What happens when a thread is locked for no apparent reason? I mean, is there a way of appealing for it to be re-opened, even if you're not the thread originator?

I simply ask as I sometimes have these questions but in the past I think I'm seen as someone who rocks the boat and I don't want to be seen that way, but sometimes when a thread is locked and the originator is baffled and I'm not the originator I want to ask why.

How would I be seen if I did so?

Every single thread that is locked should have a publically posted explenation for the locking. period.

sosgemini said:

Thank you sos ... I tend to agree; it would be nice.

sosgemini said:

I think any mod action should come with some kind of explanation.

I think I've just had two posts deleted. Why? Who knows! I've seen and posted worse. It could be an org technical glitch for all I know, so maybe I'll just post them again and see what happens!

fathermcmeekle said:

Personally, I would like to see either less moderation here or a revised and recognised process of appeal.

I wonder why we need to moderate threads in the first place. Does it really matter if threads go off-topic and people get heated? I think that it adds to the character of a website to have heated discussions occassionally, not the sanitised ones we tend to get here nowadays. And if people take offense? Surely that's their problem? Why should it be the responsibility of the moderators to close down threads in these types of situations?

To me, Moderators would be more involved in ensuring the site isn't spammed or abused and less in policing what is and isn't acceptable in terms of discussion. I sometimes feel that the Mods must feel like they are breaking up playground fights rather than taking a more high-level role on the site.

OK, that's my view on moderating threads. Now to my view on the current situation.

I think it's really difficult to approach a moderator who's deleted a thread to try to get it opened again, especially if no reason has been given and especially if that moderator has closed your threads before, or other peoples, and you've already appealled the decision. To me, it gets to the point where questioning a mod may be seen as you having an issue with that mod (hence my original question) whereas in fact all you want to do is ask for the decision they've made to be reviewed. Whenever I've asked a mod to review a thread that's been deleted, I've always gone through the proper process and orgnoted the original mod but the decision has never been overturned, even though in some cases I think it should have been.

I would much prefer a system where the Mod who closed the thread isn't the one to whom you ask to review it. It would take subjectivity out of the equation (Mods are human, aren't they?) and make the whole process less personal. It would also mean that threads can't be closed without good reason which I do think sometimes happens here.

Reincarnate said:

I don't have a problem with moderation on this site as it rarely crosses my path. One observation I can make however is, there are more mods here than there used to be and with that comes a greater diversity of moderator `style`. Each one acts differently and that can cause problems in itself. Maybe you're right and there needs to be some kind of `checks-and-balances` in place to smooth out the uneveness.

It would take Ben to change anything because I'm not sure some mods know where this forum is and he keeps a low profile these days.

I reckon you're pissing into the wind, but good luck anyway!

fathermcmeekle said:

And yes, I agree - nothing will change - it's all be said before, but I know that sometimes people say all this in orgnotes and the mods never get to know about it - I'd rather be up front, even though I may get wet sometimes

Reincarnate said:

So that explains your odour!

fathermcmeekle said:

damp dog or something more alluring?

Eau De Pish!

fathermcmeekle said: