Anchor / locking threads

[Deleted]

You now have a thread explaining who's banned and why. Would you not include who / why threads have been locked and/or anchored to that log? 

[impact]

They're either pretty obvious (eg a WUM) or they have a post on the thread explaining.

I'd rather they put the post in question on the log so people can actually see what the issue was.

[Deleted]

If a thread breaks the rules, it should be deleted, surely?

If there's two guys having a natter and catch up in what should be a private chat, that's why you anchor a thread - to stop it constantly going to the top of the board.

Circular argument that doesn't look like abating? Lock it.

But a thread like 'Emergency Board Meeting', which had morphed into an interesting, polite point about merchandising, gets locked and anchored - surely unnecessary to do both? If that was done as it was deemed to break the rules of the board, why does it still remain visible to see? That's why you delete.

Without telling us the reason, it's a bit of a head-scratcher.

[Deleted]

Now terrierdaz is back, I wonder if this might get sorted? I thought I might have had a response from Gag_N_Bone_Man (Destabiliser) as I thought he was quite keen on admin openness. 

When the original Wagner Gone quote was locked, a reason was given. With the Emergency Board Meeting thread, it was censored in a oddly roundabout process.

Have the courage of your convictions - if you lock a thread, give the reason. Surely it can't have broke the rules of the board, as such posts/threads are deleted. 

[terrierdaz]

I am happy to give reasons for Locking threads,


Daz

[Gag_N_Bone_Man (Destabiliser)]

Hi - I missed this, otherwise would have responded. kennyk2@kennyk2

Sometimes we admins see posts reported and think they are borderline, but also see that the threads they are in are questionable - rather than issuing yellow cards all round etc, we may occasionally lock a thread as a pre-emptive/proactive measure. Alternatively, we sometimes anchor a thread - all this does is mean that overtime it becomes less prominent on the pages, it doesn't stop anyone from posting - we have taken this action of threads we have had reported due to their quality etc.

I don't propose that we start adding these to the action log but I do quite often post in the affected thread that I have taken action. I'm happy to suggest this to my colleagues.

For reference, current admins are:

Me
philincalifornia
Barbieterrier
cheesyhtfc
terrierdaz
kennyk2

[cheesyhtfc]

Usually the person who anchors/locks the thread posts a comment to explain why this has happened - it not being done on that thread is very much the exception rather than the rule. I don't think it needs to be put on the action log The action log is intended to make clear an action which would otherwise not be known generally has been taken (eg a yellow card). It is obvious when a thread has been locked/anchored, so having a post on the relevant thread explaining why (which is what we generally do) would seem to be sufficient for me.

[Deleted]

Jan 16, 2019 10:26:27 GMT 1 cheesyhtfc said:

Usually the person who anchors/locks the thread posts a comment to explain why this has happened - it not being done on that thread is very much the exception rather than the rule. I don't think it needs to be put on the action log The action log is intended to make clear an action which would otherwise not be known generally has been taken (eg a yellow card). It is obvious when a thread has been locked/anchored, so having a post on the relevant thread explaining why (which is what we generally do) would seem to be sufficient for me.

What do you reckon on that one - genuine oversight or lacking the courage of conviction?

[kennyk2]

Fine then. Last post of a locked thread, or a post by the Admin when anchoring a thread, should explain why this is being done. No need for anything in the log then.

[cheesyhtfc]

Jan 16, 2019 11:23:02 GMT 1 @iffyandbent said:

Jan 16, 2019 10:26:27 GMT 1 cheesyhtfc said:

Usually the person who anchors/locks the thread posts a comment to explain why this has happened - it not being done on that thread is very much the exception rather than the rule. I don't think it needs to be put on the action log The action log is intended to make clear an action which would otherwise not be known generally has been taken (eg a yellow card). It is obvious when a thread has been locked/anchored, so having a post on the relevant thread explaining why (which is what we generally do) would seem to be sufficient for me.

What do you reckon on that one - genuine oversight or lacking the courage of conviction?

Undoubtedly it was genuine oversight. We have never shirked from explaining our decisions even when we know that they will be very unpopular and we will get all sorts of abuse for the decision we have made. If you need an example of when I did this, the most obvious is when Nick was banned for the start of last season: downatthemac.proboards.com/thread/106693/nick-posting-generally

There isn't any admin conspiracy or desire to keep decisions secret. People are entitled to criticise or disagree with the decisions that we make, and we are happy to discuss them. It's only an internet forum after all.

[Gag_N_Bone_Man (Destabiliser)]

See also here:

downatthemac.proboards.com/post/2464529/thread

[ozterrier]

What next, a thread to explain every time a post is merged? Maybe everyone would like to hear about all the times a yellow card was deemed unnecessary too?
Think this is a bit of an overkill, frankly. Just let these fine gentlemen (and lady) get on with their thankless work!

[Deleted]

Jan 16, 2019 14:25:00 GMT 1 Gag_N_Bone_Man (Destabiliser) said:

See also here:

downatthemac.proboards.com/post/2464529/thread

I know. That was why I raised this. So why not on here: downatthemac.proboards.com/thread/111332/emergency-board? A thread whose opening post was liked by an admin. 

Forgot? Or a unilateral decision that it shouldn't be allowed, but didn't want to give the right to reply? 

[Deleted]

Jan 16, 2019 14:31:24 GMT 1 ozterrier said:

What next, a thread to explain every time a post is merged? Maybe everyone would like to hear about all the times a yellow card was deemed unnecessary too?
Think this is a bit of an overkill, frankly. Just let these fine gentlemen (and lady) get on with their thankless work!

Absolutely not. And I wouldn't expect an explanation for the deletion of threads/posts that contravene the rules of the board.


But I think it's only fair that on a thread that has commanded a lot of attention and response, it's not just shuttered without reason, anonymously.