Thread ownership

[Mark]

exits stage left

"I want you to understand the words. I want you to taste the words. I want you to love the words. Because the words are important. But they're only words. You leave them on the paper and you take the thoughts and put them into your mind and then you as an actor recreate them, as if the thoughts had suddenly just occured to you." - Daws Butler 1916-1988

 

[Coredump]

Well, if you start a conversation with a group of people, you don't get to claim ownership of the conversation. Starting a conversation is an implicit invitation to others to join in and contribute. At that point, it's their conversation as much as yours.

However, there are basic standards of politeness we all expect when conversing with others. We can always excuse ourselves from a conversation which no longer interests us.

Well, that is how I see it. But what happened is someone started a topic, it went for a number of pages, and then the topic starter had a moderator close it. The only reason given for closing it was because the topic starter requested it. It seemed odd to me that just because a person started the 'conversation' that they had the ability to have it stopped on their desire.

Now, if someone was being impolite, or such, then it makes sense. But than that person should be admonished, or at least a more complete reason given.

As you state, I felt the conversation/thread was as much ours as the person starting it (or possibly moreso, based on participation.) but it was still closed.

So now I am back to being confused.

Does the person starting the topic have the 'right' to have the topic closed just because they want it to be?

 

[Darkness]

Does the person starting the topic have the 'right' to have the topic closed just because they want it to be?

Yes.

 

[DaveMage]

But based on Morrus' comments above, should it be that way?

 

[Morrus]

We've always had that position. I'm not totally sure what I think of it, though. Thoughts?

 

[Darkness]

I think as long as it's subject to moderator discretion to prevent abuse, it's okay. (Hm. I don't even recall any abusive requests.)

 

[BSF]

I can recall requests to close threads for things like the Scarred Lands Sage questions. In that case, I can see why having a clean break and starting new, related, thread is useful.

I recall once or twice where somebody opened a topic and then that topic went southish and the thread creator asked for closure. But it seems like the thread was getting rather venemous anyway and might have reached a moderator closure eventually.

I think those situations are fine. But closing the thread due to creator whim? I don't remember seeing one. Maybe I missed it?

 

[DaveMage]

I think it happened recently and that's why Coredump brought it up.

Now it may be that it doesn't happen enough that it's an issue because when I saw it, I didn't remember seeing anything like it for some time.

On the other hand (and moderators, please correct me if I'm wrong), there was nothing stopping anyone from starting a new thread based on the subject in the thread that was being discussed when it closed, since the thread was not closed due to poor behavior/or by the initiative of a moderator.

 

[DaveStebbins]

On the other hand (and moderators, please correct me if I'm wrong), there was nothing stopping anyone from starting a new thread based on the subject in the thread that was being discussed when it closed, since the thread was not closed due to poor behavior/or by the initiative of a moderator.

Exactly what I was thinking.

-Dave
(me too!)

 

[Coredump]

I recall once or twice where somebody opened a topic and then that topic went southish and the thread creator asked for closure. But it seems like the thread was getting rather venemous anyway and might have reached a moderator closure eventually.

Sure,but that is different. The topic starter has as much right as anyone else to bring a thread to a Mod's attention. And then the Mod can close it for flames, or trolls, or off topic, or whatever.

But if the only reason is "Closed because Coredump requested it"; is that valid? (assuming I started it) This is directed towards a multi-page thread, not just a topic started by mistake.

On the other hand (and moderators, please correct me if I'm wrong), there was nothing stopping anyone from starting a new thread based on the subject in the thread that was being discussed when it closed, since the thread was not closed due to poor behavior/or by the initiative of a moderator.

Granted. But does that make it okay to have a current discussion stopped? If there is a group of people talking, why is it okay for one of them to decide to stop it. It would be easier for the one person to stop taking part, rather than making everyone else go somewhere else.

I think it happened recently and that's why Coredump brought it up.

Yes, this is based on an actual recent occurence. But I am trying to keep it general.