Perhaps it would be seen to be more fair if the originator's wishes were never be a factor or they were always to be a factor?

So far as I can see, it always is a factor.

The last 2 I witnessed.

Lizzie's: A controversial and argumentatitive thread from the start - action - CLOSED.

Shamble's: A useful thread for reporting and commenting on the effects of "The Licening Act 2003" - action NOT closed.

Seems reasonable to me, although Lizzie's one was one I believe should have been closed far sooner than it was - I do disagree (quite strongly in this instance) with Joe's (or any one elses) judgement at times but I believe far more good judgements than bad ones and that the overall effect of very limited moderation including thread closures is benificial.

I know you would like to go back to older times - in some ways, so would I (although I do recognise a need to adapt with a changing Internet) but they would have to be pre late 1999 before I first looked in as, when I do look through older threads, the place does look as if it was clamer at one time.

Where we differ is that it is my belief that the behaviour of posters has driven the introduction of new moderation features and if you wished to turn the clocks back, it would be the "customer base" that would need setting back in time, not the new features which simply would be used far less frequently.