[Suggestion] Vote to Close Thread

[The Sandman]

It might be nice to have an option whereby the members of the community could shut down an objectionable thread by voting it closed. This could be allowed on a per forum basis (rather than a global setting for all forums) with an admin defined number of votes needed to close the thread.

I thought of this when looking at some of the troll threads here about release dates, IPB vs VB vs XF, etc. - the kind of threads that make the staff look biased if they close them. Having the community vote it closed would send a subtly different message.

 

[projectego]

I like the idea, but it sounds as if a rather complicated system of "user must have a minimum of x reputation, posts or days registered" would only lead to unnecessary bloat. I do genuinely like the idea, but I think it might require a little too much work to get everything spot on. To be honest, I'm not entirely sure I'd be happy allowing users to have any authority over the closing of threads. I'd rather see this idea discussed further down the line when XenForo is already out of the door, so-to-speak.

 

[Omri.L]

I really like this idea...
for my community, it should work!

 

[Dean]

I would not use this feature.

I do see the point, but can also see where it would get real confusing really quick, some of those reasons have already been stated.

 

[Ruven]

It might be nice to have an option whereby the members of the community could shut down an objectionable thread by voting it closed. This could be allowed on a per forum basis (rather than a global setting for all forums) with an admin defined number of votes needed to close the thread.

I thought of this when looking at some of the troll threads here about release dates, IPB vs VB vs XF, etc. - the kind of threads that make the staff look biased if they close them. Having the community vote it closed would send a subtly different message.

I like it, probably best as a plugin though.

 

[Ruven]

Interesting, but this only works on a forum with 'mature' members. Otherwise it could be abused very easily, especially on big boards. I wouldn't use it, but it could work in some communities.

Negative rep people who abuse system.
Maybe a check on anyone who has received negative rep in the last week not being allowed to vote?

 

[Ruven]

That's a bit too negative IMO. Closing a thread shows displeasure with the thread, but banning a member (even from just the one thread) is much more personal.

You know what i always thought was something missing from the whole bloated report/infraction/ban mess?
A simple time-out.

User A is a productive member of the forum who is great 99% of the time... except that he is a devout Christian of the fundamentalist type, and cannot help but get offended at anything perceived to be anti-god/bible/jesus/christianity, etc...
It would start a holy war and i would have to go in and delete a bunch of posts and calm **** down.

It would be great to instead just go in and give a user or a couple of users a "time-out" from that respective thread, forum, or section.
Not a ban, but basically blocking him from accessing a certain part of the site for 20 minutes or some other predetermined amount of time.
Sometimes folks just need a little time to cool off.

And it would be even nicer if it was all automated.
You have a group of your senior members have the ability to vote on giving a guy a time out.
Enough of them vote a negative post and the guy gets blocked from that area for a short amount of time... allowing the conversation to continue.

That would be a nice plugin.
Coders... start your engines

 

[The Sandman]

You know what i always thought was something missing from the whole bloated report/infraction/ban mess?
A simple time-out.

I don't disagree - I know that there are times when I'm much better off giving myself a timeout before responding. OTOH, a short time out might not be enough for some (most?) members - it could just irritate them further and have them counting down the minutes until it expires so that they can contine spewing.

I just recently had a guy on my forum who wouldn't calm down and finally earned himself a 1 week ban. He waited the week, sent off a message complaining that the ban ended 25 minutes later than it should have, and jumped right back into the thread that earned him his "time out". Oh well...

 

[Ruven]

I don't disagree - I know that there are times when I'm much better off giving myself a timeout before responding. OTOH, a short time out might not be enough for some (most?) members - it could just irritate them further and have them counting down the minutes until it expires so that they can contine spewing.

I just recently had a guy on my forum who wouldn't calm down and finally earned himself a 1 week ban. He waited the week, sent off a message complaining that the ban ended 25 minutes later than it should have, and jumped right back into the thread that earned him his "time out". Oh well...

Well yeah, those types are hard to rehabilitate.
As admins we have that desire to want to rehabilitate people sometimes... who wants to lose a member, right?
I think the time out would be a good first measure or second measure.
If folks still cant control themselves after a time out... then you really have no other choice than a ban.
And they then cant turn around and say you were unfair.

 

[Dean]

You know what is 1000x more frustrating than the inability to access a forum or thread? Having posts moderated and needing moderators approval.

 

[The Sandman]

If folks still cant control themselves after a time out... then you really have no other choice than a ban.
And they then cant turn around and say you were unfair.

They can't? Can I get that in writing?

 

[anotheralias]

You know what is 1000x more frustrating than the inability to access a forum or thread? Having posts moderated and needing moderators approval.

Yes, I know that's true. Threatening to put someone on Moderation for a week is about a thousand times more effective than threatening a short-term ban.

 

[Niro]

Can it be added to XF 2.1 ? It looks good

 

[CtrlV]

Its 2024 and im looking for this feature

 

[Seeker-Smith]

It might be nice to have an option whereby the members of the community could shut down an objectionable thread by voting it closed. This could be allowed on a per forum basis (rather than a global setting for all forums) with an admin defined number of votes needed to close the thread.

I thought of this when looking at some of the troll threads here about release dates, IPB vs VB vs XF, etc. - the kind of threads that make the staff look biased if they close them. Having the community vote it closed would send a subtly different message.

Group think censorship. Hmmm not on my site.