0

This question is an exact duplicate of:

Moderators have the ability to lock posts, which prevents up/down votes, comments, answers and close votes.

It would be nice to have a less draconian lock, that only locked the question text (and tags) but permitted up/down votes, comments, answers answers and close votes.

It would assist against:

  • Edit wars on the question.

This would normally be handled by putting the question on hold until it is resolved. With this new lock, at some point the mod could make a final decision, and lock the question down, letting people actually start answering it.

  • Frequent, deliberate bumping.

If an OP keeps making trivial changes to the question for the sake of getting it back to the front page - but you aren't ready to suspend them for it - the question text could be locked. (Bounties would still be possible.) If people have an answer to provide, it should be open to that. Once answers are provided, people should be allowed to vote on them - it isn't the answerer's fault.

marked as duplicate by ale, Oddthinking, Hugo Dozois, Azik, Undo Dec 4 '13 at 5:11

This question was marked as an exact duplicate of an existing question.

  • Are edit wars a problem? – Nathaniel Ford Dec 4 '13 at 1:29
  • 3
    Upvoting this even though I'm 90% sure it will declined under the argument that, "If you can't edit it, then you can't fix it either. So voting shouldn't be allowed." Not that I agree with the argument. But that's kinda the way it is. – Mysticial Dec 4 '13 at 1:29
  • @Mysticial That's pretty much what I was about to say! (Though I actually do agree with that argument.) It would be nice to have different "levels" of locks, though, depending on the situation. The complete lockdown can be useful. But in some situations you just want to stop comments from being posted for a while. In others you want a historical lock to prevent new answers. Etc. Being able to choose what is locked (aside from voting, which as you mentioned wouldn't be allowed if the question text was locked) would be nice. – WendiKidd Dec 4 '13 at 1:32
  • @Mysticial/WendiKidd: Not sure I completely understand the concern. Are you worried that downvotes will hurt the author, who can't do anything about it? Will making it CW help? – Oddthinking Dec 4 '13 at 1:34
  • @NathanielFord: A big problem? No. Do they happen? Yes. Typically first time users who don't like other people editing their questions into scope. Suspending the user is overkill; they haven't understood the community rules yet. – Oddthinking Dec 4 '13 at 1:35
  • @Oddthinking I don't understand the argument either. Which is why I upvoted your feature request. But I'm almost positive that this feature request will be declined using the same argument as I've seen several times before. – Mysticial Dec 4 '13 at 1:36
  • Fair enough. @Wendikidd, or the downvoters: Are you able to illuminate this, please? – Oddthinking Dec 4 '13 at 2:07
  • 2
    @Oddthinking It's pretty much what Mystical said. If it can't be edited, problems with it can't be fixed. That means voting isn't fair. If an incorrect answer is locked from editing but can still be voted upon, the author will lose rep from those downvotes rather than being able to improve their answer. Their only alternative is to delete. SE's goal is exceptional content, and editing encourages that. – WendiKidd Dec 4 '13 at 2:16
  • I agree with @Krampus's excellent find, and have voted to close as a duplicate. Please join me. – Oddthinking Dec 4 '13 at 2:35
  • @WendiKidd: "editing encourages that" - right, but I am describing two cases where it is failing to do so. I think changing locked questions to CW addresses these concerns. – Oddthinking Dec 4 '13 at 2:36
  • @Oddthinking Not really what CW is for. Just because a post needs to be locked (because of an edit war, for example) doesn't mean the OP doesn't deserve to have that question and its rep credited to them. The edit war could be between two other users who are not the OP (I've locked a couple questions like that, actually.) But I'll rest my case for the moment :) – WendiKidd Dec 4 '13 at 2:41
1

I agree, with a slight modification. I think voting should be allowed on locked posts, but new answers should not be allowed. A lot of these locked posts have over 100 answers, and most of the new answers coming in are duplicates because people don't have the time or the patience to look through all 5 pages of answers closely before posting an answer. Votes, however, should be allowed, since we upvote to show that something is useful to the community, and many of these posts are useful, but are locked because there are too many answers, too many edits, etc. Perhaps we can have different kinds of locks, like these(in no particular order)?

  • Total lock: The current lock status, no edits, no votes, no new answers
  • Edit lock: For posts that have too many edit wars, new answers are allowed, but no other problems
  • New answer lock: For posts that have either way too many answers, or questions that want one answer edited for completeness whenever they have something to add
  • This sounds more like the related post, which offers several levels. Where I mod, no answer has over 100 answers, so this isn't an issue. – Oddthinking Dec 4 '13 at 6:48

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .