Suggestion: Allow users to lock their own threads

[Pendraflare]

This is something that a few forums i've seen allow. Part of the reason I think it should be allowable here is that if someone doesn't feel comfortable keeping a thread of theirs open for whatever reason (like if it becomes a flame war), then they should have the right to say, "I don't want any more of this" and end it. If they want something of theirs locked, i'm sure they'd have their logical reasons for it.

What do you think? Worthwhile idea or an abusive one? Discuss.

 

[ANARCHit3cht]

I'd say no because certain threads aren't exactly just that of the owners to be honest. Like a trade thread or a rom hack or something sure. But if someone creates a discussion thread, that's potentially a bunch of people who are invested into discussing that topic. For all you know the owner would just lock it because most of the people replying are disagreeing with them. While they might lock it if it becomes a flame war, I think that's something that is more easily handled by a moderator. They could choose to also not lock the thread and punish everyone but only the individuals who are involved in the negative behavior.

 

[Kyoe]

While it's not a bad feature, it's really not an entirely feasible one. The potential for it to be abused is really high, and unfortunately that outweighs it's benefits, I think.

Any agreeable reason for closing a thread would most probably be accepted by any of our understanding Moderators, if the OP asked them to close it. So I don't really see much point in this being implemented, anyway.

 

[JesteR]

TL;DR-ish - What ANARCHit3cht said above.

I think that it should apply to certain forums, such as Trade Shops, A&D Galleries/Shops, and Hack threads, but not to others. This would allow us to not have to go bug the mods every time we want to be done with our thread.

 

[donavannj]

If it's gotten to the point where it's devolved into a flame war, moderators should be getting involved by being made aware of the situation through the report system.

I could see it having utility for closing shops in sections that have them, though it's still just a simple short series of clicks for a mod to lock those as it is.

There's the potential for abuse if the ability to unlock and lock threads are bundled as a single permission by vBulletin, though, which would allow users to bypass locks issued by a mod for a thread violating the rules or being a duplicate of an existing discussion.

 

[ANARCHit3cht]

I think closing shops would also be more or less better dealt with if users could edit the thread title and merely tack on "CLOSED" in the name that way it can easily be changed back to "OPEN" should they have a future change of situation wherein they wish to open it again.

 

[bobandbill]

Not a fan of this idea (which has come up multiple times in the past). There's just too many potential problems that could come out, when I feel at the moment it is not at all problematic to simply ask a mod of the section or a higher staff member to close the thread for you. We allow members to request that their thread be closed, after all, and I don't think that it's too troublesome or problematic for mods and mods only to have the close-thread 'power' and act on member requests with that.

 

[Belldandy]

I think when this was discussed before we did address the practicality, but for some scenarios thread locking can be abused i.e. In D&D if someone starts a thread and hates the opinions or arguments being made (they're disfavourable to the thread starter), they could just lock it and cease discussion. It'd not be nice.

I frequently ask staff for thread locks and they do it within 24h so I don't think it's a big deal to keep it that way. I just report my own thread to get it done lol

 

[Pendraflare]

But we have some staff who won't lock a thread just because they don't think there's anything wrong with it. If I want something locked, it's usually because I don't feel comfortable leaving it open.

To put this in a bit of more perspective as to why I feel this way, there have been a few threads i've made that have had people doing things like getting off-topic and talking about things that belong in another forum (although I requested that one get locked and Ashley complied), or being rude and exaggerative over a relatively innocent question. (especially the last post which was pretty rude, although that one died out on its own.) Or in other words, I feel like they try to make me look like an idiot. Things like that are why I want this capability.

 

[Emboar]

But we have some staff who won't lock a thread just because they don't think there's anything wrong with it. If I want something locked, it's usually because I don't feel comfortable leaving it open.

To put this in a bit of more perspective as to why I feel this way, there have been a few threads i've made that have had people doing things like getting off-topic and talking about things that belong in another forum (although I requested that one get locked and Ashley complied), or being rude and exaggerative over a relatively innocent question. (Although that one died out on its own.) Or in other words, I feel like they try to make me look like an idiot. Things like that are why I want this capability.

Edited this because I was in too much of a rush to make sense:
Like I said, in the end, the staff has the best judgement of what to do, and if the thread should be locked. But if you want one of your threads to be closed, don't hesitate to contact the staff member about it, and they will more than likely lock it for you - as long as it is an offense. You have to remember that staff members won't see or read every post in their section(s), so you may have to bring it to their attention in that case.

Though, I don't think locking the entire thread would be necessary in those situations. There are some people who will still want to post on-topic, so if the thread is locked, they can't do that :/ Like Matt said, reporting the off-topic posts is the best thing to do, because then the only posts left in the thread would be on-topic.

 

[El Héroe Oscuro]

But we have some staff who won't lock a thread just because they don't think there's anything wrong with it. If I want something locked, it's usually because I don't feel comfortable leaving it open.

To put this in a bit of more perspective as to why I feel this way, there have been a few threads i've made that have had people doing things like getting off-topic and talking about things that belong in another forum (although I requested that one get locked and Ashley complied), or being rude and exaggerative over a relatively innocent question. (especially the last post which was pretty rude, although that one died out on its own.) Or in other words, I feel like they try to make me look like an idiot. Things like that are why I want this capability.

Deciding if a thread should be locked is up to the staff, so if the staff feel it shouldn't be locked, then it shouldn't be locked, as they would have the best judgement in the situation.

If a member does something wrong in your thread, they're the one who's wrong, and I don't see why you would feel guilty for something you didn't even do.

I sort of disagree with your point a tad User 101; yes, it's up to staff in the end whether or not to lock a thread, but the staff member should really be taking the user's reasoning into consideration. More often than not if there is a valid reason and not some selfish narrow minded one, then the staff member will close it. There's also nothing wrong with being concerned about the well-being of other members because of te way the discussion is turning.

Pendraflare if you feel that you are being publicly defaced, then report the post. The entire thread shouldn't need to be locked down because of an argument or rant that a user or users may ensue. The post will be handled with accordingly - such as those posts being deleted and/or infractions given out - and the discussion can continue. I've seen many cases where that solution has happened without a hiccup, and I don't see why it wouldn't work in a future instance.

In the end, if a person wants their thread locked, message the moderator. If they ignore it and you honestly believe you have a case - because like I said, a staff member would probably have a good reason not to close the thread - then contact a Super Moderator. It really should never come to that point, but that is an option.

 

[Belldandy]

But we have some staff who won't lock a thread just because they don't think there's anything wrong with it.

I've never had this issue. That said, again, I always use the report button to request locks for my threads (sometimes a section like QT only allows one thread, so it's required to close one to open a new one (example)). If you think you're being publicly defaced, add it in with the same report that requests a lock ☺ It would give the Mods a little more direction.

 

[Universe]

not to mention that simply locking a thread isn't exactly going to put it out of the public eye instantly, if that's your intention. if you feel as though you're being insulted by a staff member because they didn't lock your thread on request, ask them about it. or hell, ask someone else to do it and give reasons as to why you want it locked. if people are flaming in your thread just report them. because honestly giving the entire forum the ability to lock their own threads could potentially have negative effects - such as people locking trade threads and whatnot.

and while staff members give reason for locking threads (usually), users may not and that could create a whole other array of problems.

when you make a discussion thread you have to be prepared for the worst and sometimes, it happens.
just remember that for next time, if you create a possibly controversial thread again that is.

i see your point, but why fix something that isn't really broken?

 

[Alexander Nicholi]

I'd say "why not" for RH as OPs open and close their project threads all the time when they're on hiatus, but then again hiring more two-by-two hands-blue may just be a better answer to things all around with that.

Like others said before it's really asking for trouble to do that in the more social forums, really.

It would streamline the forum but then again it's not necessary given PC's size, and considering the negatives like I said more two-by-two hands blue may be a better answer to having threads done more quickly. :A

 

[Pendraflare]

Well if nothing else, I think the areas that this feature would be most necessary in are the ones with threads that require moderator approval (i.e. Member Encyclopedia, Trade Corner, Challenges, Pokémon Clubs, the Role-play section, etcetera). Most of those sections I could see people feeling a need to close their thread if they didn't have the necessity to run it anymore, although with Challenges and Pokémon Clubs they could always try to find someone else to run it for them.

 

[KorpiklaaniVodka]

I agree with this to an extent. You can lock threads if you feel like the discussion in a thread is becoming shitty or off-topic. But like others said, this can (and will) be abused to god-awful proportions.

 

[Melody]

I'd rather let the Fairies Blue(/Yellow/Red) listen to you and decide what should and should not be closed.

Aside from perhaps maybe one or two sections this ability might have some use in; there's no reason to empower the users with the ability to close owned threads. You never did own threads you started, and there's no reason to let that start now. Yes; I understand some exceptions to that DO exist; and that this COULD be implemented in special situations with specific Sub-Subforums for threads of the type that this right is necessary for. Such a subsection however would need the touch of a mod to approve submissions so that this couldn't be abused; but that wouldn't be super difficult.

The fact is that even that simple solution has yet to have been implemented; so I take that to mean that the staff certainly believes that no thread should ever be closed at pure user whim. And I don't mind that at all.

 

[Chikara]

It's really not too hard to wait on a staff member to do something for you.

Even if it isn't immediate, it will get done eventually. Even staff members have lives(!). If the staff member ignored you, then ask someone else and report the issue so it can be properly taken care of.

Staff's there for a reason, it's their job to make decisions like that. Otherwise, what's the point?