Why do Mods anonymously and inexplicably lock threads?

[SineNomine]

When a thread is locked, is it too much to ask that the Mod or Admin or whoever locked it, post a note identifying themselves and briefly explaining why they are locking the thread?

The thread Controversy at the Playboy mansion in News, views, and gossip was recently locked. In my mind it was an interesting thread and just what one would expect to find on a board devoted to poker news and gossip. I have some guesses as to why it might have been locked (not all of which are flattering to 2+2 leadership) but I really don’t know for sure. I scrolled back a few screens from the last post for a “hey gang this thread is getting out of hand, please knock off the …” post from a mod but did not find one.

A brief explanation would not only satisfy the curiosity of myself and others but would help posters and potential posters better understand what kinds of communication are not allowed on the board. I appreciate this board very much; at a price of “free” one certainly cannot argue against its value. Moderation stops disruptive posters from making communication difficult to impossible. But…, would it be too much to expect an explanation when an active discussion is squelched?

[Sniper]

[ QUOTE ]
I scrolled back a few screens from the last post for a “hey gang this thread is getting out of hand, please knock off the …” post from a mod but did not find one.

[/ QUOTE ]

You didn't scroll back enough... Dids post

[edfurlong]

I just wanted to thank you for directing me to that thread. Great stuff!

[gobbomom]

it's a conspiracy , I tell ya. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[tuq]

[ QUOTE ]
I just wanted to thank you for directing me to that thread. Great stuff!

[/ QUOTE ]
Heh, no joke. I cut NVG out of my 2+2 diet some time ago, would never have seen about that thread were it not for OP.

EDIT: reading Terrence's livejournal entries is a must to get the full effect.

EDIT2: this would have been a good thread to link in Mike Haven's "About the Forums" thread, even if it is sort of depressing.

[MicroBob]

Yeah, glad that it was mentioned in here so I could check it out.
Crazy stuff.

But I'm also a little disappointed it's locked.

Johnny Hughes' latest comment that it was ONLY her words and that she somehow shouldn't be fired after representing herself so professionally is an issue I, and I believe others, would like to respond to.

Is something going to happen to Joy regarding this, or not?

Personally, I think she has represented herself so unprofessionally that she should not keep any kind of position at the WSOP.
And I think this is a topic worth discussing.

But I suspect that a seperate thread on this specific issue might end up getting locked too.


I guess I see the logic behind the lock. But I'm pretty sure I don't agree with it.

[ShakeZula06]

I would like to see it be mandatory mod policy that when locking a tread to give the reasoning for locking it. Here in AtF Mike Haven usually does this but most the time mods in other forums do not.

[Dids]

To be honest I locked that thread at work, was going to go back and edit a reason, and then forgot.

The thread had degenerated into a lot of nasty vitriol and nothing productive. It should have been pretty obvious why it was locked.

[Five-Star]

[ QUOTE ]
vitriol

[/ QUOTE ]

vit·ri·ol (vtr-l, -l)
n.
1.
a. See sulfuric acid.
b. Any of various sulfates of metals, such as ferrous sulfate, zinc sulfate, or copper sulfate.
2. Bitterly abusive feeling or expression.
tr.v. vit·ri·oled or vit·ri·olled, vit·ri·ol·ing or vit·ri·ol·ling, vit·ri·ols
To expose or subject to vitriol.

[stabn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
vitriol

[/ QUOTE ]

vit·ri·ol (vtr-l, -l)
n.
1.
a. See sulfuric acid.
b. Any of various sulfates of metals, such as ferrous sulfate, zinc sulfate, or copper sulfate.
2. Bitterly abusive feeling or expression.
tr.v. vit·ri·oled or vit·ri·olled, vit·ri·ol·ing or vit·ri·ol·ling, vit·ri·ols
To expose or subject to vitriol.

[/ QUOTE ]

something highly caustic or severe in effect, as criticism.
–verb (used with object)

abusive or venomous language used to express blame or censure or bitter deep-seated ill will