Rather than counting on people to pay attention and almost inviting people to either end up embarassed or defensive (which might lead to them getting in arguments that get them banned from this forum) why not actually lock threads that are declared closed? It seems out of place with any and all internet etiquette I'm aware of to realistically expect people to not post on a thread with a statement from the person in charge. I'm not saying that I myself would do this as some sort of rebellious action or something, all I'm saying is that it really doesn't seem fair to me to "declare a thread closed" and then act like a community has let you down when people post on a thread that is still technically open. In my book a thread that isn't closed as in locked, isn't closed at all and if I got in trouble for posting on said thread I would consider it a great injustice. What I'm meaning to say is, perhaps this a policy that could use updating. Really, wouldn't it be better to just lock them from the start when you first declare them closed?

Cracker theres several threads on this subject already in this forum you might want to search on.

They describe in great detail why threads aren't locked.

But I do have to say, and sincerely no offense intended at all, but if you're implying its a great injustice for us to expect you to pay attention before posting, I'm not going to be able to agree with you.

The Forge isn't a "whoa, just read a comment and now my fingers are burning to reply" kind of place.

Its a "you had better make sure you read the entire thread thoroughly before even beginning to hit that reply button" kind of place. And that means, yes, you are expected to read all the way to the bottom, discover the closing notice and choose to voluntarily follow that notice.

It may not be standard "netiquette" but it is standard adult behavior.

That was why I specifically tried to adress that while I might not do it, that I don't think it would be unreasonable for others to do so. That is, I don't think that it's anything worth embarassment and very possibly being set up for elimination from the board, and could very easily be solved.

Hi Crackerjack,

When you write, "elimination from the board"... are you implying someone might be banned from the Forge for posting on a thread after its been closed?

Cause that doesn't happen. It doesn't happen. I mean, nobody gets "eliminated" from the Forge -- ever. And certianly, if somebody posts after a thread's been closed... you know. No big deal. Either the person will bring up a point that's really good that nobody saw and it mosey's on a bit longer (I've seen this happen a couple of times), or someone says, "Good point, why don't you start a new thread with that." Or if it's really not worth the bother, people will just sort of not post a follow up and the thread will drift down the screen.

No big deal really.

These are the rules that keep the Forge the Forge... But they're not tests to see if you're "cultured" enough to stick around. No one gets beat up or tossed bodily from "the club" for making a faux pax.

Christopher

I have to agree with Ralph and Christopher. In addition to the excellent reasons Ralph gives for why threads aren't locked (i.e. the Forge is not a place where people just "post from the hip" as it were), I would add another reason: closing threads without locking them demonstrates the faith that the Forge has in its members to be mature people. Locking threads suggests that we can't trust people to be either observant or responsible.

I like the fact that this place is built on a sense of trust among its members. Sure there is the odd occasion when someone slips up or, rarer still, deliberately violates a request from a moderator to close a thread, but as Christopher said, no one is in the business of ejecting anyone here.

That said, I agree that the Forge expects more from its participants than other boards do. If you haven't already read the stuff on GNS, Social Contract, Why System Matters and so forth, you'll see what I mean when you do. But these higher expectations are also what makes this place so special, and I don't mean that to sound either arrogant or elitist. Having these expectations in place leads to some very wonderful things. First, it means that when you ask someone a question here (as I have done a lot of lately despite my normal tendency to lurk), you can be damn sure that the people who respond to it have given it some thoughtful consideration. There is nothing perfunctory about most of the responses to questions at the Forge, and I attribute this directly to the high expectations folks here have. But second, having such high expecations also raises the bar for your own conduct here. The result, in my opinion, is that each of us becomes more careful and considerate in our responses. Not locking threads, in my opinion, is just an extension of the higher expectations that folks here have for our own and others' behavior.

That might sound idealistic, and I know that it doesn't always work out that way, but I have found that it succeeds far more often than it fails.

Cheers,

Eric

That's all good and well that it can function that way on the Forge most of the time, but my question is: what good reason is there for not actually closing a closed thread? What reason is there for not locking closed threads?

If you don't lock a thread when you have the option to, then it seems to me that you really arent trying to keep people from posting on the thread. And I can't see any reason as to why it would not be just as easy to lock the "closed" threads (which really aren't closed at all). If you can think of one, please tell me, but so far all I'v heard are things about the "enlightenment" of this board.

Crackerjacker wrote: That's all good and well that it can function that way on the Forge most of the time, but my question is: what good reason is there for not actually closing a closed thread? What reason is there for not locking closed threads?

Here's an even better reason:

Ron and Clinton have enough to do without dealing with dozens of "thread closure" requests every day.

You see, EVERY thread becomes closed after a period of time, regardless of whether it is verbally "closed" by a moderator or not. Usually a week or two of inactivity on a thread is enough to close it by etiquette, and move any further thoughts or discussion into a new thread.

As well, Ron and Clinton are not the only ones who "close" threads -- the originator of the thread can say, "Thanks everyone, that answers my question," and the thread is then closed. In these cases, again, the moderators would have to be contacted and the thread locked by them. Even more work.

Honestly, I'm not sure why you're gung-ho on the idea of visibly locking threads? If it ain't broke, and it surely isn't, why add unnecessary complexity?

The system works fine as is, and won't work better with this suggestion implemented (and honestly, it would cause more problems than it would solve).

The actual reson the moderators have given for not locking closed threads is that locking a thread inevitably conveys the undesired impression that continued discussion of the topic of the locked thread is forbidden. (See this thread for one from-the-horse's-mouth explanation along those lines). The Forge's policies on closing unproductive threads, splitting subtopics and side issues into new threads, and not allowing new posting to outdated threads are all designed to encourage further discussion of topics, whenever correspondents have new questions to raise or new insight about those topics to offer. (The rare threads whose topics are truly off-limits, such as spam threads, do get locked and moved to Inactive.)

As far as I know, all speculation about other motives suggested for these policies, including any plot to tempt newbies into error so they can be smacked down, or any desire to test or demonstrate how well-socialized or obedient Forge participants are, is spurious.

- Walt

I agree with all the above posted reasons for keeping the current system, especially "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." To that I'll add the issue of appearance.

Most boards simply don't have the concept of a closed thread. Threads are either open or locked, and when they're locked its for rather negative reasons. Whenever I see that lock icon, strikethrough subject or whatever visual cue a given board uses for locked threads, my first thought is "Oh, boy, what did somebody say now?" It usually indicates a flame-war, intollerable personal attacks, a thread hopelessly threadjacked, or some other out-of-control anti-social behaviour.

Given the regularity with which Forge threads get closed, seeing a whole lot of those little lock icons on a thread list would look really bad.

I also appreciate the assumption of maturity that this policy demonstrates. It is also indicative of respect for the board members. A while back, on an night when I was hosting a game, my supply of coffee got to the point where I had only enough left to get me through the next day. I'm one of those people who simply can't function without a steady supply of coffee. I explained this to my guests, asked them to stop making coffee, and they did. I could have locked it up, making it impossible for them to make any more coffee, but that would have been disrespectful to my guests. They're mature individuals, perfectly capable of honouring a reasonable request.

Likewise, on this board, the participants are mature individuals, perfectly capable of honouring a reasonable request to close discussion on a particular thread. As opposed, locking threads would seem to indicate otherwise.

ADDENDUM to my above post:

Regardless of the above, sorry, the answer really is: there's a higher standard of conduct at the Forge than elsewhere.

Feeling as though you're being picked on because you post to a closed (but not locked) thread is no one's problem but your own. So what's "in your book" and what's "technically true" (lawyer talk) doesn't matter one bit: it's community standards.

Changing the rules because a person believes it is injust for them (or anyone) to have to pay attention, or to adhere to expected standards of behavior without physical force (such as locking), is a very foolish reason to change the way things are done, because in such a situation it would seem to me the problem is not with the rules as they stand or the way things are currently done.

Otherwise, the argument is "You didn't lock your house, so don't blame me for stealing from it! It's really your fault!" When we all know, no, it isn't anyone's fault but the thief (and that includes the person who failed to lock the house -- the act of theft isn't their fault, nor are they even a contributor to it -- the full weight of the action remains solely with the thief).

Another point of mine that I didn't make clear is that my main point is that Ron Edwards has the time to post "this thread is closed" on a thread, wouldnt it of taken almost no more time than that to lock said thread? It's the instances where the order is an official decree from the important people that can get rid of you if you screw up that I think that they should go ahead and lock the thread when they post "this thread is closed". I'm not asking anyone to go out of their way to perform some extraneous task, I'm just asking that when the people who make decisions take the time to declare a thread close they should go ahead and lock it.

Another point I'd like to state is that I consider it pretty rude behavior in itself to create "tests" for members of a board, to see if they're on the level of the forum. The fact is, the Forge is a forum like countless others, and while of course it has it's own way of doing things like others does, it seems more than a bit pompous to me to set traps, even if there aren't huge consequences, for people that aren't being rude at all, just expect the logical thing to be done. Logic dictates that if one doesnt want people posting to a thread, and they are a moderator, they can just lock it. In fact, it is not rude or stupid at all for someone to assume that any thread that is not locked is open to be posted to.

In fact the most appropriate analogy for this situation is not "don't blame for stealing you're stuff, you didn't lock your house", it is "you left your door wide open in a culture where the social norm is that it is ok to walk into open doors, hoping someone would walk in so you're gaurd dogs could have something to attack" Because the idea that it is ok to post on any nonlocked threads is the norm in the internet community, as far as I'v ever seen anywhere online.

In fact, I'm afraid of this thread being closed. I'm afraid of the moderators posting here and then expecting the topic to be "done with", I'm afraid of getting in trouble just for this suggestion, and I'm also feeling quite outnumbered and match, because I'v got all these things to worry about by posting just a nonharmful suggestion while I have probably most of the board arguing against me, and they all feel like the moderators have their back. On the other hand, I feel like every argument against mine is backed by the invisible weight of Big Brother.

Crackerjacker, what's wrong with your argument is that you're assuming that Forge culture is identical to the cultures of ither Internet fora.

It is not.

I think you might be best served by taking some time off to understand what people are telling you.

Crackerjacker wrote: I consider it pretty rude behavior in itself to create "tests" for members of a board, to see if they're on the level of the forum

Crackerjacker wrote: The fact is, the Forge is a forum like countless others

Crackerjacker wrote: it is not rude or stupid at all for someone to assume that any thread that is not locked is open to be posted to.

Crackerjacker wrote: as far as I'v ever seen anywhere online.

Crackerjacker wrote: I'm afraid of getting in trouble just for this suggestion

Crackerjacker wrote: Another point I'd like to state is that I consider it pretty rude behavior in itself to create "tests" for members of a board ...

... it seems more than a bit pompous to me to set traps ...

Crackerjacker wrote: In fact, it is not rude or stupid at all for someone to assume that any thread that is not locked is open to be posted to.

Crackerjacker wrote: ... and I'm also feeling quite outnumbered and match, because I'v got all these things to worry about by posting just a nonharmful suggestion while I have probably most of the board arguing against me, and they all feel like the moderators have their back. On the other hand, I feel like every argument against mine is backed by the invisible weight of Big Brother.

See. Right now my suggestion and refusal to submit is offensive, soon it will be considered flaming and I will be banned from the forum or in some other way in trouble.

Crackerjacker wrote: fact, I'm afraid of this thread being closed. I'm afraid of the moderators posting here and then expecting the topic to be "done with", I'm afraid of getting in trouble just for this suggestion, and I'm also feeling quite outnumbered and match

[Oops. I just cross-posted this with the last five posts! And Crackerjack, here's another example of Forge etiquette -- I note this to say, "I'm not trying to gang up on you with everyone. We all posted to respond to you at the same moment, not to pummel you."]

Crackerjack,

Let me try this from another angle.

My first post, my very first post on the Forge some two years ago, was wrong.

Having no idea how the Forge worked (and really, having had almost no experience with online communities), I read lots and lots of threads for a few weeks to get a feel for the place. I decided I liked it. I decided to post on a thread that intrigued me.

I did. The thread I responded to was well over a year old. I, in Forge parlance, "resurected" the thread.

That isn't done around here.

Here's what happened. Someone commented that isn't done around here. Ron showed up to explain *why* it isn't done, split my comment from the old thread, and I had started my first thread.

In other words, my "mistake" was a learning experience. Not an occassion for punishment.

Crackerjack, can you see that this is the tenor around here?

A couple of more points:

Mosts of the posts on this thread are not here to smack you down, but to provide the wide variety of reasons why threads aren't locked down. We're responding to your suggestion. You may not like the responses -- but no one here is out to get you or anything.

There are no penalities for being wrong here (as far as I know.)

If you make an error in Forge etiquette, someone will point it out to you. No big deal. Really. Mistakes aren't tallied up around here to use as cudgels in later arguements. In other words, take a breath. Relax. Hang out for a while.

Let's leave aside the issue of locking threads for a short while. You seem particularly concerned with people getting snagged for making an error. Let that go.

Christopher

PS Please. Five people have assured you that you can't be "ejected" or driven from the board or whatever from the Forge. Your fears are flying in the face of what everyone is saying. Are you actually reading the posts?

Hiya,

As some of you are perceiving, this thread is beginning to look like a little bit of a dogpile, so let's all give CJ some space. Which means, even if you have the perfect rebuttal or point to make, there's no harm in waiting for a couple hours.

CJ, you're welcome here. Now, you can decide which of these two things is going on.

1. I'm lying, and am actually ready to embarass you in any possible way I can, and look really really innocent when I do it. In fact, everyone else is anticipating this.

2. I'm telling the truth, and you're merely adjusting to a new environment and deciding whether to stick around (and if not, no hard feelings, hope you come back some time).

Up to you, of course.

Best,
Ron

Other folks have recently suggested addings things like "Closed" stickers and the like, and this locked/closed question does come up frequently, so you're not off-base or anything. I think a closed sticker, or some other helpful block to a closed thread, would be nice.

IMHO the policy isn't really a test, but sort of an aesthetic. Moderator thread-closings are not in fact the usual case, and when they are it's supposed to feel more like a discussion moderator ending Part I of a debate to move on to Part II, rather than the other side of moderation being an ironclad lockdown.

If you're ever concerned about if something you were going to do is Forge-apropos, just go ahead and PM Ron or Clinton, or hell, bounce it off some other member whose offered (like me).

Crackerjacker,

Some of your references to Big Brother, to your fears of having your thread closed or of your posts being considered flaming, as well as to your belief that in not adopting the policy of locking threads the Forge is creating tests and setting traps for newcomers suggest that you are inclined to believe the worst about this place until someone proves you wrong. What's that about? In all of the responses you have received people have stressed repeatedly that while the culture of the Forge is different from other boards no one is out to get anyone.

You seem to have painted the moderators into a bit of an absurd position: if they refuse to lock threads you seem to believe that in doing so they are laying traps for the unsuspecting, thus the only way they can prove that they aren't is to lock every thread. To ease one person's anxiety, they have to come in as the big heavies and lock every thread after it is clear that the thread is closed. But won't this new policy of locking threads actually make the folks at the Forge appear worse than if they simply allowed the current (and functioning) practice of tacitly agreeing not to post to older threads or to threads that have been requested to be closed to continue? After all, discontinuing a policy that seems to work fine and adopting a new, more heavy-handed onecould raise suspicions and fears rather than allay them.

You said yourself that you are afraid of your thread being closed by the moderators of the list. Wouldn't locking every thread close it with an even more forceful sounding snap of the lid? How would this alleviate your fear?

Honestly, I don't see any reason for your request. Things seem to work pretty well here, folks at the Forge are among the most helpful I have seen, no one is asking anyone to submit or engaging in any of the other coercive, Big Brother-like activities you describe, so why does it need to change? Do we really need someone to impose a new measure when longstanding agreements still seem to be working well.

You can feel free to disagree all you want; no one is going to silence you. If many of us disagree with your position, it is because we have both reasons behind our own positions and some experience of seeing how well things function at the Forge without the heavy-handed measure of locking threads that you seem to be promoting.

I hope that in my response you will not hear the sound of jackboots on hard tile or the chilly voice of Big Brother but a sympathetic echo of Christopher's point that you relax, take in the atmosphere, and not assume the worst in the absence of any evidence.

Eric

Ron,

Sorry, I was writing my reply before yours got posted.

Eric

"Some of your references to Big Brother, to your fears of having your thread closed or of your posts being considered flaming, as well as to your belief that in not adopting the policy of locking threads the Forge is creating tests and setting traps for newcomers suggest that you are inclined to believe the worst about this place until someone proves you wrong. What's that about?"

Well, in general, the internet is not a place to go without your gloves and goggles...that is to say that I, a youth, have to have to keep my head down or will get blasted in most places. I am not the most articulate person, but I consider myself fairly intellectual, evenhanded, and even a pretty good writer. This hasn't kept me from getting sufficiently thrashed in many internet hubs and such. However, I will admit that I am a bit paranoid, as showed in my last post. Still, in general, my opinion still stands, but I can understand the reasons of why locking isn't neccesary, and why it's never been a problem even when people do accidentally post on them. I would suggest that while my suggestion may be a bit too radical for a board so steeped in it's customs, it might be worth looking into meeting halfway at what someone mentioned earlier, tagging threads so people can see that they're closed before even clicking on them.

I would suggest that while my suggestion may be a bit too radical for a board so steeped in it's customs, it might be worth looking into meeting halfway at what someone mentioned earlier, tagging threads so people can see that they're closed before even clicking on them.

If I may, most of the threads I've seen locked are locked not because the poster involved isn't up to Forge standards. It's because the poster involved is off the Forge map. This is either by design (the Birthday Threads), or sheer loco engery (spamming).

When it comes to "standards" -- people either stay and "get it" or leave and don't. But unless there's a secret grading comittee out there that no one told me about, I'm not that worry about meeting the standards.

(Mike, this reply isn't so much because you're assuming such standards. I just wanna be clear on how the Forge grades -- it doesn't. But you do have to show up to play by the rules.)

Christopher

That's what I meant, Chris. The standard is actually very low in terms of not getting locked. Basically you have to be communicative. It's only people who are either spamming, or just completely trolling without responding (I think that I've seen one of these, maybe two) that get locked. In fact there have been a couple of trolls that didn't have to be locked because nobody responded, so it couldn't be determined if they were responsive or not. It's only the one troll that I can think of that actually got people to respond (and then didn't himself) that got locked.

Mike