Rules of thread splitting- basic rights

[firegoat7]

Hello,

There has been some interesting discussion in the past few days concerning appropriate conduct amongst bulletin board users. In response I thought I would start a thread that endeavoured to clearly establish some basic rights concerning thread splitting.

I will begin with a general question- Is thread splitting valid? Hopefully this will kickstart the conversation.

I also want to ask two other major questions in this debate.

1/If thread splitting is valid, Is thread drift, or topic context, a sensible or justified excuse for thread splitting. My assumption would be that almost all threads drift or drift off topic.Therefore it is exceedingly difficult to ascertain whether any thread ought to be split according to linear arguement. Just where does the actually breakdown in the thread occur? Does a linear assesment of a thread prevent a circular learning of knowledge? ie a thread drifts for a few posts then comes back to the origiinal topic, would a split destory the thread and therefore a circle of knowledge.

2/ My second question is, 2)If thread splitting is valid?, Who has the right to measure the validity? Should we just trust moderators to exercise their best judgement? or ought some rules be clearly defined so that all BB members can clearly ascertain whether a thread should be split?

If you believed in the latter arguement insted of the former, under what circumstances would you split a thread? What would be your 100% rule, to be viewed as a basic right!

Cheers FG7

[ursogr8]

Hello,

There has been some interesting discussion in the past few days concerning appropriate conduct amongst bulletin board users. In response I thought I would start a thread that endeavoured to clearly establish some basic rights concerning thread splitting.

<snip>

Cheers FG7

fg7

There is a priceless example of this debate from January 2004 vintage. But all the same players are in different chairs.

I refer you to

angst aplenty

and in particular posts 6-13, 19, 20 and 24.



starter

[firegoat7]

Starter,

Your an absolute gem, your post deserves two exclamation masks.

[Kevin Bonham]

firegoat, this is another example of what I referred to on another thread as your communist-monkey-court style. I acknowledge firstly that you are probably not a communist but rather some other kind of delusional ultra-leftie, and secondly that you are probably not a monkey either, but still the phrase seems to sum you up very nicely.

This is a private board. We don't have to have rules in meticulous points spelling out exactly how we operate on every possible case that could transpire. Nor is it the end for all prospects for democratic governance in the West if we do not. In fact, if we did, starter's post count would be cut by 40%.

I will begin with a general question- Is thread splitting valid?

Duh.

1/If thread splitting is valid, Is thread drift, or topic context, a sensible or justified excuse for thread splitting. My assumption would be that almost all threads drift or drift off topic.Therefore it is exceedingly difficult to ascertain whether any thread ought to be split according to linear arguement. Just where does the actually breakdown in the thread occur? Does a linear assesment of a thread prevent a circular learning of knowledge? ie a thread drifts for a few posts then comes back to the origiinal topic, would a split destory the thread and therefore a circle of knowledge.

It's just a matter for moderator judgement. Usually a thread's gone off-topic where a lengthy discussion about something completely irrelevant to the original point (in our view) breaks out, or where it gets into irrelevant flamewars best split to the non-chess section. Leave the theory at home; you don't understand it, no one else cares about it, it doesn't work.

2/ My second question is, 2)If thread splitting is valid?, Who has the right to measure the validity? Should we just trust moderators to exercise their best judgement? or ought some rules be clearly defined so that all BB members can clearly ascertain whether a thread should be split?

Yes, and what happens when you have a "100% rule" and then a case is discovered that clearly should be an exception to it? There is no need for rules on threadsplitting, you are the only one I can recall who has ever got angsty about it and this is probably because of your grievances with me and not any merit your case might have.

100% rules and forum management generally don't mix very well.

[firegoat7]

This is a private board. We don't have to have rules in meticulous points spelling out exactly how we operate on every possible case that could transpire. Nor is it the end for all prospects for democratic governance in the West if we do not. In fact, if we did, starter's post count would be cut by 40%.

"We" do have rules when interacting on a personal basis, its just that most are either unaware of the idea that they exist or are not consciously thinking about them. The latter is a reasonable position since having grown up in specific cultures people intuitively know what these "rules" are.

As a general analogy from everyday life most people don't spit on each other when engaged in normal discussion. Of course this rule is not kept 100% (no-one is suggesting a rule should be absolute) of the time, but it would be highly unusual for an individual to begin spitting on people when introducing themselves, wouldn't it. This is what we call a social fact. In this particular example, a social fact based on a rule of ettiquette when dealing with people.

Which brings me to my point. This thread is not about "Police states" or "inflexible rule governance", nor is it a witch hunt against moderators. It is simply an open call to people asking them to express what they think about thread splitting. Nobody is seriously suggesting that your melodramatic "western democracy" analysis is an issue here, nor does starters postcount have anything to do with the thread.

And lets drop the tautology about this "private" board and its alleged lack of rules. You know it makes no sense to talk in such a fashion.

The issue here is what you and others find acceptable in post splitting, you have already answered that, which helps fulfill the agenda of the thread.

For what it is worth, my 100% rule would be

all thread splits should only be done after a democratic vote from the participants

simply place a notice on the thread and ask people whether the thread should be split.

Cheers FG7

P.S this should stop overzealous gelato type personalities from hijacking threads for their own agenda

[ursogr8]

<snip>
This is a private board. We don't have to have rules in meticulous points spelling out exactly how we operate on every possible case that could transpire. Nor is it the end for all prospects for democratic governance in the West if we do not. In fact, if we did, starter's post count would be cut by 40%.



<snip>.

Slightly disparaging of you Kev?
Somewhat alleviated by the emoticon?

My personal profile lists an interest in Mathematics. It is accepted in the company I keep that mathematicians are renowned for arguing about the definition of words. This is an important part of their search for objectivity in that discipline.
Many of the posts on rules and definitions are just part of that predilection (or affliction as SWMBO calls it).

Now, normally, I would not bother to say 'ouch', your disparagement was uncalled for....but Bill hounds me to not condone certain behaviour. Therefore I could not lt your remark 'go through to the keeper'.
Thus Kevin....slightly disparaging of you.

regards
starter

[Spiny Norman]

Is thread splitting valid?

Yes, in my experience it is an accepted form of control in a bulletin board environment.

Is thread drift, or topic context, a sensible or justified excuse for thread splitting.

Yes. Otherwise one can not know, based on the topic of a thread, what one is likely to find when reading that thread. Some (many?) do not want to invest the time in reading every thread ... they may have a specific topic of interest.

Who has the right to measure the validity?

Moderators have that right. Its up to them to act with integrity. The general rule I follow as a moderator is this:

If it goes off-topic either (1) delete the offending posts, or (2) split the thread at the point it went off-topic, or (3) move individual posts to other threads, or (4) if you really can't be bothered, do nothing.

In cases #1-#3 I would usually give a reason by leaving behind a placeholder post so that people know what has been done and why.

At the end of the day we can complain if we choose, but my advice there would be this: couch your arguments in as positive a light as you can, and never EVER start a fight with a moderator ... you'll never win. I'm a participant here and a moderator elsewhere, so I've seen this from both sides of the fence (as I'm sure others have here).

[Alan Shore]

Personally I don't care about thread drift.. see how we hijacked that Dumb and Dumber thread with religious debate, hehe.

[eclectic]

Personally I don't care about thread drift.. see how we hijacked that Dumb and Dumber thread with religious debate, hehe.

Christianity, with all its denominations, heresies, etc is possibly the prime example of thread drift and splitting.



Mark

[Alan Shore]

If you think about it Christianity, with all its denominations, heresies, etc is possibly the prime example of thread drift and splitting.



Mark

Hahaha! Thread drift until the reformation, then split.. now there's so many threads it's almost lost all objective meaning..

[antichrist]

[QUOTE=firegoat7.

P.S this should stop overzealous gelato type personalities from hijacking threads for their own agenda [/QUOTE]



What are gelato type personalities?? Those in Articilico Determino thread??

Or are they different coloured, depending on flavour of the week or how you are going to use them?

Or do they go sloppy if you don't lick them often?

[firegoat7]

What are gelato type personalities?? Those in Articilico Determino thread??

Or are they different coloured, depending on flavour of the week or how you are going to use them?

Or do they go sloppy if you don't lick them often?

LOL

[antichrist]

LOL

What is LOL?

Little Old Lady

Lick oh lick

[eclectic]

What is LOL?

Little Old Lady

Lick oh lick

Lecherous Old Lothario



Mark

[Kevin Bonham]

"We" do have rules when interacting on a personal basis, its just that most are either unaware of the idea that they exist or are not consciously thinking about them. The latter is a reasonable position since having grown up in specific cultures people intuitively know what these "rules" are.

In that case, new "rules" develop culturally over time rather than from the intervention of someone complaining about something and calling on some national summit on the need to invent a new standard of manners. So what you are doing on this thread is highly artificial and not comparable to the above.

Nobody is seriously suggesting that your melodramatic "western democracy" analysis is an issue here,

Actually that was a satire of your melodrama and the way you carry on as if things like this are major political issues worthy of mis-applying all the theory you seem to have half-slept through in university. Are you normally this slow?

nor does starters postcount have anything to do with the thread.

An obvious flippancy, in part because I can't believe you expect people to take your suggestions seriously, and I think that light relief is the best that we can hope to extract from the usual wreckage.

And lets drop the tautology about this "private" board and its alleged lack of rules. You know it makes no sense to talk in such a fashion.

I know no such thing. See above.

For what it is worth, my 100% rule would be

all thread splits should only be done after a democratic vote from the participants

This would be a waste of moderator time and would frequently lead to off-topic debates marring good threads for longer than was necessary. And who is a "participant"? Everybody who's posted on the thread even if all they did was post one silly post to give them the right to vote on future threadsplits? Or everyone on the BB even if they haven't actually read the thread, or even if they are actually a hydra identity of another user who thereby gets two votes while being one person? You just don't think these things through.

(Some threads get what they deserve though - BD is right about Dumb and Dumber.)

P.S this should stop overzealous gelato type personalities from hijacking threads for their own agenda

Hmmm, perhaps it should be hijacked onto a discussion of bad writing and unconvincing metaphors instead.