Locking of Threads

[JonnyCat]

What's with the premature locking of threads? In the case of the recent "Ball 3" thread, it was locked after only 2 answers.

What's the point of this? Is it a new policy? The thread is 2 hours old, the OP isn't even given a chance to ask a follow up question, and there are only 2 answers. The thread wasn't off the rails by any stretch.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this a discussion forum? Sorry, but I'm just not understanding this move. There was nothing wrong with the post or thread to warrant locking it in this manner.

[RBIbaseball]

I had the same feeling when I saw that post was locked and pretty much agree with you. That is to say I wasn't going to lose any sleep over it or anything, because as @Thunderheadsmentioned, it was a very cut and dry answer - which was provided.

Regardless it felt weird and out of the norm, not to mention that guest might have had a follow-up (as silly of a question as it might have been to most).

 

This all being said, I appreciate everyone here too much to nit pick a moderators decision on a one off situation like this, but felt the need to concur with you since you felt strongly enough to post about it.

 

[Jimurray]

8 minutes ago, RBIbaseball said:

I had the same feeling when I saw that post was locked and pretty much agree with you. That is to say I wasn't going to lose any sleep over it or anything, because as @Thunderheadsmentioned, it was a very cut and dry answer - which was provided.

Regardless it felt weird and out of the norm, not to mention that guest might have had a follow-up (as silly of a question as it might have been to most).

 

This all being said, I appreciate everyone here too much to nit pick a moderators decision on a one off situation like this, but felt the need to concur with you since you felt strongly enough to post about it.

 

The guest wouldn't have a follow-up unless the code he was asking about might have a twist. Such as NCAA where some AH like me might continue the discussion with the possibility of not only it being ball 3 but also strike 3. More than likely a post such as that from me would confuse the guest unless someone asked him the code he was asking about which was not done in the OP but should be done.

[JonnyCat]

30 minutes ago, Jimurray said:

The guest wouldn't have a follow-up unless the code he was asking about might have a twist. Such as NCAA where some AH like me might continue the discussion with the possibility of not only it being ball 3 but also strike 3. More than likely a post such as that from me would confuse the guest unless someone asked him the code he was asking about which was not done in the OP but should be done.

We don't know if the OP had a follow up or not. It's not the way to encourage discussion by locking a thread with no reason. Are they locking threads just because a mod feels like it?

I agree, some threads should be locked at the appropriate times, but this was not one of them.

[Jimurray]

25 minutes ago, JonnyCat said:

We don't know if the OP had a follow up or not. It's not the way to encourage discussion by locking a thread with no reason. Are they locking threads just because a mod feels like it?

I agree, some threads should be locked at the appropriate times, but this was not one of them.

So were you going to ask him about the code he was asking about and did you expect the guest to respond. What discussion could ensue other than a failure to be ready to bat in the various codes? We could continue it here anyway. But while you don't like a locked thread you fail to respond to an open one regarding awarding bases that maybe you are in error about.

[Thunderheads]

12 hours ago, JonnyCat said:

What's with the premature locking of threads? In the case of the recent "Ball 3" thread, it was locked after only 2 answers.

What's the point of this? Is it a new policy? The thread is 2 hours old, the OP isn't even given a chance to ask a follow up question, and there are only 2 answers. The thread wasn't off the rails by any stretch.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this a discussion forum? Sorry, but I'm just not understanding this move. There was nothing wrong with the post or thread to warrant locking it in this manner.

I certainly wouldn't call this specific post being locked "premature" due to it's cut and dried nature and that it's the same answer in all codes.  And no, no 'new policy' here.  In the "ask the umpire" section, sometimes when someone wants a simple question answered, it can turn out to be more complicated/confusing than it was meant to be.  For example, ... some umpire pages on Facebook will have 50 responses to THE SIMPLIST of questions and it winds up getting crazy.  That said, I know this place is nothing like FB, and the locking of this thread was definitely a mistake.

THEREFORE, ....after reading this thread, and re-thinking it, I shouldn't have locked that post regardless just in case (as mentioned) the OP had a follow up question.  My apologies here. The 'ball 3' thread is unlocked.

Thanks for bringing this to my attention ....

[JonnyCat]

9 hours ago, Jimurray said:

But while you don't like a locked thread you fail to respond to an open one regarding awarding bases that maybe you are in error about.

What thread are you referring to? I'm not aware of any conflict with another thread.

Regardless, what does that have to do with the issue at hand? We're talking about 2 completely different things.

[Velho]

2 hours ago, Thunderheads said:

In the "ask the umpire" section, sometimes when someone wants a simple question answered, it can turn out to be more complicated/confusing than it was meant to be.

I support this. Having a concise answer for a question for the OP and future searchers is a big value of the site. It's best to avoiding getting down a rat hole that will confuse the situation, her-herm 'force at 1st'   .

If the thread touches on something someone wants to get into deeper, a new thread can be made for exploring the subtleties.

Not judging this instance one way or the other since there is an art to this and Mods have an OPS of >1.000.

Also not calling out it being questioned since transparency is key as well.

[Thunderheads]

10 minutes ago, Velho said:

I support this. Having a concise answer for a question for the OP and future searchers is a big value of the site. It's best to avoiding getting down a rat hole that will confuse the situation, her-herm 'force at 1st'   .

If the thread touches on something someone wants to get into deeper, a new thread can be made for exploring the subtleties.

Not judging this instance one way or the other since there is an art to this and Mods have an OPS of >1.000.

Also not calling out it being questioned since transparency is key as well.

all good ......

bottom line ...I thought this one particular question was clear and concise enough where it could be locked (not locked in a negative way) ... but .... with what came of this, and the reactions I received, I agree I shouldn't have. And again, I appreciate you guys bringing it to my attention.

[noumpere]

I think this thread should be locked.

[Umpire in Chief]

For the entire Ask the Umpire section I highly encourage readers to upvote the answer they find the best. 

There are 2 related reasons. And another I just thought of...

1. The default sort is by "upvotes" so the best answers will be right under the question. 
2. Which by default means that what our members selected as the best answer will be right up top.
3. Readers who have similar questions will see what was said before quickly.

Moderators do have the ability to go in and mark a question "solved" but I believe this still allows comments but it won't change that the anser chosed as solving the question will remain up top.

So please use the up voting feature.

 

[LRZ]

I say this only partially in jest, but threads should not be locked until someone--usually it's Senor Azul--provides the actual rule or case authority.