find a vBulletin modification that does that, let us know about it and, who knows, we might consider using it (this is not a promise by any means). Doing it ourselves? It would likely be extremely difficult.

Well...speaking only for myself, of course,...pretty damn hard. In fact...I'd go so far as to say...pretty much impossible. Hey! I never claimed to be the brightest crayon in the box. ;)

It sounds like a decent idea, but then I'd have to ask: How hard would it be for a poster to type their thread title into the search button before they attempt to post it? This would work basically the same as your suggestion, only they would have to perform a search before posting.