OK so I'm frustrated, but rather than just moan I'll try and highlight so possible solutions to these frustrations.

Very often, active threads on the Civil Aviation forum get locked. Some probably quite rightly and many probably not. Let's take the most recent example that I can think of:

Gay couple allegedly bumped for straight couple... https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1400313 which was locked with the comment: "Topic has been [sic] wideley discussed and thread will be locked."

Why lock it? If the thread had come to it's natural conclusion then there would be no need to lock it because nobody would post.

There were apparently many abusive posts. Why are these posters not just instantly banned? Messages from new posters do not appear until they have been vetted (I believe), so it's a barrier at least for the same person to continually repeat and, if they do, that's just one of the things that online moderators have to deal with as part of the job.

I'm fed up with the "why is this thread still active" type messages. If you are fed up with a thread, just don't read it. Really simple. Of the 50 or so threads I can see on the first page of Civil Aviation, only 5 or 6 are of interest to me. Threads such as "Oregon Aviation Thread - 2018" would never tweak my interest so I just ignore them, but at 18 pages and growing clearly it is of interest to others.

Back to the "Gay couple allegedly bumped for straight couple... ". Pretty much every post on that thread (that didn't get deleted) dealt with the matter at hand, either directly, or close enough to directly that it was still relevant. Sure there were opinions from all corners, but this is a discussion forum. Surely that's what it is for? If not, what exactly is this forum for? If I want to read factual information about air accidents, for example, this forum would not be my first point of call because I know of another that has a very clear focus.

Many people call for such threads to be moved to the "Non Aviation" forum, where it would compete with such compelling threads as:

Flip flops aren't shoes
What’s something you remember that if you told a younger person they wouldn’t understand?

and my favourite:
My left ear is water

In fact the only thread I can see there on Page 1 that might be at all aviation related is "MH370 & MH17: Spyhunter theories for his fans".

So, some possible solutions to my quandry.

1.) Anyone posting a "why is this thread still active... this thread is pointless..." message in a thread receives a standard "Thank you for you concern. If a thread is not of interest to you, simply do not read it. doh" message.

2.) If someone posts a totally offensive message, just ban them.

3.) If a thread goes off topic... just moderate it. Have an option to remove posting privileges of individual members on individual threads for those who cause specific issue rather than closing a whole thread to everyone.

4.) If a thread has run its course then there is no reason to lock it because there would be no more posts. If there is another reason... state it.

5.) Create a new forum called "Civil Aviation Overflow" or "Almost Civil Aviation" or "Civil Aviation After Hours" or something that shows it is for threads that you don't want clogging up the main forum but are still aviation related and would just get lost in the real crap that is Non Aviation.

Thank you for reading.

Fully agree. I come on airliners.net as a passenger, and for me, threads like the one you mention above that deal with passenger experiences on board an aircraft are the most interesting to read. I was also disheartened at the closure of that thread. "Wideley [sic] run its course" is very subjective, and like the OP said, if people weren't interested in discussing the thread, they would have stopped posting. The replies were mostly on point (although some abusive/homophobic - thanks for moderating those), and the thread didn't veer off course like many other threads here do.

On the passenger experience note, maybe there ought to be a new subforum called "Passenger Experience"? We read several complaints about such threads not belonging in Civil Aviation. I disagree - to me, they are an integral part of civil aviation. But maybe to placate everyone, maybe we could have subforums that deal with Aircraft OEMs/ Airlines/ Fleet on one subforum and PaxEx on another?

Also like the OP said, I find threads with recent news like that refreshing, instead of the endless back and forth that goes on in the MOM/ Boeing accounting practices/ A321/ A380 threads without any real news, to the point where someone like me opens the thread to see if there is any news, reads it and becomes disheartened because it's the same old arguments all over again. On that note, I find it a little strange that a-net has started consolidating threads like that, like say of there is *any* new information on the MOM, it gets buried in the super long MOM thread instead of there being a new thread. I understand there isn't a simple fix to this, since if we open new threads every time there is some "new" news, there will be the same rehashed arguments again, but the consolidating into one thread stuff doesn't really work either.

Lastly, I'm merely offering constructive criticism here. Please do not take it as an attack on mods. I am appreciative of most of the work that the mods do - thanks for your efforts in keeping the forum enjoyable.

NeBaNi wrote:

...

Thanks for the reply NeBaNi, but not a single response from the establishment so I have better things to do as well.

Threads are locked for numerous reasons whether that be a new edition, bumped threads, threads going off topic, personal attacks, etc. While as a user you may think everything has removed that has violated a rule in one way or another we as moderators have access to those deleted posts which are not seen by the community and as such we take those deletions into account when deciding on whether to lock a thread. While we try and give out a warning in the thread we expect that warning to be followed, if it isn't we will lock the thread. In a perfect world one would assume that if a topic has run its course it would just die a natural death but more often and not that is not the case.

On banning, just because a post be abusive or offensive does not automatically mean it qualifies for a ban. As moderators we use banning as a last resort, as such users if they violate a rule are normally given 3 chances before action is taken and usually a warning is issued prior to banning. We also prefer users to learn from their mistakes rather than punishing them. While this does not apply all the time we must also consider the users previous offences which may affect the length of a ban.

If you are tired of reading comments such "Why is this thread active", report it so we can deal with it. All the crew on the site whether its moderators, screeners, support etc are volunteers and we have made it clear thousands of times that we do not read every post in every thread in every forum. Instead we work on a system where we rely on the community to report the offending posts.

qf789 wrote:

Threads are locked for numerous reasons whether that be a new edition, bumped threads, threads going off topic, personal attacks, etc. While as a user you may think everything has removed that has violated a rule in one way or another we as moderators have access to those deleted posts which are not seen by the community and as such we take those deletions into account when deciding on whether to lock a thread. While we try and give out a warning in the thread we expect that warning to be followed, if it isn't we will lock the thread. In a perfect world one would assume that if a topic has run its course it would just die a natural death but more often and not that is not the case.

On banning, just because a post be abusive or offensive does not automatically mean it qualifies for a ban. As moderators we use banning as a last resort, as such users if they violate a rule are normally given 3 chances before action is taken and usually a warning is issued prior to banning. We also prefer users to learn from their mistakes rather than punishing them. While this does not apply all the time we must also consider the users previous offences which may affect the length of a ban.

If you are tired of reading comments such "Why is this thread active", report it so we can deal with it. All the crew on the site whether its moderators, screeners, support etc are volunteers and we have made it clear thousands of times that we do not read every post in every thread in every forum. Instead we work on a system where we rely on the community to report the offending posts.

I'm kind of with you, and thank you for taking the time to respond. However, how does that explain ""Topic has been wideley discussed and thread will be locked."?

If it is because it is taking too much moderation time then I totally understand, but say it how it is. If it is arse protecting because the forum cannot be seen to be hosting controversial views then just send me a PM with words to the effect of STFU, If it was closed because you have every right to close it, then that's also fine but PLEASE, do not close a post with a reason that does not make sense.

Virtual737 wrote:

qf789 wrote:

Threads are locked for numerous reasons whether that be a new edition, bumped threads, threads going off topic, personal attacks, etc. While as a user you may think everything has removed that has violated a rule in one way or another we as moderators have access to those deleted posts which are not seen by the community and as such we take those deletions into account when deciding on whether to lock a thread. While we try and give out a warning in the thread we expect that warning to be followed, if it isn't we will lock the thread. In a perfect world one would assume that if a topic has run its course it would just die a natural death but more often and not that is not the case.

On banning, just because a post be abusive or offensive does not automatically mean it qualifies for a ban. As moderators we use banning as a last resort, as such users if they violate a rule are normally given 3 chances before action is taken and usually a warning is issued prior to banning. We also prefer users to learn from their mistakes rather than punishing them. While this does not apply all the time we must also consider the users previous offences which may affect the length of a ban.

If you are tired of reading comments such "Why is this thread active", report it so we can deal with it. All the crew on the site whether its moderators, screeners, support etc are volunteers and we have made it clear thousands of times that we do not read every post in every thread in every forum. Instead we work on a system where we rely on the community to report the offending posts.

I'm kind of with you, and thank you for taking the time to respond. However, how does that explain ""Topic has been wideley discussed and thread will be locked."?

If it is because it is taking too much moderation time then I totally understand, but say it how it is. If it is arse protecting because the forum cannot be seen to be hosting controversial views then just send me a PM with words to the effect of STFU, If it was closed because you have every right to close it, then that's also fine but PLEASE, do not close a post with a reason that does not make sense.

As far as I can recall, I've never locked a thread with those words, but I can understand why a moderator might do that. There are certain topics that have been discussed ad nauseum on these forums. A prime example would be, "What if the 757 was still in production?" This topic has been hashed and re-hashed probably a hundred times, and users get sick of it. Users complain to us, the thread slips into an abyss of snarky comments, and we get fed up and lock it. We and many longtime users understand the "widely discussed" phrase with subjects like that, but newer users probably don't understand that most of those discussions have indeed taken place extensively in the two decades this forum has existed. Some discussions are best left for the archives, because there's no new insight to be had.

We make a genuine effort to keep most threads open, so usually when it's locked, it's because it's required too much of our time and energy to keep it civil. We've tried to get better at providing explanations when we do lock threads, but I realize that we don't always provide enough information. That's not out of laziness or anything, it's that we already have the full picture — it's easy to forget that most users aren't privy to everything we see (e.g. deleted posts), so it's a lack of follow through more than anything.

atcsundevil wrote:

Virtual737 wrote:

qf789 wrote:

Threads are locked for numerous reasons whether that be a new edition, bumped threads, threads going off topic, personal attacks, etc. While as a user you may think everything has removed that has violated a rule in one way or another we as moderators have access to those deleted posts which are not seen by the community and as such we take those deletions into account when deciding on whether to lock a thread. While we try and give out a warning in the thread we expect that warning to be followed, if it isn't we will lock the thread. In a perfect world one would assume that if a topic has run its course it would just die a natural death but more often and not that is not the case.

On banning, just because a post be abusive or offensive does not automatically mean it qualifies for a ban. As moderators we use banning as a last resort, as such users if they violate a rule are normally given 3 chances before action is taken and usually a warning is issued prior to banning. We also prefer users to learn from their mistakes rather than punishing them. While this does not apply all the time we must also consider the users previous offences which may affect the length of a ban.

If you are tired of reading comments such "Why is this thread active", report it so we can deal with it. All the crew on the site whether its moderators, screeners, support etc are volunteers and we have made it clear thousands of times that we do not read every post in every thread in every forum. Instead we work on a system where we rely on the community to report the offending posts.

I'm kind of with you, and thank you for taking the time to respond. However, how does that explain ""Topic has been wideley discussed and thread will be locked."?

If it is because it is taking too much moderation time then I totally understand, but say it how it is. If it is arse protecting because the forum cannot be seen to be hosting controversial views then just send me a PM with words to the effect of STFU, If it was closed because you have every right to close it, then that's also fine but PLEASE, do not close a post with a reason that does not make sense.

As far as I can recall, I've never locked a thread with those words, but I can understand why a moderator might do that. There are certain topics that have been discussed ad nauseum on these forums. A prime example would be, "What if the 757 was still in production?" This topic has been hashed and re-hashed probably a hundred times, and users get sick of it. Users complain to us, the thread slips into an abyss of snarky comments, and we get fed up and lock it. We and many longtime users understand the "widely discussed" phrase with subjects like that, but newer users probably don't understand that most of those discussions have indeed taken place extensively in the two decades this forum has existed. Some discussions are best left for the archives, because there's no new insight to be had.

We make a genuine effort to keep most threads open, so usually when it's locked, it's because it's required too much of our time and energy to keep it civil. We've tried to get better at providing explanations when we do lock threads, but I realize that we don't always provide enough information. That's not out of laziness or anything, it's that we already have the full picture — it's easy to forget that most users aren't privy to everything we see (e.g. deleted posts), so it's a lack of follow through more than anything.

Very well said. I do use the phrase topic has been widely discussed and will be locked.

In addition what has been mentioned above I usually to this when I have the impression there is really more or less nothing more to say and thread is on the verge of getting off topic, its a useless exchange of arguments or members are just starting a flamebait.

In the end we always have to make a compromise. Some users are reporting the threads when they are getting the impression everything has been well discussed and its running incricles and are reporting it and others prefer to keep it running. So we have to have a look and make a decision based on our own imprsssion in that certain case.

SQ22 wrote:

Some users are reporting the threads when they are getting the impression everything has been well discussed and its running incricles and are reporting it and others prefer to keep it running. So we have to have a look and make a decision based on our own imprsssion in that certain case.

I totally understand. Can I just ask that when you are about to close a thread that you think might be about to go off topic, that those who think the thread is becoming pointless always have the option not to read it, whether it is locked or not, but those that think there is still discussion to be had have that choice taken away from them at the point it is locked.

Virtual737 wrote:

OK so I'm frustrated, but rather than just moan I'll try and highlight so possible solutions to these frustrations.

Very often, active threads on the Civil Aviation forum get locked. Some probably quite rightly and many probably not. Let's take the most recent example that I can think of:

Gay couple allegedly bumped for straight couple... https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1400313 which was locked with the comment: "Topic has been [sic] wideley discussed and thread will be locked."

Why lock it? If the thread had come to it's natural conclusion then there would be no need to lock it because nobody would post.

There were apparently many abusive posts. Why are these posters not just instantly banned? Messages from new posters do not appear until they have been vetted (I believe), so it's a barrier at least for the same person to continually repeat and, if they do, that's just one of the things that online moderators have to deal with as part of the job.

I'm fed up with the "why is this thread still active" type messages. If you are fed up with a thread, just don't read it. Really simple. Of the 50 or so threads I can see on the first page of Civil Aviation, only 5 or 6 are of interest to me. Threads such as "Oregon Aviation Thread - 2018" would never tweak my interest so I just ignore them, but at 18 pages and growing clearly it is of interest to others.

Back to the "Gay couple allegedly bumped for straight couple... ". Pretty much every post on that thread (that didn't get deleted) dealt with the matter at hand, either directly, or close enough to directly that it was still relevant. Sure there were opinions from all corners, but this is a discussion forum. Surely that's what it is for? If not, what exactly is this forum for? If I want to read factual information about air accidents, for example, this forum would not be my first point of call because I know of another that has a very clear focus.

Many people call for such threads to be moved to the "Non Aviation" forum, where it would compete with such compelling threads as:

Flip flops aren't shoes
What’s something you remember that if you told a younger person they wouldn’t understand?

and my favourite:
My left ear is water

In fact the only thread I can see there on Page 1 that might be at all aviation related is "MH370 & MH17: Spyhunter theories for his fans".

So, some possible solutions to my quandry.

1.) Anyone posting a "why is this thread still active... this thread is pointless..." message in a thread receives a standard "Thank you for you concern. If a thread is not of interest to you, simply do not read it. doh" message.

2.) If someone posts a totally offensive message, just ban them.

3.) If a thread goes off topic... just moderate it. Have an option to remove posting privileges of individual members on individual threads for those who cause specific issue rather than closing a whole thread to everyone.

4.) If a thread has run its course then there is no reason to lock it because there would be no more posts. If there is another reason... state it.

5.) Create a new forum called "Civil Aviation Overflow" or "Almost Civil Aviation" or "Civil Aviation After Hours" or something that shows it is for threads that you don't want clogging up the main forum but are still aviation related and would just get lost in the real crap that is Non Aviation.

Thank you for reading.

And I can add another gem to your non aviation list:
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1401185

Correct boulevard? I mean really! Stop that nonsense. It's worse than the political propaganda/fights.

It's not an easy "job" being a forum moderator.... people get upset when their posts get moderated..... As a mod on a forum (not related to aviation), I've upset a few people for just trying to keep things on topic... I try to avoid issuing warning and suspensions and try to calm things down.... sometimes it works, but if they refuse to listen then warnings get issued....