AllenLowe Posted March 28, 2011 Report Posted March 28, 2011 recently a moderator (actually 2 moderators) told me that there was only one thread per topic permitted - I have just perused the Forum rules and cannot find any reference to this rule. maybe I missed it; maybe I read too fast. But I was wondering if anyone could locate this rule for me and cite its location. If not, than it is time to either: 1) add the rule, possibly through the normal ratification method, by two thirds of the states; or 2) stop acting like there is such a rule. Personally I am fine with either route. I just seek clarification for future generations of Organissimo-ites and to alleviate the suffering of current Organissmo moderators.
Dan Gould Posted March 28, 2011 Report Posted March 28, 2011 I didn't know if there was a rule, I thought it was common courtesy though to try to keep discussions of a specific topic in a single place. BTW it always amazes me when an old topic is suddenly brought back from the archives with some new comment. Do people have great memories for old topics or are they searching for appropriate topics to append their new comment?
AllenLowe Posted March 28, 2011 Author Report Posted March 28, 2011 I agree in principle about keeping things in one place - but sometimes the whole thrust of the topic changes, making it easier to to start anew instead of having to wade through 3-year-old posts. And yes, I agree, I too am regularly amazed by what comes back. it's just that I've been advised that it's a specific rule - but I cannot find the rule - Hans?
Shawn Posted March 28, 2011 Report Posted March 28, 2011 Big Bad Bill (he's no longer Sweet William now) says...
AllenLowe Posted March 28, 2011 Author Report Posted March 28, 2011 (edited) only until one of your threads is deleted. THAN you'll wonder where your indifference went, thank you. but of more interest is that no one has yet been able to cite chapter and verse. Edited March 28, 2011 by AllenLowe
jazzbo Posted March 28, 2011 Report Posted March 28, 2011 I would welcome new threads as as Allen notes they often have a new thrust and can lead to new discussions.
Noj Posted March 28, 2011 Report Posted March 28, 2011 I'm not sure if the rule is entirely in line with how board software functions, since at times threads get so long and unwieldy they make a menace of themselves to reader, moderator, and bandwidth alike. On other forums, the old thread gets closed so that a new one with fewer pages can take over. As a compromise, a moderator or other conscientious poster could come in and post a link to the previous thread, but I see no reason why the new thread couldn't continue, especially if it has a "new thrust" as Lon suggests.
Larry Kart Posted March 28, 2011 Report Posted March 28, 2011 This is not a religion where every right and wrong has to be/should be carved in rock or spelled out on the wall in letters of flame. Also, I don't think I said to you that "only one thread per topic is permitted." Rather, as Dan Gould says above, this is simply a matter of common courtesy/common sense, based on how people actually use this place. One thread per topic (especially a topic like the one that set you off when the new thread was closed -- this with a link to the already going thread) seems like good sense to me. And if you do open an old thread on a topic like that one, how onerous is it to go to the most recent posts? One click? Further, when new posts are made on an old thread, they of course crop up on "View New Content," so anyone knows that activity is taking place there and can pay a visit/post as they will, and then EVERYONE who cares about (in this case the Bristol sessions reissue) WILL KNOW ABOUT IT. What a bizarre concept. Finally, when you've got two threads going on the same or very similar topics, it's very likely that some posters won't figure this out and will either post redundantly on the thread of the two that they are aware of or post interesting things on this thread that those who are aware only of the other thread won't see. I've seen both things happen a lot; it's happened to me. Why should such potential confusion not be avoided when it's so simple to do so? P.S. I assume that the reason this isn't a flaming "rule," aside from it being matter of simple housekeeping, is that one can imagine cases where two significantly different threads on what might in some sense be thought of as the same topic had a good reason to instead be going on as different threads. Again, a bizarre concept.
Aggie87 Posted March 28, 2011 Report Posted March 28, 2011 I agree with Larry's comments. Also, if you're doing a search on a topic you know has already been discussed, and you're looking for specific information, it sure makes it alot easier if you only have to go back through 1 old thread, as opposed to 20.
.:.impossible Posted March 28, 2011 Report Posted March 28, 2011 I personally don't give a shit and I just want to make sure as many members as possible know where I stand. Perhaps I'll start a thread if this one gets too long.
AllenLowe Posted March 28, 2011 Author Report Posted March 28, 2011 well, I almost started another thread on whether more than one thread on a single topic was allowed.... the answer is really in how the moderator phrases his closure of a new thread that seems to match a prior thread - he needs to indicate: 1) the points of intersection 2) the parallel areas of development 3) the areas in which they diverge 4) the basic philosophy which governs this specific closure 5) the basic philosophy which governed the last 13 closures 6) any related American on Dutch judicial decisions which govern his decision 7) any of the ten commandments which are violated by such repetition Hans, you out there? After all, you are the King of Closures.
David Ayers Posted March 29, 2011 Report Posted March 29, 2011 This one is easy. There are three permitted threads on this board. (1) what is the latest unchallenging middlebrow repertoire you just piled up in your beermat collection? (2) Andorra (3) justice for Allen So if I mention here that I recently bought Rollin' with Leo in a legitimate issue (thereby diverting to Parker's estate 10s of 000s of dollars that would otherwise have poured into the otherwise flailing Andorran economy) I will have achieved an effect similar to googling 'google' or combining a proton, neutron and an electron.
Jim Alfredson Posted March 29, 2011 Report Posted March 29, 2011 I think a better question is why you get personally offended anytime a moderator takes action. It's common internet forum courtesy to keep topics generally within the same thread if possible. It helps deter endless thread clutter and makes searching for information on that particular subject easier. It is not officially a rule but so what? Not every action a moderator takes needs to be backed up by an official rule. End of story.
_forumlogo.png.a607ef20a6e0c299ab2aa6443aa1f32e.png)
Recommended Posts