View Single Post
  #1  
Old 12-21-2005, 01:26 PM
Beer and Pizza Beer and Pizza is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 66
Default Should we let them die a natural death?

I am posting this because I want to understand the logic of locking threads. There was a thread discussing moderation this morning that was locked. Now realize that the only thing locking a thread does is prevent anyone from making a new reply.

People are good at not bumping threads if they have nothing to add (at least in Politics with its only 20 regular viewers). So locking a thread is unnecessary and often counterproductive. It will drop from the top of the page quickly.

So why lock such a thread? I was done with it and was letting it die a natural death. But when I visit a forum, the first threads I look at are those that have been locked. It screams to me "the moderator thought this was a BAD thread", and I want to know why.

Unless the OP is notorious for bumping his own threads that the rest of us are planning on ignoring, why draw attention to what he posts. Just don't reply and let it die. In this forum, dumb threads actually really do die from a lack of response. Do we need to murder them?

<font color="red"> Its like going to the hospital and killing a patient that was going to die shortly. You've turned a natural death into a cause celebe, and in come all the high priced lawyers. Why do this? Why? </font>

I don't like to start a lot of new threads, but in this case, I have been given no choice. As I said above, I thought I was done with the issue for the day, but then someone comes along and locks a thread that was dying so nicely all by itself.

I'd be happy if no one replied to this thread. Let it die a natural death. Just don't lock it.
Reply With Quote