Proposal: Please provide the ability to create locked threads

[CriticalThought]

My unfortunate experience on the forum is that most discussion is extremely low quality. As such, many times I am not inclined to see discussion on threads that I post. If forum administrators provide the ability to create a locked thread where no one other than staff can post a reply, it would avoid a lot of low quality and unnecessary comments. I view this as writing an article on a general site. If somebody really wishes to debate the article, they can take the discussion to a different thread. I request the management to give thought to this request.

 

[V. Makarov]

I like the Idea. However to ensure better quality of 'articles', only a few should be allowed to do that. For instance, if you have a good "Thanks to Messages" ratio or a certain number of positive ratings, you could be allowed to make locked threads.

However I do see my self in the probable future getting frustrated over a thread that I cannot comment on.

 

[HAIDER]

I don't challenge the quality of topic, but problem is one liner, trolling and statement carry no weight or doesn't give enough space in thought process to respond. But locking any thread is totally forum designated team prerogative. If everyone get sword then forum will be killing field.

 

[The Eagle]

Threads are locked only where discussion itself lost the essence. This is a Forum that attracts & interests discussion by members. A locked thread is nothing more than an article being shared by some media house and we are not the same. However, no subject can be posted merely to enforce others to read only because, by the time when members are posting their replies or discussing other subjects; the locked thread will be already gone down many pages in history. Secondly, as you suggest that members can discuss the same in some other thread; I am really surprised by the idea as such to have multiple threads for similar discussion? isn't that sound like spammed forum with scattered information all over the place having no decorum at all?

So whether a thread is to be locked or not, deleted or to be a sticky one; will be decided by Moderation Team to maintain quality and to avoid personal likes or dislikes. Thus, if you feel anyone derailing or violating by any mean; shall report them immediately and let the Mod(s) take care of the rest. Not everyone can bar others from threads and that is part of Forum transparency & independence to take part into any discussion you like.

Regards,

 

[Dante80]

My unfortunate experience on the forum is that most discussion is extremely low quality. As such, many times I am not inclined to see discussion on threads that I post. If forum administrators provide the ability to create a locked thread where no one other than staff can post a reply, it would avoid a lot of low quality and unnecessary comments. I view this as writing an article on a general site. If somebody really wishes to debate the article, they can take the discussion to a different thread. I request the management to give thought to this request.

If you think about it a little, this seems extremely counter-intuitive. You are essentially proposing that we split discussion threads based on news articles to two parts. One for the article itself, and one for the discussion. The reason you want to do that is because you feel that some comments made on said discussions are low quality and you don't want to see them. Thus, if there is separate discussion thread for an article, you can stay away from that thread and not read the comments.

Have you ever thought about not reading the comments and simply unfollowing threads you have posted yourself (so that you don't get alerts for new comments on them)?

 

[PakSword]

Threads are locked only where discussion itself lost the essence. This is a Forum that attracts & interests discussion by members. A locked thread is nothing more than an article being shared by some media house and we are not the same. However, no subject can be posted merely to enforce others to read only because, by the time when members are posting their replies or discussing other subjects; the locked thread will be already gone down many pages in history. Secondly, as you suggest that members can discuss the same in some other thread; I am really surprised by the idea as such to have multiple threads for similar discussion? isn't that sound like spammed forum with scattered information all over the place having no decorum at all?

So whether a thread is to be locked or not, deleted or to be a sticky one; will be decided by Moderation Team to maintain quality and to avoid personal likes or dislikes. Thus, if you feel anyone derailing or violating by any mean; shall report them immediately and let the Mod(s) take care of the rest. Not everyone can bar others from threads and that is part of Forum transparency & independence to take part into any discussion you like.

Regards,

I think OP wants to restrict one liner trolls from making useless comments.

I like the suggestion of @HAIDER of having an option to restrict comments to certain members with some kind of msgs:likes ratio, or a minimum net positive ratings for certain serious threads, and mods should have access to make the threads when they see many trolls gathering on one thread.

Another option is to label certain members "Troll" and restricting them from accessing threads requiring serious input.

A troll with a "General" rank doesn't seem good.

 

[HAIDER]

I think OP wants to restrict one liner trolls from making useless comments.

I like the suggestion of @HAIDER of having an option to restrict comments to certain members with some kind of msgs:likes ratio, or a minimum net positive ratings for certain serious threads, and mods should have access to make the threads when they see many trolls gathering on one thread.

Another option is to label certain members "Troll" and restricting them from accessing threads requiring serious input.

A troll with a "General" rank doesn't seem good.

Now a days , we have threads , pages full of constant trolling or chest thumping kids without any substance, without any facts or serious personal perceptions on issues or flow of argument.

 

[CriticalThought]

Threads are locked only where discussion itself lost the essence. This is a Forum that attracts & interests discussion by members. A locked thread is nothing more than an article being shared by some media house and we are not the same. However, no subject can be posted merely to enforce others to read only because, by the time when members are posting their replies or discussing other subjects; the locked thread will be already gone down many pages in history. Secondly, as you suggest that members can discuss the same in some other thread; I am really surprised by the idea as such to have multiple threads for similar discussion? isn't that sound like spammed forum with scattered information all over the place having no decorum at all?

So whether a thread is to be locked or not, deleted or to be a sticky one; will be decided by Moderation Team to maintain quality and to avoid personal likes or dislikes. Thus, if you feel anyone derailing or violating by any mean; shall report them immediately and let the Mod(s) take care of the rest. Not everyone can bar others from threads and that is part of Forum transparency & independence to take part into any discussion you like.

Regards,

The problem is half informed comments on highly technical topics which many moderators and staff have no knowledge about. Take this comment as an example:

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/elements-of-secure-computing.649207/#post-12011709

It combines correct information with totally incorrect information, and throws in a sarcastic tone of communication as well. This causes more harm than good by luring the reader into a false sense of confidence in the writer's ability and then supplying false and incorrect technical information.

Every solution has pros and cons. The solution of locked threads has the negative outcome of causing discussion to be scattered, but at least it ensures the cohesiveness and integrity of the message which the article tries to convey. I feel the overall advantages outweigh the flaws in this case.

From experience, it is futile to flag irrelevant comments. There are so many, and the reasons for irrelevance are so varied, you will end up either blindly following the report, or ignoring the reports completely. You need to take into account the technical background of the moderators and their ability to discern technically correct from technically incorrect knowledge across a very wide range of disciplines.

If you think about it a little, this seems extremely counter-intuitive. You are essentially proposing that we split discussion threads based on news articles to two parts. One for the article itself, and one for the discussion. The reason you want to do that is because you feel that some comments made on said discussions are low quality and you don't want to see them. Thus, if there is separate discussion thread for an article, you can stay away from that thread and not read the comments.

Have you ever thought about not reading the comments and simply unfollowing threads you have posted yourself (so that you don't get alerts for new comments on them)?

My interest is in ensuring the cohesiveness of the thread, and the integrity of the knowledge conveyed. It's not myself I care, it's about the readers at large and the overall message they get that I care about.