Threads "Locked for review." with no apparent reason or review.

[gomipile]

I understand that sometimes threads need to be locked. Lately, though, many threads have been locked with a cryptic "Locked for review." message, and left that way.

Often, there is no visible breach of the forum rules in said thread, so there is no way to tell what caused the lock so as to avoid the same result in the future.

Also, there is no apparent review process, and I haven't seen one of these threads unlocked after a favorable review. Thus, the use of the word "review" seems like meaningless boilerplate. There may in fact be a meaningful review process taking place, but I'm speaking to the outside appearance of this phenomenon.

Several times this has happened to a discussion I was watching eagerly. Not knowing why the discussion was locked has a chilling effect on my impulse to start a new discussion continuing the topic, negating the purpose of these boards in those cases.

Basically, when this happens with no visible reason, it seems arbitrary and capricious. I'd like to be able to trust the moderators, but a basis for that trust should be present. A word or two as to the reason a thread is locked, and visible follow up at a later date on threads marked as under "review" would go a long way in this regard.

Thank you for your time.

[Mystic Muse]

Threads like the LGBTA thread have been locked for review and re-opened.

You're also not supposed to restart a locked thread without getting permission from a moderator first. If you do that, they'll probably be able to give you an idea of why the thread was locked.

EDIT: If you PM a moderator, not restart a locked thread without permission. Do not restart a locked thread without permission.

[gomipile]

I appear to have been confused.

What I want apparently doesn't exist, and I shouldn't look for it. I apologize for wasting your time.

[Mystic Muse]

I'm not sure why you say that. I'm not a mod and can't give you an absolutely certain answer like they can. I was just trying to say they do in fact unlock reviewed threads sometimes, and restarting a locked thread without permission from a mod is a bad idea.

[gomipile]

What I mean is this:

It does make sense to not want to have flamewars or hate speech or whatever restarted. Hence, I understand the spirit of the rule against restarting locked threads in that sense.

However, if there was meaningful discussion taking place aside from the individual posts that got the thread locked, I want to be able to restart that or have it not be interrupted. Not being allowed to immediately restart the meaningful part of the discussion has a chilling effect on speech.

What I want is this forum, which I generally enjoy, without that chilling effect present. Apparently there is no reason for me to seek that, since it does not and cannot exist.

Thank you for pointing out that rule.

[Douglas]

Look at it this way: what do you think the people who made the objectionable posts are going to do if the thread immediately gets restarted? There's a pretty high chance they'll go to the continuation thread and keep right on going with the lock-worthy behavior. If an immediate restart of the thread is allowed, then the lock isn't very meaningful in the first place.

In order to prevent that, the mods need time to sort out who, exactly, needs to be punished, deliver said punishments (mostly in private), and make a judgment call about whether the problem is specific individuals or a trend of the topic in general. Forcing everyone to take some time off from the discussion also gives heated arguments a chance to cool down.

To offer another perspective on it: I have seen several threads get locked for review. Pretty much every time it was immediately obvious to me why the thread was locked, with the reason usually being an argument that was approaching flame war status, descending towards personal insults and other such hostile comments. In most (I think) cases, the thread was unlocked some time later - with the evidence of why it had been locked removed by the mods editing all the objectionable posts, and a new mod post admonishing everyone to avoid the kind of behavior that had provoked the lock.

Basically, to see why a "lock for review" has happened you have to see the thread shortly before or after the lock happens, in the interval between objectionable posts being made and those posts being edited by the mods. You also have to understand that the mods try to proactively head off flame wars by stopping them before the actual full-on flaming starts, and recognize behavior that is approaching that level of hostility but hasn't gotten there yet. Oh, and remember that real-world politics and religion are forbidden topics here.

As for the review process, it takes place in a hidden forum that only mods can see, and for good reason - I really don't want to see the kind of reactions and personal hurt feelings that I imagine would result if the general public could see the discussions about who stepped over the line and how far, and what infractions to hand out. It would also make the record of who has infractions public, which goes strongly against the intent of the system.

And, finally, if you really want to continue a discussion and are reasonably certain the problem was the behavior of certain individuals, feel free to PM a mod and ask for permission to restart the thread. The worst that might happen is that they could say no; you won't get punished just for asking.

[gomipile]

Look at it this way: what do you think the people who made the objectionable posts are going to do if the thread immediately gets restarted? There's a pretty high chance they'll go to the continuation thread and keep right on going with the lock-worthy behavior. If an immediate restart of the thread is allowed, then the lock isn't very meaningful in the first place.

In order to prevent that, the mods need time to sort out who, exactly, needs to be punished, deliver said punishments (mostly in private), and make a judgment call about whether the problem is specific individuals or a trend of the topic in general. Forcing everyone to take some time off from the discussion also gives heated arguments a chance to cool down.

To offer another perspective on it: I have seen several threads get locked for review. Pretty much every time it was immediately obvious to me why the thread was locked, with the reason usually being an argument that was approaching flame war status, descending towards personal insults and other such hostile comments. In most (I think) cases, the thread was unlocked some time later - with the evidence of why it had been locked removed by the mods editing all the objectionable posts, and a new mod post admonishing everyone to avoid the kind of behavior that had provoked the lock.

Basically, to see why a "lock for review" has happened you have to see the thread shortly before or after the lock happens, in the interval between objectionable posts being made and those posts being edited by the mods. You also have to understand that the mods try to proactively head off flame wars by stopping them before the actual full-on flaming starts, and recognize behavior that is approaching that level of hostility but hasn't gotten there yet. Oh, and remember that real-world politics and religion are forbidden topics here.

As for the review process, it takes place in a hidden forum that only mods can see, and for good reason - I really don't want to see the kind of reactions and personal hurt feelings that I imagine would result if the general public could see the discussions about who stepped over the line and how far, and what infractions to hand out. It would also make the record of who has infractions public, which goes strongly against the intent of the system.

And, finally, if you really want to continue a discussion and are reasonably certain the problem was the behavior of certain individuals, feel free to PM a mod and ask for permission to restart the thread. The worst that might happen is that they could say no; you won't get punished just for asking.

What you are saying makes sense, and I agree that the way it is done is reasonable given the rules of this forum. This forum has probably the most restrictive rule set of any forum I frequent, which probably has something to do with my initial confusion.

[Roland St. Jude]

What you are saying makes sense, and I agree that the way it is done is reasonable given the rules of this forum. This forum has probably the most restrictive rule set of any forum I frequent, which probably has something to do with my initial confusion.Sheriff: That is probably the case. If the reason why a thread is locked isn't obvious, review the Forum Rules. But even where it isn't obvious, we're not going to spell it out. We don't do public Warnings/Infractions, and we don't talk about one poster's violations with another poster, so we're not going to explain it via PM with any specificity. You're always welcome to PM a mod with questions and we'll tell you what we can.

Sometimes a review takes minutes, but sometimes it takes longer. Sometimes a thread can be salvaged and reopened, but sometimes it needs to stay locked. We realize it's an inconvenience, but it's something we need to do to maintain the forum.