# Thread closed by request?



## Desdichado (Jun 22, 2005)

I have a Moderation question -- this isn't a rant, and I'm not referring to any specific incident, it's just something that I've seen from time to time.

There have been several instances where someone will start a thread, ask a question, get it answered, and then the original poster disappears for entire pages while a fruitful discussion amongst other members on that topic (or a branch thereof) goes on.

And on occasion, those threads get closed at the OP's request because the question was answered, even though a good discussion is still ongoing in the thread.

Is there a reason for this?


----------



## der_kluge (Jun 22, 2005)

The customer is always right?  Maybe ENworld has adopted Sam Walton's philosophies.  *shrug*


----------



## Crothian (Jun 22, 2005)

The orginator of the thread always has the right to ask for it to be closed.  It does not stop you though from starting another thread on the topic.


----------



## HellHound (Jun 22, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> The orginator of the thread always has the right to ask for it to be closed.  It does not stop you though from starting another thread on the topic.




-USUALLY-

There has been ocasion where a thread was closed at the request of the original poster, and then when the topic of the thread was brought up in another thread, people have been asked to desist, as the original thread was closed by a Moderator.


----------



## Desdichado (Jun 22, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> The orginator of the thread always has the right to ask for it to be closed.  It does not stop you though from starting another thread on the topic.



Yes, I know, but I guess I'm wondering why that is.


----------



## Desdichado (Jun 22, 2005)

HellHound said:
			
		

> -USUALLY-
> 
> There have been ocasions where a thread was closed at the request of the original poster, and then whent he topic of the thread was brought up in another thread, people have been asked to desist, as the original thread was closed by a Moderator.



Just to clarify, I'm not talking about that kind of situation at all -- I'm talking about a normal, even friendly and productive, conversation that got cut off, IMO, for no good reason, because the OP was done.


----------



## Darth K'Trava (Jun 23, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Just to clarify, I'm not talking about that kind of situation at all -- I'm talking about a normal, even friendly and productive, conversation that got cut off, IMO, for no good reason, because the OP was done.




I think I know which thread you're referring to. If it's that one, then I'm glad it was closed as it degenerated into someone acting "not nice". If it hadn't been for one individual, the discussion would've gone on nicely for awhile longer.


----------



## Desdichado (Jun 23, 2005)

Darth K'Trava said:
			
		

> I think I know which thread you're referring to. If it's that one, then I'm glad it was closed as it degenerated into someone acting "not nice". If it hadn't been for one individual, the discussion would've gone on nicely for awhile longer.



Actually, I'm not referring to any thread in particular, and I have no idea what thread you're talking about.  It's something I've seen off and on for a long time now, and it's always bugged me a little bit.


----------



## DaveMage (Jun 23, 2005)

JD: 

I was discussed a bit in this thread:

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=129751


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jun 23, 2005)

As a result of that discussion the mods have decided to make it clear when a thread is being closed whether or not new threads on the subject in the near future are welcome. We will always try to make it clear if a thread is closed because it got too hot under the collar/political/religious/whatever, or if it is closed at an originators request and new threads are most welcome.

People requesting a thread be closed is pretty rare in the grand scheme of things, and in my experience it normally isn't just that they've got the answer they want but things have got out of hand (e.g. if someone has a question about his DMs decision and the thread turns into several pages character assassination of his DM who he likes and doesn't want to see impugned).

Cheers


----------



## Desdichado (Jun 23, 2005)

DaveMage said:
			
		

> JD:
> 
> I was discussed a bit in this thread:
> 
> http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=129751



So it's not just me that's seen this from time to time.  I'll be the first to admit it's pretty rare, but it has happened a few times since I've been around.


----------



## Desdichado (Jun 23, 2005)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> As a result of that discussion the mods have decided to make it clear when a thread is being closed whether or not new threads on the subject in the near future are welcome. We will always try to make it clear if a thread is closed because it got too hot under the collar/political/religious/whatever, or if it is closed at an originators request and new threads are most welcome.
> 
> People requesting a thread be closed is pretty rare in the grand scheme of things, and in my experience it normally isn't just that they've got the answer they want but things have got out of hand (e.g. if someone has a question about his DMs decision and the thread turns into several pages character assassination of his DM who he likes and doesn't want to see impugned).



But that's kinda dodging the question.  I know that it's rare, and most of the time there's and undercurrent of "this is heading nowhere good, and fast" but that doesn't mean that occasionally there aren't perfectly viable threads that are shut down just because the thread owner asked.  I do recall at least one instance where the thread starter said outright he had had his question answered, and apparently the discussion everyone else was having was beside the point.


----------



## Jdvn1 (Jun 23, 2005)

I like to keep threads open so that another idea could pop in later... but if it's closed and there was a good discussion going on, why not start a thread devoted to that dicussion?  You could then ask the moderator to link the related thread in the closed thread.


----------



## Darkness (Jun 23, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> I do recall at least one instance where the thread starter said outright he had had his question answered,



 I recall a few of those over the years, but none where that was the _sole_ reason. Though I obviously haven't seen _all_ threads.

Also, users don't always explain the complete reason in the thread itself.


----------



## Desdichado (Jun 24, 2005)

Well, I don't want to be a beyotch about it -- it's not something that I'm really that concerned about.  It is, however, a policy that I don't understand the reason for.  And after the discussion here, and in the thread DaveMage linked to, I'm not sure I understand the reason for it any better.  If anything, I think it makes even less sense to me now than it did when I started the thread.


----------



## Zenodotus of Ephesus (Jun 24, 2005)

Threads can be split, if I am not mistaken, thus allowing the conversation to move off to a thread truly of its own and also facilitating the originator of the first thread to have his thread closed.


----------



## Darth K'Trava (Jun 25, 2005)

Jdvn1 said:
			
		

> I like to keep threads open so that another idea could pop in later... but if it's closed and there was a good discussion going on, why not start a thread devoted to that dicussion?  You could then ask the moderator to link the related thread in the closed thread.





'Cause it's easier to use the thread that's already there? That'd be my thinking, anyway...


----------

