Regarding Thread User Locks

[Virgil Showlion]

There has been some confusion lately regarding the "User Thread Lock" plugin that allows non-admin members to lock threads they've created.

Please note the following technical issues:

• Ordinarily when a user lock is initiated, a lock icon will appear in the header row of the reply list in the thread and posting will be disabled. The thread title should appear with the red text 'Locked by OP' in the various links and indexes that reference it.
  
  
• Due to a severe flaw in the plugin, if the title of the thread being locked exceeds 49 characters in length, the token the plugin uses to institute the lock is malformed and some portion of [{locked}] will appear at the end of the thread title. The thread will not be locked and posters will continue to be able to post in it.
  
  In this event, until/unless the plugin is fixed, simply edit the OP, delete as many characters from the subject line (thread title) as necessary to make room, and complete the full token [{locked}]. This will properly implement the lock, and will allow you to unlock the thread using the plugin's normal method.
  
  
• Due to a bug in the plugin, locked threads will appear with the [{locked}] token (rather than the 'Locked by OP' red text) in the New Topics page and various other places.
  
  
• I am not the creator of this plugin. Due to its restricted permissions, I cannot edit it to repair the aforementioned problems.
  

Please note the following usage issues:

• The user lock feature was introduced to allow members who started threads on personal or close-to-home topics to shut down discussions in the event that discussions became both i) hostile, and ii) unprofitable to addressing the question or issue initially being asked.
  
  
• If you do elect to lock a thread you've created, post an explanation of why you're instituting the lock before you institute it. Moderators are required to provide such an explanation, and this courtesy extends to all members.
  
  
• If you lock a highly active thread meeting all of the criteria listed above for legitimate locks, we (moderators and admin staff) will be vigilant to lock any "echo" threads created by other posters to protract the discussion. If any one of the listed criteria is absent, echo threads will not summarily be locked, and will be treated in the same way as all other threads. Hence the consequence of frivolous thread locks is that you will have accomplished nothing except to split a single thread into multiple chunks.
  
  
• As is clarified in this thread, members may technically lock their threads for any reason. The above criteria apply to which locks may persist over a thread and any echos.
  

[billisonboard]

Sept 5, 2013 9:06:31 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

...

• The user lock feature was introduced to allow members who started threads on personal or close-to-home topics to shut down discussions in the event that discussions became both i) hostile, and ii) unprofitable to addressing the question or issue initially being asked.
  
  User-instituted thread locks should not be instituted simply because a thread is hostile (flame wars will be handled by moderators), nor should they be initiated for threads that do not intersect personal or close-to-home topics.
  ...

So if I have a relative in Syria ...
or if I have a relative who is gay ...
or if I am a member of a particular religion ...
or if I have a relative killed by gun violence ...
or if I love buttercream frosting ...
then threads involving those topics would be personal or close-to-home topics?

[Deleted]

can you post a link to the original lock down thread

are these "new rules" for usage? or were they in the original thread where you posted about the "new feature"

if new ones, why?

either a thread BELONGS to the OP, or it doesnt......

and if it doesnt, then take the damn function out....and go back to the old way

there should be NO criteria that needs to be followed other than the OP wishing to have their thread locked

imo....

[Virgil Showlion]

Sept 5, 2013 9:34:46 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Sept 5, 2013 9:06:31 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

...

• The user lock feature was introduced to allow members who started threads on personal or close-to-home topics to shut down discussions in the event that discussions became both i) hostile, and ii) unprofitable to addressing the question or issue initially being asked.
  
  User-instituted thread locks should not be instituted simply because a thread is hostile (flame wars will be handled by moderators), nor should they be initiated for threads that do not intersect personal or close-to-home topics.
  ...

So if I have a relative in Syria ...
or if I have a relative who is gay ...
or if I am a member of a particular religion ...
or if I have a relative killed by gun violence ...
or if I love buttercream frosting ...
then threads involving those topics would be personal or close-to-home topics?

No, unless the thread is specifically to discuss your relative in Syria, or to discuss your gay relative, or to discuss your relative who is a member of a particular religion, or to discuss your relative killed by gun violence.

Your love of buttercream frosting doesn't qualify under any circumstances.

[Virgil Showlion]

and if it doesnt, then take the damn function out....and go back to the old way

there should be NO criteria that needs to be followed other than the OP wishing to have their thread locked

We'll discuss it among the various admins.

For now I'll state my personal opinion that the criteria listed are necessary, hence "thread locks with no conditions" is not an option. If we decide to keep the plugin and these conditions seem unacceptable to you, don't lock your threads. Not even moderators can lock threads unconditionally.

[Deleted]

again....

if the thread BELONGS to the OP, as was explained to me by Moon, then it is MY right to do what i want with the thread

if the thread belongs to the site, then the "function" shouldnt exist

pretty simple

you all just need to make up your mind as to who OWNS the thread

[The Captain]

Sept 5, 2013 9:06:31 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

There has been some confusion lately regarding the "User Thread Lock" plugin that allows non-admin members to lock threads they've created.

Please note the following technical issues:

• Ordinarily when a user lock is initiated, a lock icon will appear in the header row of the reply list in the thread and posting will be disabled. The thread title should appear with the red text 'Locked by OP' in the various links and indexes that reference it.
  
  
• Due to a severe flaw in the plugin, if the title of the thread being locked exceeds 49 characters in length, the token the plugin uses to institute the lock is malformed and some portion of [{locked}] will appear at the end of the thread title. The thread will not be locked and posters will continue to be able to post in it.
  
  In this event, until/unless the plugin is fixed, simply edit the OP, delete as many characters from the subject line (thread title) as necessary to make room, and complete the full token [{locked}]. This will properly implement the lock, and will allow you to unlock the thread using the plugin's normal method.
  
  
• Due to a bug in the plugin, locked threads will appear with the [{locked}] token (rather than the 'Locked by OP' red text) in the New Topics page and various other places.
  
  
• I am not the creator of this plugin. Due to its restricted permissions, I cannot edit it to repair the aforementioned problems.
  

...


Of course you aren't.  Otherwise the above technical issues would not exist...

[Virgil Showlion]

Sept 5, 2013 9:59:55 GMT -5 @gdgyva said:

again....

if the thread BELONGS to the OP, as was explained to me by Moon, then it is MY right to do what i want with the thread

if the thread belongs to the site, then the "function" shouldnt exist

pretty simple

you all just need to make up your mind as to who OWNS the thread

We're discussing the ownership issue.

If the thread belongs to the site, the plugin is simply a convenience for members. It allows members to circumvent having to ask a moderator to lock a thread, which presumes a moderator would approve the thread lock.

Members are in fact able (and technically permitted) to lock a thread for any reason. But as I point out, members are not able to prevent other members from instantly creating echo threads, such as been the case (twice) with the Oregon Bakery thread. So regardless of whether or not you "own" a thread, you can knock yourself out locking it and the discussion will simply continue elsewhere under new ownership. You'll have accomplished nothing. If you want a discussion shut down permanently, you have to respect conditions on what you can and can't shut down. Or you can lock your thread for whatever reason pleases you and then hope that other members have the willingness and/or decency to respect your desire to end the discussion.

[Virgil Showlion]

Of course you aren't. Otherwise the above technical issues would not exist...

My plugins are perfect. Flawless in their design.

Anyone who says otherwise is a dirty uncia lover.

[Deleted]

Sept 5, 2013 10:11:49 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Of course you aren't. Otherwise the above technical issues would not exist...

My plugins are perfect. Flawless in their design.

They sure are purty:


errr......I mean this one! 

[Wisconsin Beth]

Can someone lock a thread created before the plugin went "live"?  And we can still suggest to mods that threads be closed, right? 

I'm thinking of Sam's thread on WIR about traveling for hospitalization.  But I guess I'm assuming it will always be a painful topic for her. 

[Deleted]

Sept 5, 2013 10:10:22 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Sept 5, 2013 9:59:55 GMT -5 @gdgyva said:

again....

if the thread BELONGS to the OP, as was explained to me by Moon, then it is MY right to do what i want with the thread

if the thread belongs to the site, then the "function" shouldnt exist

pretty simple

you all just need to make up your mind as to who OWNS the thread

We're discussing the ownership issue.

If the thread belongs to the site, the plugin is simply a convenience for members. It allows members to circumvent having to ask a moderator to lock a thread, which presumes a moderator would approve the thread lock.

Members are in fact able (and technically permitted) to lock a thread for any reason. But as I point out, members are not able to prevent other members from instantly creating echo threads, such as been the case (twice) with the Oregon Bakery thread. So regardless of whether or not you "own" a thread, you can knock yourself out locking it and the discussion will simply continue elsewhere under new ownership. You'll have accomplished nothing. If you want a discussion shut down permanently, you have to respect conditions on what you can and can't shut down. Or you can lock your thread for whatever reason pleases you and then hope that other members have the willingness and/or decency to respect your desire to end the discussion.

hey

if someone else wants to open up a similar thread, no skin off my nose

i didnt post in the second....and made one entry in 3rd.....

i just want clarification on this once and for all.....

"Members are in fact able (and technically permitted) to lock a thread for any reason."

if this is the case, all is well......but that is NOT what your OP said......hence the clarification wanted and needed

[Virgil Showlion]

Sept 5, 2013 10:38:00 GMT -5 Wisconsin Beth said:

Can someone lock a thread created before the plugin went "live"?  And we can still suggest to mods that threads be closed, right? 

Yes, and yes.

[Virgil Showlion]

Sept 5, 2013 10:42:14 GMT -5 @gdgyva said:

Sept 5, 2013 10:10:22 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

We're discussing the ownership issue.

If the thread belongs to the site, the plugin is simply a convenience for members. It allows members to circumvent having to ask a moderator to lock a thread, which presumes a moderator would approve the thread lock.

Members are in fact able (and technically permitted) to lock a thread for any reason. But as I point out, members are not able to prevent other members from instantly creating echo threads, such as been the case (twice) with the Oregon Bakery thread. So regardless of whether or not you "own" a thread, you can knock yourself out locking it and the discussion will simply continue elsewhere under new ownership. You'll have accomplished nothing. If you want a discussion shut down permanently, you have to respect conditions on what you can and can't shut down. Or you can lock your thread for whatever reason pleases you and then hope that other members have the willingness and/or decency to respect your desire to end the discussion.

hey

if someone else wants to open up a similar thread, no skin off my nose

i didnt post in the second....and made one entry in 3rd.....

i just want clarification on this once and for all.....

"Members are in fact able (and technically permitted) to lock a thread for any reason."

if this is the case, all is well......but that is NOT what your OP said......hence the clarification wanted and needed

If you suspect that an echo thread is going to pop up and the discussion will continue unabated, at least consider that instituting a lock is discourteous, confusing, and (at worst) a minor interruption to the greater discussion. If you want to make a statement about the degeneracy of a thread, you can make it just as effectively by stating your position and taking your leave.

[Deleted]

didnt know one would pop up.....didnt care

i saw enough in the first thread that i wanted to lock it down

either i have that right, or i dont

you guys decide......but it has to be either/or     not with new rules that suddenly pop up because someone thought i was being rude

[billisonboard]

Sept 5, 2013 11:00:31 GMT -5 @gdgyva said:

... but it has to be either/or ...

Why?

[Deleted]

read above if you want an answer

post # 5  edited with bold

[billisonboard]

Sept 5, 2013 11:07:01 GMT -5 @gdgyva said:

read above if you want an answer

Have read every word I can find on the issue of OP thread locks. Reality is that the Master OP (Moonbeam) can do whatever she wishes, including being or letting Virgil be inconsistent. The issue is your need for "either/or".

[Virgil Showlion]

There's no inconsistency in whether posters can lock their own threads: you can.

But why do you lock a thread? Presumably to end the discussion.

If you want the discussion to remain finished, you'll need staff supervision to shut down echo threads. For that to happen, you have to recognize that we will only shut down threads under certain circumstances.

Ergo, if your goal is to end a discussion, you must also respect these circumstances. If your goal is not to end a discussion, I submit to you that locking your thread is discourteous and ultimately pointless.

[Deleted]

Sept 5, 2013 11:33:36 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

There's no inconsistency in whether posters can lock their own threads: you can.

But why do you lock a thread? Presumably to end the discussion.

If you want the discussion to remain finished, you'll need staff supervision to shut down echo threads. For that to happen, you have to recognize that we will only shut down threads under certain circumstances.

Ergo, if your goal is to end a discussion, you must also respect these circumstances. If your goal is not to end a discussion, I submit to you that locking your thread is discourteous and ultimately pointless.

doesnt matter why an OP wants to shut down a thread

and if any OP wants the echo threads as you call them shut down, i guess they will have to go through the mods

you may think ones decision is pointless or idiotic......

again...that doesnt matter either

if someone wants to continue the conversation, and mods havent cutoff echo threads, then i guess someone can start a new thread on the same topic

bully for them.....

[moon/Laura]

To put it simply, there are no real "rules" for locking (in my opinion), though I do hope that some courtesy towards other posters will be shown. My wish is that people don't lock threads simply because they don't like the answers they're getting. If you can't take negative honesty, then don't put it out there.

Beyond that, the thread belongs to the OP. In the past, we have always locked (or deleted) threads at the OP's request, no questions asked. The only thing this plugin changes is that now the OP lock it themselves. Deletes will still need to be requested of staff.

As far as new threads with the same topic being started, I think that is fair to do, as long as the original wasn't a huge flame fest. If it was, and the new one becomes (or continues to be) the same, it will be shut down by staff as in the past, and the discussion will be over.

EDITING TO ADD If the OP has a legitimate reason to ask that a duplicate thread NOT be started, they can say so in their own thread, but there's no guarantee that others will respect it. If someone does, and it seems to be for the purposes of hammering on the OP's sore spot, then there's a good chance a new thread will be shut down too. Let's not be cruel, in other words.


Also, if it seems like the lock feature is being abused, it may well go away. Please use your best judgement!

[Deleted]

perfect......


thank you

[djAdvocate]

Sept 5, 2013 9:51:50 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

and if it doesnt, then take the damn function out....and go back to the old way

there should be NO criteria that needs to be followed other than the OP wishing to have their thread locked

We'll discuss it among the various admins.

For now I'll state my personal opinion that the criteria listed are necessary, hence "thread locks with no conditions" is not an option. If we decide to keep the plugin and these conditions seem unacceptable to you, don't lock your threads. Not even moderators can lock threads unconditionally.

i concur.  this is a community board, for community discussing.  taking things private either should not be an option AT ALL, or should ONLY be an option if it meets the criteria.  imo, of course.