Several times now over the past months I've seen threads locked (including my own) because they, while still topical, were directed at a particular orger. "Take it to org-notes" is often the directive. I play by the rules and limit my output...just curious about why.

Well-formed debates make for good reading on a slow day and 3rd parties do chime in at various points...it just seems like the only way to have a good public one-on-one is to pretend it's not one-on-one; to not put anyone's name in the title and whatnot.

Are public one-on-one's against the rules? Even when there's no flaming? Why is this? Does the org only want town-hall style discussions and no deviation from that format? Just curious, really...

My approach is this: if a topic is started in relation to a conversation between two people, that's fine as long as (a) the new thread isn't solely intended for those two people and (b) there is room for others to join the discussion.

Starting a thread for only two people to participate in is pointless and arrogant.

That said however, many of our most active threads only involve a core handful of people, with the occasional extra chiming in now and then as you say. That's fine. I just don't like threads that exclude others from participating - private discussion should be kept private.

I've no problem with one-on-one debates though. In the past when I've locked threads which were solely intended for one person, I've frequently asked the author if they would be willing to modify the original thread to make it more accessible to other people and less of a "private conversation".

If I recall correctly Teller, I did that with yourself some weeks back but you declined. No big deal. There's no rule about it, it is simply at moderators' discretion to try and promote better discussion on the forums.

So mainly the title post needs to leave the door open for others...

Is it the title, or also the main post?

Will titles "Person X vs. Person Y" or "Question for Person X" always get locked? Or can they welcome others inside the post?

Guidelines?

teller said:

First of all - in such cases, I'm very flexible, and if we talk about it on Orgnotes we can easily find an agreement and re-open the thread if necessary. So we take it on a case by case basis.

I would say that threads such as "Person X vs Person Y" and "Question for Person X" would often get locked... because they are very clearly intended for only two people. However, some people take another approach, e.g. "Discussing Possible War in Iraq (for teller et al)" - so the title and the main post of the thread state the topic of the discussion (so anyone can join in) but the main person the thread was addressed to is mentioned too. That's fine.

The only guideline I would give you is that if it is obvious from a thread's title and main post that it is a private discussion, or it is only intended for a specific person, it probably isn't going to create good discussion and a moderator might take issue with it. I really can't see any reason why someone would post a thread in the forums if they really only want to talk to one specific person. That's what private messages are for

Ultimately though, nothing is written in stone and if you have any doubts before or after you've started a new thread, by all means give me or whatever mod is around a shout on Orgnote to clarify. If I lock such a thread, I'll certainly be free to chat about it and if you can make whatever minor modifications are required, I'm more than happy to re-open the thread for business again.

What?! You mean there's no precise schematic flow-chart for locking and unlocking rules?! :LOL:

Seriously, though...ok, sounds good...

teller said:

Anything not directly catered for by the site rules tends to be handled on a case-by-case basis... we aim for consistency when possible but of course, we can't be too inflexible or else no one has any fun.

LOL.

If you didn't mean for this thread to be ironic, it's pretty funny.

tackam said:

I took special care not to title it, "Ian vs. Teller."

teller said:

How about "Nobody Else Cares About This (for Ian, Teller, et al)"