Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Site stuff

Join our Innovation Panel to try new features early and help make Mumsnet better.

Original poster

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

66 replies

QueenOfQuotes · 04/07/2005 13:42

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??

OP posts:
Gomez · 04/07/2005 13:58

Very good point Lemonice.

WideWebWitch · 04/07/2005 13:57

But imagine, if you will, ! if there was a row about
breast vs bottle
GF vs ? whatever the alternative is called
WOHM vs SAHM
MMR
C section vs vaginal birth
smacking
ooh, the list is endless! And you read the first post and were outraged, HOW annoying would it be not to be able to argue, reasonably, the other pov? It would infuriate me!

lemonice · 04/07/2005 13:57

Quite often a thread that becomes inflammatory is restored to goodwill and turned around I think if threads were locked at the peak of bitter insult that would just cause someone to start another to continue the outrage, which is more or less what happened on Friday after the initial thread was deleted.

SoupDragon · 04/07/2005 13:57

I don't think it would change the dynamics TBH. There are very few occasions where I think it would have been necessary in the past but OTOH, it could have stopped some particular nastiness quickly. Generally, MNers moderate themselves and defend people very effectively but sometimes it's not beneficial.

Original poster
QueenOfQuotes · 04/07/2005 13:57

yes Gomez - but that was just plain silly moderation. Infact that site must come top of the pile for pathetic and over zealous moderation.

I'm not talking about dictating what people can and can't say.

It doesn't happen often on here (thankfully) but once in a while a thread rages on and on and on and on and on and on and on despite repeated calls from the Mod's (and on rare occasions I'm sure I've seen MN themselves!) asking for people to leave them be.

OP posts:
tamum · 04/07/2005 13:57

Nah, tarantula, I was just being kind

(no, I do agree, really)

Gomez · 04/07/2005 13:56

Slippery slope Soupy ....

dinosaur · 04/07/2005 13:56

This reply has been withdrawn

This has been withdrawn by MNHQ at the poster's request.

SoupDragon · 04/07/2005 13:55

Now, that site's moderating was way to harsh!! Nothing like simply locking a thread but deleting posts and threatening you with banning should you dare to contaravene their 1001 little rules again

Gomez · 04/07/2005 13:55

Fair point Soupdragon but not a reason to change the whole dynamics of the site surely? I believe that is what will happen if the free-flow of things is changed.

WideWebWitch · 04/07/2005 13:55

Nah, people can't stop posting but I think that's all part of the fascination sometimes!

SoupDragon · 04/07/2005 13:54

Locking a thread and posting the reason for it as the final post is far less controlling and censorous (is that a word?) than the current solution of deleting posts.

Gomez · 04/07/2005 13:53

Ah but QoQ is that not why you deserted to this site, over-moderation elsewhere?

SoupDragon · 04/07/2005 13:53

But people can't stop posting can they? And, tbh, sometimes they should. I count myself in this. It's like looking at a car crash - you just can't stop yourself.

Gomez · 04/07/2005 13:53

Jesus, Enid with power can't be allowed..

Original poster
QueenOfQuotes · 04/07/2005 13:52

"new threads will just be started."

Have to say that VERY rarely happens on sites where the 'thread locked' system is in place.

Most people take it as it is - that the thread was getting out of hand, had run it's course, whatever, and just leave it.

OP posts:
tarantula · 04/07/2005 13:52

oooooo someone agreed with me Have I actually posted something intelligent then? Blimey

HappyHuggy · 04/07/2005 13:52

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

WideWebWitch · 04/07/2005 13:52

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

SoupDragon · 04/07/2005 13:52

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.

Gomez · 04/07/2005 13:52

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!

WideWebWitch · 04/07/2005 13:51

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

QueenEagle · 04/07/2005 13:51

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?

tamum · 04/07/2005 13:51

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

WideWebWitch · 04/07/2005 13:50

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