Home Feedback

The current thread closure policy is terrible

MadjuraMadjura Member Posts: 1,619

Example: https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1746813/#Comment_1746813

This thread is not about that specific instance. It is just an example. This has happened many times before with many different threads about many different topics, and will happen again with other threads in the future.

Instead of closing threads because some people are instigating fights / starting insults, ban those people. Why is this not a thing? By closing threads every time they get out of hand you also punish everyone who is interested in having a civil discussion. I am not saying that people who are breaking the rules aren't punished / banned.

There is a limited of people on the forum and participating in threads. There is not an infinite amount of people posting infinite amounts of rule breaking posts. Remove those users who are breaking the rules, and eventually the rules won't be broken anymore. Then everyone else can keep the discussion alive.

It seems to me that threads with active discussions that get closed are getting derailed by a very limited number of users, one or two, who are then eventually banned, but the thread is also closed. Ban them. Don't close the thread. Or close it temporarily to clean it up. Then reopen it. If it gets derailed again then ban whoever is derailing it. Eventually the rule breaking should stop.

Referencing the example thread above, to me it seemed like the majority of people were interested in having a civil discussion. All of the insults / rule breaking seem to me to have been initiated by users who are very strongly against representation. I know this is very subjective and could easily be wrong in this specific instance and I am not asking about details of who was banned or not banned.

But here's the thing: Let's say someone opens a new thread to discuss a specific topic. The community is divided into those who support it and those who don't. One side always stays civil. The other side starts insulting users. Thread gets locked because of users who are against the suggested idea derailing the thread with insults. In a way that seems to me like weaponizing the mods to shut down discussions that they (= users who are against the idea discussed in the thread) don't like. Regardless of whether or not this happened in the linked thread - and again, it is used as an example, and I don't want to discuss why that specific thread was locked - that seems like a real possibility of something that could happen.

This problem could be prevented if threads are either not closed, or only temporarily, and rule breaking users warned / jailed / banned in order to not completely kill the discussion.


  • CleviteClevite Member Posts: 2,192
    edited November 2020

    Feel free to resurrect one of my old threads.

    They are probably corny as [BAD WORD] tho.

    I am a much better poster than an OP!

    But at least they are not closed, 😁

  • ImmersedNurseImmersedNurse Member Posts: 1,077

    I understood why they decided to close the thread to be honest.

    The discussions were getting a bit contentious and people were just resorting to insults and just generally being non-civil. I think the original point of the thread had gotten a bit lost and most people had said their part anyways so I don't really take issue with it myself.

  • MadjuraMadjura Member Posts: 1,619
    edited December 2020

    This post is long but please respond at least to the question at the bottom @MandyTalk : Is it allowed to repost a closed thread or not?

    The policy is awful.

    Consider this situation: You are posting in a topic, and not breaking the rules. In an attempt to not get the thread closed you report comments by other users that are breaking the rules, so those posts can be removed before the thread gets derailed and users who are not interested in participating in a constructive way potentially be banned.

    What happens instead is this (I am including this example here because I refer to the quoted post further below, but I don't want to discuss any thread particular here):

    The thread gets closed.

    If you flag posts in a thread that you want to stay open, and you flag posts that are breaking the forum rules in an attempt to keep it alive, that may get the thread closed. If you don't report those rule breaking posts then maybe the moderators don't notice them and the thread stays open.

    The end result: Users who were participating in the thread normally get punished, because they can't post in it any longer. Users who caused the thread to get closed by breaking the rules (hopefully) get (temporarily) banned anyway. And normal users who tried to keep the thread alive by reporting posts that break the rule feel like they ultimately contributed to getting it closed instead of keeping it open.

    To me it does not look like this policy exists in good faith. This policy gives me the impression that it is being used as an excuse to shut down critical threads. If you disagree, please answer this:

    • Why is it not enough to (temporarily) ban users who break the forum rules in a thread?
    • Do you even want normal users to flag posts that are breaking the rules?
    • Why do you feel it is appropriate to punish many users (by locking a thread) instead of the few users who are breaking the rules?

    Could a user repost a previously closed thread (make a copy of the closed thread, same/similar title, same/similar first post)?

    If the answer is no, you are stopping criticism, which goes against what you are saying in the quoted post above @MandyTalk:

    Constructive criticism is never censored, never warned for, never deleted and notice that I said criticism there. 

    Because in the case of threads being closed because they are derailed by users posting insults for example the problem is NOT the thread itself. The threads I am talking about are not being closed because they are inherently bad / break the rules, they are closed after (many) comments are made that break the rules. As the original thread is not breaking any rules, and could be a thread that contains valid criticism, then as you said above you would not censor this thread, warn for creating this thread nor delete this thread.

    If the answer is, you can repost a closed thread, then why are you closing it in the first place? In that case closing it accomplishes nothing, except that it becomes significantly more difficult for other users to respond to comments from the original thread - you are essentially killing off constructive discussions.

    One of these two scenarios has to be correct - either you can repost a thread, or you can not. Which one is it @MandyTalk ?

    To me neither option seems correct, one implies that you are censoring valid criticism (if reposting is not allowed) which you said is not something you do, and the other one means that the thread closure policy is essentially pointless (if reposting is allowed).

    EDIT: The now crossed out question was answered here:

    Recreating a closed thread is not allowed. Threads will not be reopened upon request. This is standard policy in every forum that I know of. However in other forums only threads that are unsalvageable are closed permanently. Other threads are temporarily locked until they can be cleaned up (removal of rulebreaking posts, banning people who broke the rules) and then reopened. It seems unfair that you can create a perfectly fine thread, have a normal discussion only for some users to destroy your thread by breaking the rules.

    Post edited by Madjura on
Sign In or Register to comment.