Please Remove Ability To Close Threads

[+DaveA]

There have been a couple instances where a person starts a thread topic, discussion results, the person who created the thread feels they have gotten the information they wanted and then close the thread.

 

To me this is comparable to a person asking a group of people a question, the group then starts discussing it, and the person who asked the question then says "I have heard what I wanted to hear, now all of you shut up and stop discussing this."

 

I don't think people close thier threads because they are rude(intentionally), but it seems odd that a non moderator has the ability to close a discussion in progress. Sure, anyone wanting to continue discussion on a topic could start another thread, but it seems like this should be unnecessary and a new thread removes a lot of the context that gave the original it's flavor.

[+RichardMoore]

Why would you want to continue responding once the question has been answered?

[+DaveA]

Because not all threads are cut and dried topics like "On my Magellan 315 how do I...?"

 

Many posts are "What do you think about...?" type threads. The person who creates the topic might get all the responses they are interested in, but the "conversation" is still going on.

 

Here is my perspective on thread closing:

 

If there is no further interest in the thread, it will receive no further responses and scroll off the page.

 

If there is further interest in the thread, it shouldn't be closed.

 

If the thread has deteriorated into something offensive a moderator should be contacted and then they can decide what the appropriate response is.

 

I simply cannot see a valid reason for a topic starter to close a thread. I have used many discussion boards over the years and have never seen one where anyone other than a moderator can close a thread. Once a topic is started it isn't the property of the starter any more than a conversation among 50 people is owned by one person.

[+New England n00b]

There is always the "New Topic" button to split out discussion. I've closed my own topics for anumber of reasons, all, IMO, valid. Some people might take the opportunity to take a parting shot, but so what? That's their problem, not the communities.

 

Start a new discussion thread for something you feel needs fleshing out. That way only you or a moderator can close it.

[+Touchstone]

I think NE n00b answered your question the most succinctly. You can go ahead and close this topic now

[+Colorado Cacher]

Hey! I think I have heard just about enough about this Topic!

[+welch]

There have been a couple instances where a person starts a thread topic, discussion results, the person who created the thread feels they have gotten the information they wanted and then close the thread.

 

To me this is comparable to a person asking a group of people a question, the group then starts discussing it, and the person who asked the question then says "I have heard what I wanted to hear, now all of you shut up and stop discussing this."

 

When that happens just open a new thread on the 'this came up in another thread but I want to talk about it some more' topic. Doing so in the other thread could in the end up highjacking it to some other topic, or get it closed for being off topic.

 

Yes and no, I think the ability to be able to close the threads you start is good. If its a simple answer or your markwelled somwhere, you can close the topic and not bother having others reply. If you post and then quickly relize the topic is going to get ugly very quick you might just want to pull the plug and not be dr. frankestein.

Yes, some people 'tell what you think'... 'well your wrong shut up' and close them, but like I said if its really important go start another thread. If people continue to open and close threads trying to skew a discusstion the MODs will notice.

[+IV_Warrior]

I've had times where I wanted to add a different point of view to a discussion, only to find the topic I was reading was opened and closed while I was at work. It's annoying sometimes, but that's the way the forums work.

[+DaveA]

I've had times where I wanted to add a different point of view to a discussion, only to find the topic I was reading was opened and closed while I was at work. It's annoying sometimes, but that's the way the forums work.

It is the way they currently work, but that's the request, change the way they work

 

I don't see a valid reason for the topic starter to ever close a thread. As I stated above there are 3 possible scenarios:

 

1. The thread has run it's course. If this is the case there won't be any further responses and it will scroll off the page just as quickly as if it was closed.

 

2. The thread hasn't run it's course and people are still discussing. The thread should then remain open.

 

3. The thread is getting out of hand. A mod should be notified and they can decide what action, if any, is appropriate. Closing a topic is about the most severe form of mod action and at most sites mods don't use this option except as a last resort.

 

So, in the 3 scenarios I listed there is no valid reason I can see why a non mod needs or even should have the ability to close a thread. Are there more than 3 scenarios? Am I missing something?

[Jeremy]

No. The original poster owned the thread. They have a right to close it.

[+robert]

Markwell

 

[+Maeglin]

No. The original poster owned the thread. They have a right to close it.

There you are... the authoritative answer. Now, can we please close this thread?

[uperdooper]

i have closed my own threads when i got the answers i wanted. it's better than someone reviving an old thread because they didn't look at the date, or someone wants to be a doofus.

[+Jennifer&Dean]

I too have closed my own thread- I had gotten the answer I was looking for and as the thread "owner" was done with it. I wanted to be able to ignore it now and not have to worry about someone else posting to the thread and expecting a response from me. Perhaps other folks end their conversations for the same reason- they aren't going to be paying further attention to that thread and don't want anyone else able to bring it back up.

-J

[Azaruk]

I have also closed some of my own threads.

 

If I ask a specific question, get a couple of specific answers that are all similar (ie the question has been answered in the only way it can be) then I close the thread.

 

Other threads that I have started, where there is room for a great deal of discussion, or which requires input from widely different perspectives, then I leave it open until it dies a natural death.

 

Personally I prefer the option of the originator being able to close his/her own thread when it is felt that there is no need to continue.

[+welch]

I don't see a valid reason for the topic starter to ever close a thread. As I stated above there are 3 possible scenarios:

 

1. The thread has run it's course. If this is the case there won't be any further responses and it will scroll off the page just as quickly as if it was closed.

 

2. The thread hasn't run it's course and people are still discussing. The thread should then remain open.

 

3. The thread is getting out of hand. A mod should be notified and they can decide what action, if any, is appropriate. Closing a topic is about the most severe form of mod action and at most sites mods don't use this option except as a last resort.

 

So, in the 3 scenarios I listed there is no valid reason I can see why a non mod needs or even should have the ability to close a thread. Are there more than 3 scenarios? Am I missing something?

Except for:

1. some person running a search or doing some very indepth reading, or someone wanting to be a dofus replies to a thread noones relied to in two years. whoever asked the orginal already has their answer. agreeing or disagreening with the old posters doesn't matter, if they're still caching they like the thread owner have come to a conclusion of their own.

 

2. those topics that jump the tracks heading to conclusionville and go off topic nonsensing for months or years. and some topics will never be finished in that thread... you can explain how what someone said last January about one of those topics probably a waste of your time, and annoying to read someone having a one way 'discussion' with a person who's not listening.

 

3. your right. lets bury the mods with 'i found out which page in the manuel to read so you can close my thread now' emails.... Besides attempting to keep people talking civil to each other, and whatever else they do

[+ibycus]

I'll close one of my own threads if:

 

a) It is cut and dry and I didn't realise it.

things are starting to get nasty

c) discussion not really going anywhere. Doesn't have to be getting nasty, just a round and round we go kind of thing.

 

It is a lot easier for a user to close their own thread when they see it getting out of hand than wait for a moderator to do so. (probably take a lot less heat too).

[+PC Painter]

Because not all threads are cut and dried topics like "On my Magellan 315 how do I...?"

 

Many posts are "What do you think about...?" type threads. The person who creates the topic might get all the responses they are interested in, but the "conversation" is still going on.

 

Here is my perspective on thread closing:

 

If there is no further interest in the thread, it will receive no further responses and scroll off the page.

 

If there is further interest in the thread, it shouldn't be closed.

 

If the thread has deteriorated into something offensive a moderator should be contacted and then they can decide what the appropriate response is.

 

I simply cannot see a valid reason for a topic starter to close a thread. I have used many discussion boards over the years and have never seen one where anyone other than a moderator can close a thread. Once a topic is started it isn't the property of the starter any more than a conversation among 50 people is owned by one person.

I was trying to put together my thoughts in reply to this thread, and found that DaveA had already done so for me. I couldn't agree more.

 

Now...Dave...would you kindly type up some reports for me, for work?

[Jeremy]

It isn't a verbal conversation. It is a thread. The original poster is the owner of that thread and has a right to close it.

[+TotemLake]

So, in the 3 scenarios I listed there is no valid reason I can see why a non mod needs or even should have the ability to close a thread. Are there more than 3 scenarios? Am I missing something?

Yes you are.

 

Here's a perfect scenario and example PC Painter was kind enough to provide.

 

You also forget, mod's are volunteers and they do have plenty on their plate already and you want to add one more maintenance requirement onto it by taking away the ability from the OP? I find that so AOLish. It's what I call spoonfed supervision. We don't need that here.

[+ishtek]

It isn't a verbal conversation. It is a thread. The original poster is the owner of that thread and has a right to close it.

Absolutely!

 

Why allow others to beat on your dead horse if you say it's dead and want to move on.

 

If you start a thread and you get your answers and/or information you should have the right to close it. It's your thread. If you didn't have time to participate in the thread then start another thread, add your point of view and link to the closed thread if you want. Then if you don't feel like closing it out, don't

 

Most people are quite capable of making decisions of their own and should be allow to do so.

[+Alan2]

I've never closed a thread I started - they all died on their own at some point. To me it seems like an act of discourtesy to shut it down - sort of like scheesch taking your marbles and going home.

 

As far as a person getting what he thinks is "the answer" to his question misses two points. One, there might be other answers that would expand the answer so he short changes himself. More importantly, other people watch the thread because they may be learning something about a question they had too. If the thread is stopped prematurely, the other parties mgiht figure that's it, the only anwser. No one else nor they will bother to start a continuation thread and then everyone misses out on getting additional information about the original question. There's often more than one answer to question. You might have missed the better answer by cuting off the dialogue.

[Prof. Y. Lupardi]

I have read and mixed in some other discussions about features in forums giving some new dimensions to low-level debating tricks.

The forumfeature discussed here: 'closing treads by starter' is one.

If you do not like what follows when you start a thread, simply close it. Sometimes closing is a wise decision from the starter but many times it is a debating trick that gives the starter always the last word when - for him - the results are not-acceptable.

Another debatingtrick possible because of the construction of this forum is: changing text later on. Simply changing a few words in your text can result in making the answers of other writers in the thread seeming to be the work of blabbering idiots.

The same is true for simply deleting whole messages. Then also the whole context of answers gets lost.

This last misuse I have not seen yet in this forum (at least not widespread, and then always in emotional threads) but I can assure readers that it happens in other forums where angry users out of spite empty all their messages creating havoc in many threads.

[+TotemLake]

Yah... those have happened here too, but not to such an extent that it becomes a problem. Usually, someone has the paged cached, and can pull the text out and quote the abuser anyway.

[+New England n00b]

I have read and mixed in some other discussions about features in forums giving some new dimensions to low-level debating tricks.

The forumfeature discussed here: 'closing treads by starter' is one.

If you do not like what follows when you start a thread, simply close it. Sometimes closing is a wise decision from the starter but many times it is a debating trick that gives the starter always the last word when - for him - the results are not-acceptable.

Another debatingtrick possible because of the construction of this forum is: changing text later on. Simply changing a few words in your text can result in making the answers of other writers in the thread seeming to be the work of blabbering idiots.

The same is true for simply deleting whole messages. Then also the whole context of answers gets lost.

This last misuse I have not seen yet in this forum (at least not widespread, and then always in emotional threads) but I can assure readers that it happens in other forums where angry users out of spite empty all their messages creating havoc in many threads.

That doesn't work when you fully quote them though. Change your message all you want, the quote I have remains intact...

[Prof. Y. Lupardi]

This is indeed effective.

If you do not trust the person to leave his text unchanged, quote him totally when reacting to his post.

And it gives you a counter-measure: when the not-trusted person deletes his text you are free to change the quoted text anyway you want!