[Suggestion] Vote to Close Thread

The Sandman

Well-known member
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. :D
 
Upvote 23
Something like what StackOverflow currently has:
Who can close a question?
  • Users with at least 250 rep may vote to close their own questions
  • Users with 3,000 or greater reputation may vote to close any questions (see limits below)
  • Moderators may close any question (regardless of their reputation)
  • The same users who can vote to close questions can also vote to reopen them
What are the limits for 3,000+ rep users?
  • 12 votes to close per day
  • 5 votes are required to close or reopen
  • Votes will expire after 4 days if the question does not reach 5 votes
  • Questions containing a bounty cannot be closed
  • You can only vote to close once per question
  • You can only vote to reopen once per question
...would be awesome. And the limits can be set by the board administrator via AdminCP.

*Likes* first post.
 
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.

Sometimes certain people get a little too crazy in political threads, therefore if 50-100 people vote that person out of the thread, they are kicked out.

Why close the whole political thread when you can get rid of the members ruining those discussions without removing them from the forum?
 
Sometimes certain people get a little too crazy in political threads, therefore if 50-100 people vote that person out of the thread, they are kicked out.

Why close the whole political thread when you can get rid of the members ruining those discussions without removing them from the forum?

That's a different issue really, one for the staff to handle. I'm talking about threads gone bad, not members gone bad. A well meaning member can start a bad thread.

Besides, if the community votes to close a thread for whatever reason, that doesn't mean another thread can't open up to discuss anything of value from the closed thread.
 
If everyone stops posting in the thread, it goes away. Just saying.

Why would I want my political discussions to constantly close because of 1-2 people? Why does an Israel thread have to be closed because our batshit insane poster is denying the holocaust? I don't want to ban these people completely as they bring funnies value to the site, but sometimes they need to get put in check without denying their posting ability forum-wide.

So, if users vote (200+ votes) to remove one person from a thread, you can continue the discussion and the users who can't behave themselves in that thread can't take part in that thread. Why in the world anyone would want to stifle discussion and content being put on your site is beyond me.

Here is an example, you see these threads? They are large.

Do you believe all the big threads should be shut down when one user believes that everything posted is against his morals and replies to every poster to prove his point?

Do you think a user should be banned for spewing Apple hate rhetoric all over the mobile device thread?

Should the Quran burning day thread be closed because some users may get rowdy?

forum.webp
 
Why would I want my political discussions to constantly close because of 1-2 people? Why does an Israel thread have to be closed because our bat**** insane poster is denying the holocaust? I don't want to ban these people completely as they bring funnies value to the site, but sometimes they need to get put in check without denying their posting ability forum-wide.

So, if users vote (200+ votes) to remove one person from a thread, you can continue the discussion and the users who can't behave themselves in that thread can't take part in that thread. Why in the world anyone would want to stifle discussion and content being put on your site is beyond me.

Here is an example, you see these threads? They are large.

Do you believe all the big threads should be shut down when one user believes that everything posted is against his morals and replies to every poster to prove his point?

Do you think a user should be banned for spewing Apple hate rhetoric all over the mobile device thread?

Should the Quran burning day thread be closed because some users may get rowdy?

View attachment 1854

I am just playing devil's advocate, but isn't that why you would set a high number of votes for the thread to be closed. In your case, maybe 50 members can vote to the close the thread and even then the staff can have a final decision, but it would be like a petition.
 
I am just playing devil's advocate, but isn't that why you would set a high number of votes for the thread to be closed. In your case, maybe 50 members can vote to the close the thread and even then the staff can have a final decision, but it would be like a petition.

One user can anger 50 people easily, as I type 1300 people are on the forum I manage.

I would rather halt the user than halt the growing of the site.

In order for a website to grow it must generate content.

Forums use threads to create content.

Why would you shut down a perfectly good thread just because of an individual, or 2-3 people? Less people will take part in the same discussion as time goes on and the same user (or type of user) is crapping up the new threads.

There is no reason to ban a user from the site who hates on Apple every chance they get. But the option of closing down the Apple discussion thread because one person is constantly posting about how much Apple sucks, makes no sense to me.

The problem is the USER, not the THREAD. Therefore, why get rid of the THREAD?
 
The problem is the USER, not the THREAD. Therefore, why get rid of the THREAD?
It's often one user, yes. But this is not always the case. Sometimes it's just one (or multiple small groups) against the other(s). That's why we have the lock system, if there is really no hope on saving a thread.
 
I do not think that this option would be appropriate for all forums, or for all forum admins. I do think that it could be a very useful option for some forums, some admins.

As administrators, we tend to think that the answer to bad members or bad threads is for staffers to take action of some sort, or in the opposite extreme, allow anything goes discussions to take place. But it's the members, not the staff that is the life blood of a community, and giving the members some small measure of empowerment - of control of their community - could be a good thing. The key would be to come up with the right formula for figuring out how many votes (or better, how much combined "Like Power" the voters have) it takes to close a thread.
 
Top Bottom