I am opposed enough to this proposal to actually SAY something, which is telling for me! My reasons are those posited above: making threads restricted to registered users would not prevent any of the problems that have arisen, and might inculcate a false sense of security. Further, as a former long-time lurker, I think one lurker mentality needs to be mentioned - I am not a "joiner" so was very reluctant to actually register and include myself in the community even as a non-posting member until I had lurked for long enough to feel that the community was a good one for me. Okay, maybe that means I'm a freak, but I'm a nice, non-harassy freak!

FWIW, I'm certainly not advocating that we close the show threads or natter, or any other thread, for that matter. My proposal is do we want to have the ability to do it if we feel it's necessary?

I agree that there aren't very many teeth. My main concern is with the second incident, not so much to prevent the lurkers from reading what the poster was saying about them, because it wasn't just in Bitches, but that once the lurkers decided to start threatening people, we had no forum to discuss the threats without resorting to backchannel. That cuts a lot of potential viewpoints out of the discussion. The same argument holds true with the discussion we've got going on over in WX Bureaucracy now. There are certain matters that it would be nice to discuss out of the view of prying eyes.

I'm against it. It just doesn't feel right to me--for the reasons others have posted.

If I happen on a board that required me to register to read, I'd be out of there.

But that's not really on the table is it?

As far as locking certain threads, I don't like the idea. I don't think it will accomplish anything, and since it doesn't actually fix the (perceived) problem, why go down that road?

There are certain matters that it would be nice to discuss out of the view of prying eyes.

But there's no way to actually do that. I mean, if I'm an Evil Lurker and I want to read the locked threads, all I have to do is register. If I'm banned, I just have to come up with a new name.

But there's nothing stopping people from registering, lurking, and reading. If people were trying to cause problems and were that interested it wouldn't be that hard for them to register and start reading.

What everyone else said --

• it won't work
• false sense of security
• it may even encourage trolls to re-register.

Also--how are we going to keep any mention of what's being dicussed in B'cracy out of other threads? Once we make a mention of an issue in, say, Natter or Buffy or whatever it's easy for someone to figure out they can register and read.

(PS: Ed, I hope you don't feel piled on, what with the crossposting and whatnot.)

There's truth in what DX says. If we have a security matter -- stalking, police notification, or that kind of thing -- we currently have no secured place to talk about that matter community-wide, only backchannel of various types.

Then again, I'm also of the opinion that 98% of the time, Bureaucracy -- the best test case for locking, I think -- doesn't need to be locked at all. You know, when we're debating thread names and working on proposals and other things. I'd hate to think we were driven behind a locked door, for that 2% of weirdness.

Then again again, I know that operationally, people act as if we're in private, even when they know intellectually they're not. I like the intimacy of the site, and would be sorry to lose it.

Then again 3x, I don't see as how locking a thread would be very effective against a determined troll. If Zoe can re-register with a different email and post in Natter, she can re-register and read intimate details in any thread.

I guess I'm coming down on the side of no, so as not to throw the wheat out with the chaff. But it's something I wish we had a middle-ground solution on, because the concerns that sparked the proposal are certainly legitimate.