Posted: 9/9/2008 7:44:53 PM EDT
|
I was just thinking about this due to a thread going on in GD right now. I understand that in many situations, there is good cause to lock a thread per the OP's request. But what about when a thread takes on a life of its own that has little to do with the OP? What about when the OP or his initial post is no longer really important or an issue? Say, for example, an OP asks about the legalities of some rifle modification. The question is answered fairly quickly, but the thread becomes an overriding discussion of gun law in general and takes a tone the OP doesn't agree with (politically speaking that is). The OP is no longer important to the thread, but he doesn't like it and requests a lock. Per current rules, I believe he would get the lock. But is that really the best course of action every time (such as in this scenario)? I think it would be better to individually assess the threads when an OP requests a lock. If the thread has become insulting or embarrassing or something like that, sure, lock it. But if the thread has become a good discussion for everyone else, I don't see the point in locking it. |
I agree that most of the time it should be locked. I'm not advocating the power be totally taken away. I just would like the OP to have to state cause to a mod and the mod would have to actually look at the thread to determine whether a lock is necessary. |