# Thread ownership



## Coredump (Apr 26, 2005)

This spawns from a specific incident, but it is a general question.

If someone starts a thread, is it *their* thread? Are they supposed to be able to tell people to not take part because they disagree? Or moreso, can they have the thread closed just because they don't like how the topic is heading?

I was under the impression that the threads, once started, were 'open'/'public', not 'owned'. (of course, assuming staying within the PG's)


----------



## EricNoah (Apr 26, 2005)

In general...

The person who starts a thread always has the option to have their thread closed.  

Derailing a thread (by trying to change the subject) is considered rude.  So in a sense, the thread does need to stay on the topic chosen by the thread's creator.  

And someone purposely trying to torpedo another person's thread (by posting stuff they know will get it closed) is also considered rude.  I *think* the practice has been to try just deleting the offending content and/or post rather than shutting down the whole thread if it's apparent that it's just one person trying to sink a thread.  Hasn't happened in a while to my knowledge.

That's probably about the extent of "ownership" of threads here.


----------



## der_kluge (Apr 26, 2005)

I think there is implicit ownership of threads here.

It probably varies from message board to message board.

If you start a thread, and I end up going off the deep end, and get the thread closed, I'll feel bad, and in the cases where that has happened people (myself included) will often apologize here for closing the other person's thread.

I often make requests in a volatile thread to keep them back on topic if they divert too drastically.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Apr 26, 2005)

I always have looked at the nature of the thread, some topics are thrown out like a net to gather information, some are more of a fishing line looking to hook a single idea/thought, others a spear.  It also has to do with how often the poster comes back to it, with a net it is every now and then, with the line a bit more, with the spear all the time.  But it is always the right of the thread creator to ask it be closed.  

I guess I don't really know what I am going on about...


----------



## Umbran (Apr 26, 2005)

EricNoah said:
			
		

> Derailing a thread (by trying to change the subject) is considered rude.  So in a sense, the thread does need to stay on the topic chosen by the thread's creator.




I'm not sure how strictly that holds, though.  It is rude to specifically attempt to derail or hijack a thread, yes.  But "topic drift" is also a natural function of discussion, and happens frequently without cheesing anyone off.

But that's getting into more vagueries.  The person who started the thread can always ask to have it closed.  But if they aren't breaking the rules, are being polite, and are staying on topic, but disagree with the one who starts the thread, there's no real call for editorial control.


----------



## diaglo (Apr 26, 2005)

i tend to drop a line out the back of my boat with multiple hooks and plenty of bait.

in the dictionary they call this trolling.


----------



## Coredump (Apr 26, 2005)

EricNoah said:
			
		

> In general...
> 
> The person who starts a thread always has the option to have their thread closed.




Okay, that really answers my question. I don't agree with that policy, but hey, it isn't my board. 


To me if I start a thread, it isn't *my* thread, it is a thread I started. It has its 'own' topic and focus, and those contibuting should respect that. But assuming that is being done, I don't feel I should have the right to shut down their discussion just because it is *my* thread. I feel that starting provides the ability to set the 'agenda', but that is all the priviledge it should provide.


I can see, however, that my beliefs are not the actual policy, and that starting a thread also gives the power of "life or death" for the thread.  As was stated to the GM during a recent gaming session. "I disagree, but thats okay."

Thanks for the timely reply.  
CD


----------



## EricNoah (Apr 26, 2005)

It happens only very rarely in any case; I can see why it might seem "odd" if you haven't been around since the beginning.


----------



## Morrus (Apr 27, 2005)

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.


----------



## diaglo (Apr 27, 2005)

_exits stage left_


----------



## Mark (Apr 27, 2005)

diaglo said:
			
		

> _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 (Apr 27, 2005)

Morrus said:
			
		

> 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 (Apr 27, 2005)

Coredump said:
			
		

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



 Yes.


----------



## DaveMage (Apr 27, 2005)

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


----------



## Morrus (Apr 27, 2005)

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


----------



## Darkness (Apr 27, 2005)

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 (Apr 27, 2005)

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 (Apr 27, 2005)

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 (Apr 27, 2005)

DaveMage said:
			
		

> 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 (Apr 27, 2005)

BardStephenFox said:
			
		

> 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.


----------



## DaveMage (Apr 28, 2005)

Coredump said:
			
		

> It would be easier for the one person to stop taking part, rather than making everyone else go somewhere else.




I agree, and actually I was a bit surprised that it didn't simply happen this way.  

From a personal perspective, what you suggest is exactly what I would do in that circumstance.  But, to each their own, I guess.  *shrug*


----------



## Mark (Apr 28, 2005)

These kind of things are always difficult to discuss with all of the "what if?" scenarios that surround hypotheticals.  Maybe a discussion about the actual thread in question (since it wasn't closed for rudeness or bad behavior) would help to resolve the issue?  Is this it...? - 

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=129398


----------



## Greylock (Apr 28, 2005)

I kinda figured it was that thread. I think the OP might have had general reservations about continuing that line of discussion, maybe even some regret over starting it in the first place (assuming a lot on my part), and it did have his name written all over it. The argument was going nowhere anyways.


----------



## Crothian (Apr 28, 2005)

Mark said:
			
		

> These kind of things are always difficult to discuss with all of the "what if?" scenarios that surround hypotheticals.  Maybe a discussion about the actual thread in question (since it wasn't closed for rudeness or bad behavior) would help to resolve the issue?  Is this it...? -
> 
> http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=129398





That's the thread


----------



## Mark (Apr 28, 2005)

If my screenname was at the top of that thread, I'd ask that it be closed, too.  Every now and again, when a discussion at your house party goes down a dark road, you just have to tell people to take it outside...or back to their place.


----------



## thalmin (Apr 28, 2005)

But it isn't polite to do that when you are at someone else's house.


----------



## Umbran (Apr 28, 2005)

Yeah, well this is either everyone's house, or Morrus' house.  This system works well if it is everyone's.  And if Morrus says it's okay in his house, that's the way we play it.


----------



## diaglo (Apr 28, 2005)

Umbran said:
			
		

> Yeah, well this is either everyone's house, or Morrus' house.  This system works well if it is everyone's.  And if Morrus says it's okay in his house, that's the way we play it.





i claim the second guest bedroom on the right


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (Apr 28, 2005)

I don't see what the big deal is here.  Maybe it wasn't handled the best way, but since the thread was not closed for violation of the rules, there is nothing stopping someone from starting a new thread, linking to the closed one in the first post and continuing the conversation.  To me that is equivalent to the idea of taking the conversation outside.  Maybe thread starters should "leave the room" instead of making everyone leave, but again they can't stop everyone else from continuing somewhere else.

Part of this particular case to me is that the tone had dropped from being completely civil (at least one other poster felt the thread was going to be closed soon) and the thread starter may have felt partially responsible for that so asked it be closed before it got out of hand and was forced closed by the moderators.


----------



## Morrus (Apr 28, 2005)

diaglo said:
			
		

> i claim the second guest bedroom on the right




'Fraid I only have a couch spare.  But you're welcome to it!


----------



## diaglo (Apr 28, 2005)

Morrus said:
			
		

> 'Fraid I only have a couch spare.  But you're welcome to it!




that's right i forgot. you had to sell your extra books to make some room.

i don't eat a lot. and i am potty trained.

prop me up in a corner and i'll sleep standing up.


----------



## Mark (Apr 28, 2005)

Will there be enough room on the couch for diaglo with Liquide already there?


----------



## Plane Sailing (Apr 28, 2005)

Thornir Alekeg said:
			
		

> I don't see what the big deal is here.  Maybe it wasn't handled the best way, but since the thread was not closed for violation of the rules, there is nothing stopping someone from starting a new thread, linking to the closed one in the first post and continuing the conversation.




After I closed the thread, Coredump emailed me and this was in fact the advice I gave him in that email.

In the light of that (and the rules - see closing paragraph here http://www.enworld.org/announcement.php?f=2&announcementid=45) it was bad form for Coredump to start this thread.

I agree that it wasn't handled in the best possible way, and in the future such a thread closure will explicitly note that since the closure wasn't for a violation of the rules, others are free to start a new thread continuing with aspects of the thread which interest them.

At the moment discussions are underway amongst the moderators about this issue, if there is a change in policy expect us to announce it here.

Regards


----------



## Varianor Abroad (Apr 28, 2005)

I mean no disrespect to your policy (don't question the mods publically), but in fairness, it seems like this thread did force a reconsideration of something that wouldn't have otherwise happened?


----------



## Crothian (Apr 28, 2005)

Actually it sounds like the e-mail to Plane Sailing started the conversation.  I don't think this thread did anything to help that.


----------



## Varianor Abroad (Apr 28, 2005)

Point taken. I must admit though that I was curious myself without a more detailed reason for the thread closure, so I appreciate the explanation. Transparency can be a good thing.


----------



## Mark (Apr 28, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Actually it sounds like the e-mail to Plane Sailing started the conversation.  I don't think this thread did anything to help that.





_Coredump could always request it be closed..._


----------



## DaveMage (Apr 28, 2005)

Mark said:
			
		

> _Coredump could always request it be closed..._




Now that's funny.


----------



## Coredump (Apr 29, 2005)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> In the light of that (and the rules - see closing paragraph here http://www.enworld.org/announcement.php?f=2&announcementid=45) it was bad form for Coredump to start this thread.




Bad form?

I admit to missing your email until now. (It is sent to my secondary email-aka lots of spam- and I didn't recognize the name)  But even that would not preclude starting a thread to ask about policy.

Despite the implication from the paragraph you linked to, throughout this thread, I have refrained from mentioning the original thread, the moderator, the thread starter, or any other specific detail. I specifically stated I was curious about the policy, not the exact instance.

When the immediate reply was 'that is the way we do it', I stated okay, and thought that was the end of it.

It was not until Morrus commented differently that the thread came to life again.

I do apologize if you felt this thread was a means of 'going over your head' or 'calling you out'. That was not my intention, I was hoping to keep everything general. I am glad that this thread seems to have prompted a discussion on the matter. (That seems more likely than the email being the catalyst.)


For the record: Plane Sailing's reponse was very prompt, and very polite. And I do appreciate that.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Apr 29, 2005)

Coredump said:
			
		

> I admit to missing your email until now. (It is sent to my secondary email-aka lots of spam- and I didn't recognize the name)




OK, I understand now. Sorry that I misrepresented your integrity. I agree that it is a discussion worth having.

Regards,


----------



## diaglo (Apr 29, 2005)

Mark said:
			
		

> _Coredump could always request it be closed..._




d00d

sweet

d00d


....irony does more than get the wrinkles out


----------



## Arnwyn (Apr 29, 2005)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> In the light of that (and the rules - see closing paragraph here http://www.enworld.org/announcement.php?f=2&announcementid=45) it was bad form for Coredump to start this thread.



Sounded like a policy question and not "calling anyone out" to me. (Though, personally, I do think that the last rule is the worst of a very good set of rules. Too bad for me!)


----------



## Umbran (Apr 29, 2005)

arnwyn said:
			
		

> Sounded like a policy question and not "calling anyone out" to me. (Though, personally, I do think that the last rule is the worst of a very good set of rules. Too bad for me!)




It may be the worst, but it is rather necessary.  In the past, people did publicly call out the mods on things that they thought were bad judgement calls.  Those discussions were generally even more rancorous and divisive than whatever discussion had brought up the moderator action.


----------

