BuzzerBeater Forums

I've seen and heard of a number of threads being closed without a reason given.
Perhaps if whoever closes the thread can please remember to give a reason.
Also, perhaps by default, the name of the person who closes the thread can be listed at the end of the thread so people know who did it.
Thanks

I've seen and heard of a number of threads being closed without a reason given.
Perhaps if whoever closes the thread can please remember to give a reason.

This is a good practice that basically is expected. There are some obvious cases where no reason is really needed IMO: these threads will typically appear empty with a title such as 'Closed' after a Mod hits them. They are spam, therefore deleted & closed, and there is no need to bump them by posting a reason.

Having the name of the person closing the thread public is generally not very useful. Of course, when the person closing the thread gives a reason/announces closing the thread, this is pretty obvious information, so I guess there would be little harm.

I see a lot of GMs give reasons, but on the other hand there are still a lot of threads closed without a reason. I understand that the reason may appear obvious, but this isn't always the case. And even if the reason is obvious, I think it should still be given. I feel that if the name of the person that closes the thread is public then the Mod or GM is more likely to give a reason. This way at least the public knows why the thread is closed.

Another related suggestion, is perhaps GMs could be less strict on offtopic conversations. I understand that if topics go too far offtopic then it can be hard to find what the original topic was, but forum activity and communication is great, and I see threads closed because they go slightly offtopic (even though the offtopic conversation is more interesting and generates more responses than the original topic). Quite often the GMs say to move the conversation to a different thread, and I am not blaming the GMs as I understand this is their policy, but I feel the policy should change because it kills forum activity. If you close a thread and ask the topic to be moved elsewhere this is rarely, if ever, going to happen and the conversation just dies. I can understand if it is just spam and nonsense, but there are often some great offtopic conversations relating to BB that happen because of an original topic sidestepping in to this new topic.
I guess I'd just like to see some more flexibility.

And even if the reason is obvious, I think it should still be given.

Well, like I said I see no benefit in bumping spam threads. The users should rely on the competence of the GMs/Mods in evaluating what is purely spam. Even better would be for users to never post spam, but I guess we have Monty Python and Tim Berners-Lee to thank for that not happening.

Another related suggestion, is perhaps GMs could be less strict on offtopic conversations.

I think we are too lenient. I know I am too lenient. OT discussions can be fun and they can even be constructive, but in both cases there is a possibility to continue the discussion under a new topic (that can be linked to). If the discussion is first on topic, then goes off topic, and returns on topic, many people who would like the on-topic information will miss the second part of the relevant discussion as they see the discussion take a new direction. People just don't have time to go through all the chatter when they are looking for something specific. Improved search tools would help (and I don't mean just in BB), but we should do our best to help with our own actions.

I feel the policy should change because it kills forum activity.

That's really up to the users IMO. Off-topic discussion serves mostly forum actives, not the masses.

there are often some great offtopic conversations relating to BB that happen because of an original topic sidestepping in to this new topic.

There is very much flexibility in such cases IMO.

Even better would be for users to never post spam, but I guess we have Monty Python and Tim Berners-Lee to thank for that not happening.

haha I don't see that ever happening lol.

Improved search tools would help (and I don't mean just in BB), but we should do our best to help with our own actions.

I think that is a key factor here. Off topic discussions wouldn't hurt anyone if there was a simple and easy way to search for the information required. Most people don't search for threads anyway, they just post their question in a new thread, so I don't think off topic discussions will affect many people in that situation. Just take a look at the help forum for repeat posts :P

That's really up to the users IMO. Off-topic discussion serves mostly forum actives, not the masses.

hmm I would argue that the masses don't use the forum. It would be interesting to see the stats though. How many users access the forum, how many different users post, and how often. From what I've seen, there are a couple hundred users that post frequently (in Global, Help, Bugs and Suggestions) and these are the forum actives but I imagine that they make up over half the people that use the forums.

That's really up to the users IMO. Off-topic discussion serves mostly forum actives, not the masses.

hmm I would argue that the masses don't use the forum.

Sure, majority of BB users probably don't use the forums (regularly anyway). But most people are usually happy to just read, and most of them don't even want to spend a lot of time doing that. I have seen very different numbers over the years for different types of Internet forums, mailing lists etc. Anyway, the often quoted ratio is 90-9-1 for lurkers, time-to-time contributors, and heavy contributors ("no-lifes"). Some estimates based on studies (where the total population is however usually relatively small and the field of discussion is fairly narrow) go as far as claiming 50/50 between lurkers and contributors, but based on my own experience I believe the typical ratio is closer to 90/10. In BB, most of those who have found the forums have probably posted at least once, because that is required to complete the tutorial.