Does a thread have to be "owned" by the creator?

[Audionaut]

Does a thread have to be owned by the creator?

Rick wrote the following in another old and frequently visited thread:

Since OP orphaned this thread shortly after posting it and has not been active for years, am putting it up for new ownership.

New owner needs to have been member prior to January 2021, a donor and have demonstrated ability to curate their own thread. No reasonable offers refused! Interested candidates should send me a personal message before the end of the month.

I'm not familiar with this principle, as the creator of the thread has no moderation rights and has as much or as little influence on its progress as anyone else who posts there.

So what is the idea that the thread is maintained by the creator and that the thread is "owned" by him?

 

[Grotti]

Does a thread have to be owned by the creator?

Rick wrote the following in another old and frequently visited thread:



I'm not familiar with this principle, as the creator of the thread has no moderation rights and has as much or as little influence on its progress as anyone else who posts there.

So what is the idea that the thread is maintained by the creator and that the thread is "owned" by him?

I just read the "terms and rules" and there is no hint on something like an ownership of a thread. The responsibility of a threadstarter is limited to avoid forbidden topics or to give a summary of linked videos and that's it for my understanding.
But it seems that I am missing out on something.....

 

[Audionaut]

But it seems that I am missing out on something.....

Or Rick has something new in mind.
Either way, I wouldn't know how to maintain a thread I created.
Firstly, my English is not good enough when it comes to subtleties and puns, as I have often found.
Also, I don't want to be responsible for someone digressing, being rude or totally off-tone.
Without the possibility of sanctions, I believe that arguments are inevitable.

In my opinion, only a moderator can regulate such things and not a simple member, because when you create a thread you are not automatically assigned more rights to it.

 

[antcollinet]

A good question. I've asked it in that thread.

 

[beeface]

Not sure what thread you’re referring to, but there are instances where the original post in a thread is edited/updated/maintained

In these instances I understand why it would be useful for the original poster to be an active member

 

[Audionaut]

Not sure what thread you’re referring to

All you have to do is click on the link I quoted.

Again

Are measurements Everything or Nothing?

virgin copper was good enough I fail to see how virgin (i.e., not broken-in) copper can be any good.

www.audiosciencereview.com

 

[RickS]

Am not an attorney but did work in corporate technology transfer. As I read ASR terms, each member is responsible for his/her content. A thread is packaging of content and it may not be documented, but the moderator precedence here has been that the thread starter sets the topic and therefore “owns” the direction of the thread. That said…

Ownership is different issue and my understanding is that each member owns their content, but has licensed their rights to ASR to modify. A member that starts a thread “owns” the tone for that thread. Since words are important, decided to use the term manager rather owner. I have modified my original post to reflect.

There is no formal curation role here, so other than interaction with other members, the thread starter can only alter its contents via the staff. The thread starter is given deference by the staff to manage the contents of their thread. The ability to edit one’s posts is a different for a donor vs non-donor. Not sure this is documented either, but plan to remedy that soon, but is why I asked that the new thread manager be a donor as well.

Hope this helps clarify the thread ownership aspect a bit better.

 

[pjug]

My feeling is that if the thread is asking for advice or something, then the creator should "own" it. But a thread that is a more general discussion of some topic should be allowed to live on, and the creator should not be responsible for keeping it going. If it goes off topic then moderators should be welcome to do whatever to give proper steering, with help from the people posting.

 

[sq225917]

So where does that leave us on thread crapping, an ugly recent trend?

 

[RickS]

So where does that leave us on thread crapping, an ugly recent trend?

Please elaborate and be more specific.

 

[RickS]

My feeling is that if the thread is asking for advice or something, then the creator should "own" it. But a thread that is a more general discussion of some topic should be allowed to live on, and the creator should not be responsible for keeping it going. If it goes off topic then moderators should be welcome to do whatever to give proper steering, with help from the people posting.

While not disagreeing in principle, this is a drilling down yet another level. The “Measurements” thread is more general but likely would have benefited from some more active involvement by the thread starter. As it stands, is a messy thread and may be best “owned” by Amir. One or more moderators may have different interpretations of the intended topic. As the “Measurements” thread appears to be challenged by lack of a clear purpose, may need to be recrafted.

 

[rdenney]

Part of what makes those general threads lose direction, if I may presume to suggest it, is the insertion of portions of other threads by the mods, whether or not those merged posts are related in any visible way (other than general topic) to the previous posts in the threads.

My understanding of those threads is that they were started or perpetuated to provide a repository for the repetitive re-litigations of common debate topics. As such, moving portions of other threads that are relitigating those topics makes good sense. But in that case, the thread exists for the convenience of the moderators and for the forum's general hygiene, not for any purposes that the original poster might have articulated. By nature, those threads are in the legal category of "asked and answered" and are not really intended to be narrative documents that any one new person would read in its entirety. Without coherent editing, they become almost unreadable in their entirety, but that's the nature of them. Their purpose was not to answer a question, but to answer the same question over and over again so that it would not pollute (in particular) review threads or more active non-review threads on specific topics. That suggests to me that the moderators have to own and manage those threads, because they are there for larger forum purposes.

On the more general topic of thread management: Nobody really knows whether a thread they start will end up going viral and become unmanageable. I may make a post about a topic that I think would interest a few folks, and it strikes a nerve that creates 15 pages of responses in a week (this happens frequently enough on ASR)--far beyond my available time to even read let alone manage. Or, it may instigate an interesting exchange with half a dozen folks and retire of its own accord in a week. Or, it may generate no response at all. Without the ability to predict how that will go, putting the burden on the thread starter to manage responses, rather than putting the burden on the membership at large to police each other (in both cases going through the moderators for action) seems unrealistic. Enforcing it that way would discourage me from starting threads, to be sure. Maybe limiting new threads is the objective, but I do rather hope not.

Forums make poor encyclopedias. The information is there but it is not organized alphabetically and cross-linked the way an encyclopedia would be. The search engine lacks the operators necessary to really narrow down the responses (though it's easy enough to use Google to search the forum), but there are many examples where the key words one would search on are just too general to find the answers one seeks.

But forums make excellent communities, and the relationships developed in communities are tolerant of repetition when new questions are asked in good faith (granted, not always the case).

Rick "respectfully submitted" Denney

 

[Oddball]

I am with you Rick. But on this forum never encountered my own post that was not relatively easy to manage. Could be perhaps I did not ask such broad questions as who could explain the vinily renascence.

I think this forum is relatively safe environment, but true, you need to steer your own thread. If it gets out of control, then there is the boss man that will need to look at it. Not sure if that will be needed as most members here have etiquette that is way beyond the more toxic places such as AVS forums.

 

[MatrixS2000]

Am not an attorney but did work in corporate technology transfer. As I read ASR terms, each member is responsible for his/her content. A thread is packaging of content and it may not be documented, but the moderator precedence here has been that the thread starter sets the topic and therefore “owns” the direction of the thread. That said…

Ownership is different issue and my understanding is that each member owns their content, but has licensed their rights to ASR to modify. A member that starts a thread “owns” the tone for that thread. Since words are important, decided to use the term manager rather owner. I have modified my original post to reflect.

There is no formal curation role here, so other than interaction with other members, the thread starter can only alter its contents via the staff. The thread starter is given deference by the staff to manage the contents of their thread. The ability to edit one’s posts is a different for a donor vs non-donor. Not sure this is documented either, but plan to remedy that soon, but is why I asked that the new thread manager be a donor as well.

Hope this helps clarify the thread ownership aspect a bit better.

So, in short, you want the OP or thread manager/owner to remain in the conversation?

 

[RickS]

So, in short, you want the OP or thread manager/owner to remain in the conversation?

I have observed that threads are better when the OP is engaged vs not but is not a mandate. The thread in question may be a worst-case scenario. As the OP created a click bait title that was much more general than the initial post, posted once more and then was gone. The thread is now over 700 pages and 15,000 posts. Have not dug in yet but does not seem a huge leap to suggest it likely would benefit from some major pruning.

 

[amirm]

Strange.... A thread I had created was merged with it with my OP now half-way in the middle of it. Or the other way around.

I think it is serving the purpose of people who want to argue about such things, go there while most of us ignore it.

 

[RickS]

Strange.... A thread I had created was merged with it with my OP now half-way in the middle of it. Or the other way around.

I think it is serving the purpose of people who want to argue about such things, go there while most of us ignore it.

Ah, gather you mean the "Are Measurements Everything or Nothing" thread. I was going to ask you but seems part of the issue may be botched merge with other threads without regard to chronology. This would explain how your OP got hijacked. Looks as though a restoration is in order.