Alternatives to locking redirected threads

I'd like to propose a small change to ResMod policy - namely, that in cases where a thread that was originally on-topic for RA (or another forum) has devolved into general discussion as the result of posts not made by the OP, that those devolving posts alone should be removed or hidden rather than the entire thread being locked.

There is an ongoing trend on RA for certain groups of individuals to target threads that they do not like, and flood them with nonsense "pie and cake" posts that are nothing to do with the original topic in order to get them locked. This leaves the OP, who may have genuinely wanted help, high and dry, and technically forbidden from ever asking for help on that issue (because of the "do not re-open locked threads" rule, even though the thread locking was through no fault of their own).

By the same logic, a thread should not be locked because of someone other than the OP attacking another resident on it. This essentially gives users carte blanche to have any thread they do not like locked, simply by making a "naming names" post on it, even if it is nothing to do with the original topic. In these cases, those particular posts should be removed rather than the thread being locked.

(Note: this does not relate to my _own_ recent thread, which I accept was borderline OT, but to some others I have seen.)

This is a good idea, but probably not feasible while Strife is our only ResMod...it's far more work to hunt down every 'bad' post on a thread, split, and lock than to just lock the whole thing. In his position, I certainly wouldn't have the time or inclination. Also, although I don't believe I've ever seen this happen - people generally jump in with suggestions on even the most esoteric of questions - if someone's question went unanswered, I can't imagine that Strife would get cranky with them for reposting, so long as they didn't take the "ZOMG, the evil ResMod locked my thread for no reason! Woe is meeeeee" approach.

As for the pie, panties, and penguin people (no cake), those individuals also happen to be the ones answering the majority of the questions. Threads get derailed, yes, but the ones with genuine questions are almost uniformly answered before anyone wanders too far off topic. The deliberate derails occur on threads where the OP was obviously trolling from the start...might as well have a little fun when you already know the thread is going to get locked. Probably not the best use of our time but, hey, if LL would give us back a General forum, it likely wouldn't happen as much. *shrug*

The thread split interface is separate from the thread. It's extremely time consuming to split threads. Part of the problem is where exactly the line is. A thread split can be it's own world of controversy.

Thought making a GM script to automate it could be fun...

Oh God, I can imagine the sniping if you split threads.

I'm surprised that people aren't content that they usually get 4-5 pages of silliness before the lock.

I think people would yell more then they do now if this happens because it would be more personal. If people are complaining about problems now this would only make it worse.

The problem with removing posts is that someimes removing one will make several others seem out of context, so you would have to remove those as well Since the moderating staff is stretched as it is is this necessary. This has been stated many times before, Almost all silly banter in threads happens after a question has been answered, and usually answered by one of the banterers. With the exception of a few cases where it gets a little nasty most of these threads either die on their own or get locked. If they don't, what's the big deal? You don't have to read it. Or are people so rigid and humorless that they want every thread to be strictly maintained as to topic and information.?

Do it! Make a silly post every once in a while. Laugh. Or is The Metaverse supposed to be as dark and dreary as in that stupid book?

Actually I have seen one or two instances where the split and lock was applied to keep fabulous threads alive, and I for one was thankful for it.
But it seems an impossible task and also an unnecessary one to apply this on a regular basis.
IMHO, virtually every time a thread gets derailed into nonsense or general banter, it is well after the original question has been answered several times over,
or when it has become abundantly clear that the OP was trolling in the first place.

As long as serious questions gets serious answers and don't get drowned in the banter, I don't see what's wrong with having a bit of silliness until either the thread gets the lock it derserved in the first place, or dies of natural causes.

My 2c, IMHO, YMMV etc......

Hi all!
To look at exactly how many moderators are on duty vs things that need to be done, is quite a crucial differance. When the moderators are on, they need to get things done quickly, then jump to the next thing - because there is just so much to get done.
To have the moderators sift out all the abusive posts would be incredibly tedious and uneeded when they could simply lock a thread when things get out of hand. If they still want more out of the thread they can just remake it and hope it can stay on-track.

What if the OP wanted to ask a follow-up question or to clarify the answer?