Apologies if that has come up in the past - I did a search but can't think of more specific terms to search on. The one thread I found which was related to this issue has, ironically, been closed (though the insinuations I saw in that thread that mods close or delete threads on grounds of personal opinion I believe are unfounded).

So - I've been on this forum for a few months, and have noticed that, more than any other I've frequented, this one is prone to having threads locked. The main reasons, so far as I can see, are:

1) Thread drifts off-topic
2) People start slinging insults at one another and won't stop
3) OP requests the thread be closed
4) OP refuses to take part in the discussion any more

This isn't my forum, and I am of the opinion that, if it's your website, you say what goes - but also if people have opinions they should be allowed to say so, so I am

I have little problem with reasons 1 & 2, after fair warning (although I prefer to see 'dirty' debaters hanged with their own rope, rather than having it taken off them). But the control OPs are given over 'their' thread seems to me to be ill-advised. Once people join in a thread, it's a discussion, and it's 'owned' by everyone in it, not just the person who starts it.

I'm particularly thinking of a slightly frustrating recently-closed thread - the Steve Fossett thread which was closed this morning, on the basis that the OP stated:


Whilst it was a fairly rough-and-tumble thread, reason 4 was the only given reason for its closure, and I personally wanted to hear more people's opinions on the topic at hand. If OPs get the option to close, then they're always at an unfair advantage in discussions, since they can simply close a thread as soon as it doesn't go their way. Others may well have wished for the thread to stay open, since there were several seperate issues discussed therein, not all of them directly involving the OP.

Since these policies aren't overly clear in the forum rules or FAQ, I wonder what the views of other members and the mods/admin team are?

NB: if anyone disagrees with me, I'll request that the thread be closed

If a thread has been started specifically pertaining to a member's experience and then that member states that they are no longer interested in participating or responding to anyone's questions or comments regarding that experience then there is little purpose in keeping the thread open. In this case the decision was also assisted by the fact that the thread had already been subject to moderator review once in only two pages worth of responses due to the amount of criticism and complaint the opening post had received; under these circumstances closing it down was the best option.


Threads are only closed by the request of the OP if there is a good reason, I refuse to close a thread by request if I don't feel there is any reason to do so, if a thread is generating good discussion that is not related to anything specific to that individual then there will be no reason to close it.

Hi SaRuMaN, thanks for the reply.


Well, that sounds reasonable - I'm not going to try to come up with lots of counter-examples (though personally I think there are some), since these criteria are necessarily quite subjective. I suppose it's just a different way of moderation than I'm used to, and as I said you're perfectly entitled to moderate as you and your team see fit. As I said, I'm not trying to change your policy or anything, more just interested in the views of others around it.

I should also have added that I think you're all doing a grand job

I think it's the amount of thread closures, more than anything, which surprises me on this forum - it's almost an expected outcome of a thread, and it does preclude something which I like to see, which is the resurrection of old discussions in the light of new research or experiences.

Do you ever unlock a thread at the request of posters?

If a thread has been closed then it is unlikely to be re-opened unless a very good case is presented.


We have a much larger number of controversial and sensitive topics than most forums do and inevitably this can require more regular moderator intervention such as thread closures in order to keep the peace. Any action we take is designed to keep the board as civil, clean and friendly as possible; if a thread has been closed then there is a good reason for it.

An increased rate of closed threads = an increased rate of trolls on the forum causing more trouble?

I don't think it'd be fair to unlock threads at the request of posters. The rules are there for users to keep by, if they're broken - the threads should stay closed, otherwise, if re-opened that would just say "our rules are negotiable."
I too think the UM mods are doing a grand job

This is true, although the others I tend to hang around in are of a similar genre.


Fair enough - I don't doubt that's true. It must be very difficult to keep the peace in the way that you do, and I repeat that I think you're doing a very good job. Other boards I've seen tend either to operate a 'no censorship' policy which involves no intervention whatsoever (those boards can get a little ugly!), or to use suspension and banning of individual members to achieve the same end.

Although the advantage of the individual action policy is that threads may continue with only the offenders being removed, it does lead to ultimately harsher action than the thread closure. I suppose in the end it's all 'much of a muchness', 'horses for courses' and 'six of one and half-a-dozen of the other', to use a few unpleasant cliches

Could be - I haven't been around long enough to notice those trends (though I haven't knowingly seen too many actual trolls since I've been here).


Well, perhaps. Although when a thread is closed with only the explanation that the "Thread has been closed at OP's request", it's hard to relate that to any rules which may have been broken (and correspondingly hard to see why reopening for a decent stated reason would undermine the forum rules).