Thread splits

[David]

I've had two different posters express frustration tonight over thread splits, so I just thought I'd clarify a few things:

1) Thread splits are a necessary part of any forum's operation. Sometimes a thread wanders off-track and ends up somewhere completely different to where it started. There isn't anything necessarily wrong with that, but it can lead to situations where interesting discussions are derailed or two completely different conversations cross each other in a thread for pages on end. Splitting threads a) ensures that people who want to discuss the original topic still can; and b) means that the new discussion doesn't have to stop just because it happens to be irrelevant to the original thread.

2) When a thread is split off, it appears to be 'authored' by the first person who posted on the topic. This is an unfortunate limitation of the bbcode, so I'm afraid that nothing can be done to avoid it. If you're upset about the idea of people thinking you started a thread that you didn't intend to start, we could try including disclaimers on the first post ("this thread was split off from..."). I didn't realise that people were sensitive about this, but am willing to try something like that in future if it helps.

3) While the ability to split threads is absolutely necessary, and the right of moderators to do it at their discretion is unquestionable, I am willing to take feedback if people feel that there should be more leeway in where threads can go. Your view on this will probably depend on how much you dislike moderator intervention as opposed to how much you dislike threads being hopelessly derailed.

4) No thread split is permanent. If you're really, really unhappy about a split, we can discuss it here or in General Feedback, and the posts can be moved back if need be. Chucking a sook and deleting all your posts, on the other hand, is probably one of the less constructive responses.

[Wokko]

[Pies4shaw]

I've already given my feedback on the topic.

[Morrigu]

Yeah so explain to me how a post quoting an explanation of the motives of ISIS from a Muslim school principal doesn't belong in a thread titled ISIS??

Especially given you allowed a whole lot of irrelevant crap about paedo priests which seemed to have nothing to do with the thread topic to stay?????

[HAL]

[David]

[Pies4shaw]

The constructive feedback is that you woefully overstepped the mark. Try not to do it in future.

[Wokko]

I disagree with you both. The threads split off were interesting topics in their own right and were derailing the original threads (in a good way).

Now those topics can be discussed on their merits. An author has no power over his work once it is published (not talking IP here, but philosophy and discussion of said work).

[David]

[think positive]

Nah, I don't like it. Especially in the tavern, fair enough in the footy thread, but this is supposed to be a place where we can talk about stuff, and that's how conversations go.

It's also pissing me off how many individual posts get deleted.

[Morrigu]

I have no desire to moderate a forum ta very much - I have enough trouble dealing with the the medical and nursing "professionals" face to face day to day!

However if you feel the need as moderator to split threads then you need to acknowledge that the thread has been spilt and that this is where the topic originated from - that is surely not too much to ask.

[David]

It's not too much to ask at all, and I will endeavour to do that in future.

[Tannin]

I reckon the current balance is about right. David (and the other mods) are reluctant to split a thread, but do so where they feel it is needed. Sometimes I agree with the decision, sometimes I don't, but I'm damn sure I couldn't do it any better, and I would be very surprised to find that anyone else here could either.

PS: Good job David, but your avatar sucks. Do you take bribes? I'll change mine if you change yours.

[think positive]

Suck

[David]