Quote:
Originally Posted by OnerDriver
Hi moderators,
Not sure this is the right place to pose this question, feel free to delete it if inappropriate.
I've seen a couple of threads be locked without an apparent reason, and would like to ask if the concept of a "safe space" for respectful political discussion has been discussed among the forum administration.
Meaning, politics and religion are topics of great contention, nobody will agree 100% with anyone here. That's the point.
So long as people are being respectful, why does a thread need to be locked? Can't we just warn people that create disrespectful posts so that we know when we've crossed a line, and give us a chance to re-write them, or delete these posts, instead of locking the whole thread?
I reckon some forum members apparently report a post that's "offensive" to them (because they disagree with it) and the whole thread gets locked... that's disappointing.
Basically asking if this has been discussed, so we can have a place to discuss even when the topics are controversial (natural of politics and religion) and to see what everyone thinks.
Cheers!
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by are0lies
They actually prefer that we do our own policing, on the pretense that we are all adults here. Unfortunately, some can take more heat, if you would, while others cannot, and report this to the moderators. Personally, when things get too tense, I prefer to step back and take a break. I hate arguing, and more so with strangers. Perhaps if more people stepped back, these threads wouldn't get as heated, but the mentality becomes a pissing contest, with neither side convincing the other, while both dig in.
|
are0lies basically answered it in my opinion. The problem is, some people can't let go. So when they get offended, they throw it right back and continue to do so. If the thread isn't locked, they'll continue their behaviour (both sides). And while I'm a super fan of taking threads off tangent and do it quite well I think, what happens is the thread just becomes basically a pissing contest and loses complete focus on the original topic and becomes useless anyways.
I do support warnings as an initial step, and it is my understanding the mods do send these out, simply because I've seen other members complain about getting an infraction notice. So I think this is already taking place.
The mods job is hard I think, and the drain on their time trying to peruse threads to keep people civil (all for no monetary compensation I believe) is significant. So sometimes it is just easier to close the thread.
Depending on how easy it is to ban a member temporarily, I would honestly support that more than closing down the thread. If that takes approximately the same amount of effort, that would be something I would suggest. If two (or four, or whatever) members are obviously going at it, and getting completely disrespectful, then a nice 48 hour / 72 hour ban for all of them just to cool down would probably do the trick.
The thread would then move on, the ban isn't long enough to make the banned people create a new account, and by the time they come back on, they've hopefully cooled down enough that they don't continue. So a brief temporary ban would be my suggestion - something reasonably short. This I'd suggest in terms of infraction notices when they've clearly violated the rules. If it isn't as clear, then you use the infraction notice in lieu of ban to make sure they are aware.