Why does chess.com give such extraordinary control over the thread to the OP?

Once a thread is posted, IMHO, it becomes community property.  If you post something silly and get mauled, that's life in the big city, and is probably useful for the you and the chess.com community (even if it probably stinks at the time).

But if you say something I don't like on this thread, I can block you from future comments (right after saying that you are obviously wrong and imply that you are likely a pedophile).  Then I can get the staff to lock the thread if I think I have been berated enough. 

Does that seem right? 

Of course, there is also an unlimited edit policy, so even if someone makes you look like an idiot, you can just change the content of all your posts and make it look like they are insane to have drawn that conclusion.

The system is ready-made for pranksters and trolls. They can start up a thread about something ridiculously controversial or extreme, wait for the flood of replies, then change the thread title and OP to be something incredibly benign. Then they make mocking posts wondering what all the fuss is about.

Totally agree. That is how it should be. Instead chess.com has decided that the OP is sacrosanct, no matter how inane, trolling or abusive. I've even seen threads which were pure vitriol and personal attacks, the mods left up the abuse but deleted and left warnings in the "off-topic" (i.e. non-abusive) posts.

It used to be very different.

I was actually responding to the "Is Chess a Draw" thread as someone posted.  I got banned from that thread by the OP as did many others, essentially for disagreeing with him (maybe I was a little harsh).  But I enjoyed reading the thread.  But george and jaaas and a few others were making some very convincing and I thought interesting points and the OP started getting damn near hysterical, whining that he couldn't get chess.com to close the thread because it was making him upset.  Finally chess.com did close the thread.

There were some points on that thread that were much more interesting to me than the usual "Fischer vs Kasparov" rot here including things like how can we think we know anything abuot how to play chess when we can't even understand tablebase winning lines and what is the limit of computer chess and what are the kinds of evidence we would need to conclude chess is a draw and does Kasparov's opinion matter and what have we learned from 200 years of chess when current computers can lay waste to Capablanca easily.  The inappropriate posts were, in general, from the OP who essentially kept telling people that they didn't understand chess if they disagreed with him.  When that didn't work he got chess.com to close down the thread. 

That stinks.

I remember somebody writing all kinds of crazy stuff about people in a thread, while these people were blocked from reacting. It was not a nice sight, but that OP clearly had a problem.

i can see you have given this some thought

The whole structure has to be flipping nuts if you ask me.

I've seen it happen a few times. Especially in 'more puzzles' where people often give unsound puzzles and then delete them, or change them radically. All the posts discussing the puzzle before the edit no longer make sense after that unless the responder has thought to make a duplicate copy of the position.

I think that on the other hand, giving the OP that much power can be helpful when he is honest and trying to keep a serious discussion.

Then it becomes a matter of finding out if the OP is a troll (which is generally pretty easy), and then you can make the difference between a honest thread and a troll one. Maybe that never happens in reality but that may be the reason why they give power to the OP.

I'm with ya' buddy.  I can't stand to read, "Locked on OP's request."

I did not have that particlur thread put on hold because I was upset. Saying that is simply untrue. I stopped the thread as several people were getting upset. [I was not one of them]

 However, just recently I have seen requests to restart the thread and about 5 hours ago I contacted chess.com to please reopen the thread.

Also, I never ban someone simply because they disagree with me. If I did that there would be no thread.  

The only other thread I stopped had several individuals ganging up and attacking one individual on a very personal basis and I had the thread stopped.

I have had several gang up on me saying such things as I never went to college,[I Ihave a 4 year college degree] And saying how stupid I was. And saying that a 5th grader would beat me in a discussion of some math principles and then it got worse from there. I did not have the forum stopped because of this.

Hmm... well, it's like if chess.com wanted to censor certain comments -- you may not agree with such a choice, but the only reason you're even on chess.com is because of them, so the least you could do is respect their right to make such a decision.

The OP is the one who introduced the discussion. They should be able to do whatever they want with it. You are totally free to disagree with the OP's decision, but to complain about them being able to make the decision they want regarding their own creation? I don't get it.

Personally I disagree with Ponz's decision too. Yet as I said above that's irrelevant.

Besides, if someone really wants to continue discussing something, why can't they just make a new forum topic for that?

I could have made a mistake in judgment and believed more people were upset than were actually upset.   Later, I got feedback that not so many were upset and why not reopen the thread?  So, I acknowledge that maybe there were not so many upset and have asked the thread be reopened.

That  some people disagree with me or my evidence had absolutely no bearing on why I asked that thread be locked.

I don't agree with that. The OP only 'creates his own contributions. I think frequently (mostly?) the majority of research/analysis/information comes not from the one who asks, but those who answer. It seems incredibly rude to me that all that effort of other people could be deleted on a whim.

Also, I think editing posts should only allow you to add, maybe in a different colour, not delete anything.

Deleting comments should  go totally.

rooperi     Do you think I was wrong for having the one forum locked as it was taken over by several people who used it to personally and viciously attack one individual?

I think that should be the decision of site staff. I dont know which topic you are referring to, but if there was abuse then staff should be notified and they should deal with it.

rooperi    that is what happened there was a lot of abuse and the staff looked at it and dealt with it.

I have lots of ideas and lots of threads and that is the only thread that was permanently deleted [and for a very good reason]