Advanced search

"Locking" threads........any chance?

(67 Posts)
QueenOfQuotes Mon 04-Jul-05 13:42:36

is there any chance that something like this could be brought in - for use on threads which we want to 'end' - but don't actually need deleting???

I know there has on occassion been posts by mod's on various threads saying "can we just leave this now" type thing - and of course naturally people 'still' post on it (especially if they're new to the thread and haven't seen the 'don't post anymore' message as they read through it).

Sometimes 'deleting' isn't really approriate (think that should only happen in the very extreme cases - but a "thread locked" thing would be good - so people can read it, but not post on it??

SoupDragon Mon 04-Jul-05 13:44:07

I've said it many times before and I'll say it again : I think this is a power that Mods should have. Then MN HQ can decide about deletions or leaving it locked.

WideWebWitch Mon 04-Jul-05 13:44:47

Ooh, no, I think it could stifle debate actually. I detest being told not to post and rarely obey, unless it's mumsnet asking me not to and then I respect their decision. It's no good telling people to shut up just because you don't agree with them, and that does happen occasionally. I like the freedom of speech that exists here.

Lucycat Mon 04-Jul-05 13:44:47

Yep agree!

WideWebWitch Mon 04-Jul-05 13:45:22

No, I don't think mods should have any more power than they already do.

Lucycat Mon 04-Jul-05 13:46:02

ooh cross posts! if a mod has asked people to leave it - then we should respect their decision shouldn't we?

nutcracker Mon 04-Jul-05 13:46:15

There isn't freedom of speech here though is there.

QueenOfQuotes Mon 04-Jul-05 13:46:29

"unless it's mumsnet asking me not to and then I respect their decision."

well don't the mods act on MN's behalf?? And it's only them that would be able to lock it.

Instead of poor Lou (or whoever) having to keep putting "shall we let this thread drop" on threads - they could just lock it - and that would stop people continuing when they've been asked not to.

Gomez Mon 04-Jul-05 13:46:36

No, no, no - let threads run and come to their natural conclusion - if you don't like what is being said or where it is going walk away.

SoupDragon Mon 04-Jul-05 13:47:07

But WWW, some threads aren't about debate.

The lock facility wouldn't stifle debate but it would stop plain nastiness and also unhelpful gossiping on threads where there are regular calls for it to be left to die. Threads could also be unlocked by MN HQ if they think the lock was unnecessary.

QueenOfQuotes Mon 04-Jul-05 13:47:55

"if a mod has asked people to leave it - then we should respect their decision shouldn't we?"

well yes we should - be it rarely happens - have a look through and see how many threads that went 'over the boil' stopped as soon as a Mod asked people to leave it................I don't think yoou'll fine ANY!

Rachel (mumsnet) Mon 04-Jul-05 13:47:58

This has been discussed but we'll certainly re-visit at our meeting this week. We'll keep you updated.


WideWebWitch Mon 04-Jul-05 13:48:02

Mods are there to alert mn hq to problems, which is what they do. mn make the decsions atm I think and I think they make good ones.

tarantula Mon 04-Jul-05 13:48:24

I assumed that it would be the MN mods that would do the locking WWW not the OP or anyone else. If thats the case its a good idea tho I think that some people may just start a new thread about the subject then. tho have to say that if you went to the trouble of starting a new thread you would hoopefully ahve something reasonably contructive to say (or then again maybe not)

SoupDragon Mon 04-Jul-05 13:50:03

Take the recent Puma Problem - had a mod been able to lock the threads as soon as they turned nasty, a lot of hurt would have been prevented. Instead, they raged on and on until someone from MN HQ was able to delete posts and ban Puma.

WideWebWitch Mon 04-Jul-05 13:50:07

Well you see, I've disagreed with mods sometimes when they've asked people to leave it so that's where my pov is coming from. Although I don't think I've ever disagreed with a mn hq decision. And I love gossip, why should gossipy threads be locked?

SoupDragon Mon 04-Jul-05 13:50:44

when they get to the point of causing hurt.

WideWebWitch Mon 04-Jul-05 13:50:46

I missed the puma stuff so accept it will have coloured peoples judgement

tamum Mon 04-Jul-05 13:51:08

I agree with www, and also with tarantula- new threads will just be started. I would prefer to leave it to MN Towers.

QueenEagle Mon 04-Jul-05 13:51:10

I disagree with the locking of threads. If people really don't want to discuss the subject then the thread will naturally die anyway. If people still feel they need to get things off their chest or want to add to the debate then they have the option to do so. A bit nanny-state IMO to be locking threads. Not needed it so far in how many years of MN?

WideWebWitch Mon 04-Jul-05 13:51:17

But people can get hurt by the most trivial stuff, and mostly it's not intentional.

Gomez Mon 04-Jul-05 13:52:01

But such is life Soupdragon - if those posting had stopped the thread would have died with or without MN HQ. PUMA needed someone to argue with and there was no shortage of takers.

I am with WWW gossipy threads are good!

SoupDragon Mon 04-Jul-05 13:52:06

You can apply the principle to any nasty Troll postings really, WWW. Puma was the most recent example.

Generally MN HQ can get in quick enough to delete posts but if it's late at night, it doesn't happen quick enough.

WideWebWitch Mon 04-Jul-05 13:52:24

And if mods get more power enid has said wants to be one so she can go on a power trip merrily locking and deleting, locking and deleting

HappyHuggy Mon 04-Jul-05 13:52:28

I dont think id like a locking facility, its a bit controlling.

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now »

Already registered? Log in with: