I'm not sure anyone has ever suggested this (if so, my apologies), but I'm beginning to think that if a topic is starting to get overheated, it should be shut down briefly (a couple days for example) for a "cool-off" period instead of getting shut down. Unless of course, the thread length is too long.

There have been some great threads shut down too soon (and I smell one coming up) and when starting a new one, the same arguments as before manage their way back in the newest debate since basically, it's a "do-over".

Just a suggestion...

Or else, posters could just stop posting in that thread and cool themselves down.

Debates sometimes get heated. Especially political ones.

What's wrong with that?

Physician, heal thyself!

The point being that those who tend to get most heated (like you and I) are often the least likely to self-impose a cooling off period.

DR: When threads are closed, there is always the option of starting a new thread with similar questions (and a link back to the original). When threads are closed for having become too inflammatory, there is usually a recommendation that there be a wait period before starting a new thread on the same topic.

I understand your frustration in relation to the closure of some threads, but there is always the option of taking up the debate again...

I can control myself. My debates are full of good points and relevant arguments. I can't speak for others. My views may infuriate some in here, but that's what debates often do, no?

If they need to log off and walk around the block or something, that's their right. I think it would be a mistake to "impose" that rule.

DR - Your suggestion is a good one and I think it is probably best addressed by the "report" button. If you report a topic and then suggest a cooling down period the moderation team will consider that and take appropriate administrative action.

It is important to remember that we can't watch every single thread and we rely on the community as a whole to report problems and potential problems.

Actually, I'm not frusratd at all. I just don't want to hear the same disputed arguments all over again if/when it gets closed and a new one is started.

Not a big deal to me at all...I really don't care. Close them all and start over. It's just a suggestion.


But if LH's comment had any merit, we'd never have a closed thread. I'm just offering up another solution to the only one we have now.

I agree Dayton, it seems more productive to shut a thread down for 48 hours than completely close it. Especailly on issues like the Plame case, it gives people time for more facts to come to the surface, and avoid using talking points (because there's really not all that much to talk about.)

Why do you insist on singling me out?

With respect to the Plame argument, my views are as valid as anyone's. There is more that we don't know in that case than we do know.

The grand jury testimony is secret. You won't know anything until the special prosecutor issues a report and/or indictments.

If you research the closed threads on this board, you'd see that I'm responsible directly for very, very few.

lordhelmet, you are taking this thread off-topic, I therefore suggest that maybe you're not so capable of knowing when to cool off. This thread is to discuss DaytonRocker's idea, not debate any political news whatsoever, so please stop it.

Mike was crafting a response to your idea, DR, and will be posting it soon. Thanks for sharing it with us.

I think it's a reasonable suggestion, but often by the time a thread is closed because it is too inflammatory, the discourse has strayed so far from the topic it's hard to simply pick up where it left off after heads have cooled. Also, threads that are closed for a couple of days are usually forgotten, so I think starting fresh is preferable by that point.

I've closed threads in the past for "staff review", and then reopened them later with a final warning (if memory serves). That's a similar concept, I suppose.

This is an interesting suggestion, DR-- something that has not been suggested before, and seems like it could be a reasonable alternative to simply closing topics.

Our goal here is constructive debate. We want to make sure that topics stay as on-track as possible because we think that sets up the conditions for the most constructive debate possible.

Right now, we just put up a [mod] note asking whatever we think is necessary to keep a topic on track, and hope that members follow the note. Sometimes it happens and the topic stays open, but quite often it doesn't.

The way I see it, a feature like this would be slightly frustrating in the short-term for those who are participating in the topic, but would be very helpful in achieving our goal of constructive debate in the long-term.

I would imagine, if something like this was implemented, that [mod] notes would more often than not be accompanied by a short closure of the topic. After all, it got to a point where we thought it was necessary to step in and refocus the topic. Of course, some topics need to be closed immediately, and that would still occur when necessary.

We will be upgrading our software by the end of summer. I will investigate the possibilities of modifying the script to incorporate something like this into the moderation tools.

Thanks for the suggestion,

Mike

Exactly...especially with hot and fluid topics.

To be clear, my suggestion is not to stop closing threads because many times that is the best solution.

Maybe an even better method is to deny a member posting priviledges in a particular thread temporarily. Instead of cooling everyone off (which may be unfair), cool the jets of the posters who have hijacked the thread. Many times it's just a heated debate - nothing worthy of strikes or banning anyone. But after one "cool it" warning, you can read but can't post in that topic for 24 hours or something.

Just thinking out loud...probably too complicated.

Nothing is too complicated for Mike

Awww.

The per-member permissions probably wouldn't work out very well. There is no need to add fuel to the fire of a frustrated member by saying, "You-- JoeMember-- you can't post in this specific topic for 24 hours, even though other people can respond directly to your comments. "

We have the moderation queue at our disposal if a particular member is causing concern.

Mike

Here's an idea. How about creating a time limit between posts in the same topic. Many times two or three people get into a back and forth that ultimatly leads off topic. I'm not sure what the time limit would be (or if that's even possible), but that would creat longer "on topic" posts.

LOL as I type this I am starting to dislike my own idea....


it seems to me when a topic closes it has normally ran its course. also for "news" debates, a new topic and question has to be created to be relevant.

I propose one more addition to DR's suggestion. After the cooling off period has expired, ensure that it gets marked as "new" when viewing new posts. That way, as Mrs. P was implying, we won't lose track of the thread.

No, no, Nemov, that's not such a bad idea. Not at all.

When a particular thread runs hot it's very tempting to weigh in every time someone posts something that strikes me as particularly thought-provoking, well written or more often than not just so moronic it's practically begging to be exposed for the steaming pile of stupidity it truly is.

Not that anyone on this board has that problem. Well, one or two...maybe...

But the notion that there should be a limit to how many times one can post in the same thread isn't all that bad. For example in the Valerie Plame/Karl Rove thread at a certain point EVERYTHING that CAN be said, HAS been said. Let's face the facts: Bush isn't going to fire Rove until he absolutely has no choice and he doesn't care if every Democrat who ever lived calls for Rove's head. He ain't throwing Rove to the wolves until the bitter end.

Until or if the special prosecutor, Peter Fitzgerald indicts Rove all this sound and fury makes for a lot of heat but not much light.

Just as there's not much to talk about regarding the Supreme Court until Bush actually nominates somebody. Most threads have an expiration date and after they pass that point all we're doing is repeating our own favorite lines over and over and over and over....

As someone who's killed his share of threads I'm equally guilty of trying to keep a few alive long after their "sell-by" date. It does seem at times that some threads deteriorate into slugfests with posters trying to get their last low blows and cheap shots in before the ref sends them back into a neutral corner.

There needs to be an alternative to padlocking threads when a few of us don't play nice in the sandbox. Let's not be so quick to pour cold water on the suggestions byDayton Rocker and Nemov.

Clearly there is a problem and while it may not call for a revolutionary change, a little tweak might be just right.

I'm not sure if limiting the number of posts anyone can make to a thread is such a good idea. Some threads do develop over time (rather than two or three people just re-stating the same thing over and over and over - which, of course, also happens) and some people may make a lot of constructive contributions as the discussion evolves.

The alternate - or additional - suggestion that DaytonRocker made might not be a bad one to consider. Suspending certain members' ability to post to a given thread for, say, 24 or 48 hours would allow the thread to remain open, but would also allow the more heated participants to chill out a bit. This would most likely need to be based on participants being reported and the moderators agreeing that they were becoming a bit too inflammatory or unconstructive.

I'm not sure what sort of programming would be involved, but with Mighty Mike overseeing the upgrade, it seems anything is possible.