ajqtrz
Chef - loquacious Old Dog
[emphasis added for clarity by AJ]Have to disagree with the OP. Moderating forums means keeping the peace, and that means shutting down discussions that have violated Terms & Services, or will inevitably devolve into sparring matches. Having been part of a moderation team on a forum many moons ago, I know how tough it is keeping threads on topic and free of abuse. The claim that locking threads is because they are uncomfortable for moderators is pure bunkum; moderators who allow threads to become personal don't stay moderators for long. Off topic threads get moved to proper areas, comments with questionable or outright prohibited content either are edited to remove such content, or are deleted in whole. Locking threads is the final option when posters just refuse to let a subject die off.
These are the exact things of which I am speaking. The answer is not to lock the thread but to first warn, and then punish via a suspension, the poster of such things. The abusive poster especially. The one who keeps getting somewhat off topic, a bit less, I'd say. But there needs to be targeted consequences for those who break the rules. After all, civility has to be trained into us, right? And no where does it need to be trained into us more than in a place where we are somewhat anonymous.
[emphasis added for clarity by AJ]This. Almost every forum I have ever used has to lock the threads that become nothing but a back and forth argument between a couple of people, and usually involves a few people also be banned from the thread because they got too heated. Those threads can never be redeemed and are better off locked.
But if people think there is something worth discussing without the bad people involved, start a new thread and quote all the relevant posts in it.
Again, it's bad actors that ruin the thing. The "back and forth between two people" is not always a bad thing. I've engaged in that and sometimes it's that there are two people who are really invested, involved, and informed about the subject. As long as they are also civil there is no problem with a small group discussion in the midst of a large group of observers, so to speak. And while I can see it may become tedious, tedious is not against the rules. LOL! And a moderator should not have, in my opinion, the goal of insuring the thread is interesting.
Other than that, I think most people here, get my point. You close down threads only when pretty much everybody has gotten too heated to have a good discussion... which means the subject has become the personality/style/morality of the "opponents," rather than the question being discussed. And the best solution would not be to punish the entire forum for such bad behavior, but to warn and suspend the individuals engaging in such behavior. The rules are for the individuals and punishment should be meted out to those who break the rules, not everyone.
AJ