My original question was asked because I feel that the words "report abuse" implies "harsh repercussion".
Err, why exactly? That's like saying "report theft" implies "death penalty". No it doesn't, the punishment is decided by the people you report to, not by the use of the word "abuse".
Mike, branching out a me too and locking a thread are two entirely different things. There is no need to lock the old thread, as branching out the last reply will also reset the "last posted to" date and the thread will disappear in the activity lists. As Blu said, the report abuse is just a "mods look here" button
Maybe the OP never select the link and thought that clicking on "Report Abuse" would immediately mark a post as abused. However, when clicking the link, a dialog window appears that allows to select among 10 different categories, including an option to add some text. Perhaps "Report Abuse" could be changed to "Report to Moderator", but I think there are more pressing issues with the forum software that need to be addressed.
I just wanted to reply on PL/SQL output to .CSV file where some Niels(?) asked why I said that an old thread should not be raised. While I typed my answer the thread was locked and the post from Niels deleted. Perhaps a link to this thread with a note that the thread is closed would have been better than deleting the post.
The topic is now moot, but the issue may simply transform. There is a difference between people answering old posts where it is not likely anyone cares, and old topics that may legitimately be revived. So now there is an extra manual step for the latter, to link to the original. Extra manual steps tend to get messed up. No big deal here, mostly. If someone advocates separating index tablespaces for performance, they'll get jumped on regardless.
The forum software does apparently not provide an elegant or sophisticated solution to address the problems of forum newcomers resurrecting old threads for no good reason. As such, I think the archiving and thereby locking of information is reasonable under the circumstances. The OTN forum is not considered official technical support, so it might be more important to prevent the hijacking and abuse of information and people, rather than assuring correct technical information.
However, I bet the archiving of information was rather done to address Jive performance issues than to address the topic of this discussion. And if this is true, I guess limiting or disabling forum features to address performance issues and malfunctioning will plague OTN as long as it continues to rely on Jive software.
I think Jive is a dead end and perhaps heading in a direction to compete with Facebook, Xing and Linkedin, but it is not a reliable and feasible solution that suits the needs of the OTN user base. Jive cannot even provide a functioning editor. The primary target of Jive support are apparently social networkers and Internet Hippies, but not DBA's, software developers and system administrators.
Perhaps OTN should have known better considering the experience of the Jive upgrade in 2008, which was already a disaster with similar criticism than the last one in June. I'm surprised that OTN couldn't come up with a better solution. For example, to physically separate the forum to address performance issues or use a different product than Jive, or both.
I don't know, just guessing. Apparently most change to the software so far, perhaps including the forum upgrade, were related to address performance issues, usually by disabling of features.
Since the current archiving does not change the URL of a post, it might actually not psychically relocate anything, but who knows?
I found the following in the documentation:
Manages the archive feature of Jive. Archiving provides an automated method of dealing with old content. Three different archiving modes are available, and are set on a per-community basis:
Individual threads can be prevented from being archived by setting their extended property "jive.archivingDisabled" to "true"