Thread splitting

[Twirly]

A lot of the upset / anger in such cases seems to come from the fact that people end up as seeming to have started threads when they didn't want to.

So how about getting the moderator who does the split (or a random name, like 'cillia black' for the admiration thingy) to post the first post (the thread starter) with a little explanation (like "from the discussion on here... let's discuss that now...").

So that the nobody ends up with its name associated to a thread they didn't create.

What do people / the mod team think about that? Is it implement-able?

Very good idea. And possibly an explanation as to why it's been split/moved, such as "it was felt that this would be more appropriate to the private area of the forum".

[Trousers]

I think i'm gonna start pressing all the buttons I can on my forum interface to see if I can return some of the annoyance I have been caused .

I can see my first target right there!

WheyHey here we go

[David Bailey]

So how about getting the moderator who does the split (or a random name, like 'cillia black' for the admiration thingy) to post the first post (the thread starter) with a little explanation (like "from the discussion on here... let's discuss that now...").

I usually add a "explanation" post when I do something like that - the trouble is that the posts are all listed chronological order, so the "thread starter" is the first poster - that's just the way the system is set up at the moment.

Dunno if we can "back-date" posts - I'm also not sure if that's a good idea anyway...

[Twirly]

I usually add a "explanation" post when I do something like that - the trouble is that the posts are all listed chronological order, so the "thread starter" is the first poster - that's just the way the system is set up at the moment.

Dunno if we can "back-date" posts - I'm also not sure if that's a good idea anyway...

Not sure what you mean by back date posts

And just because the system is set up a certain way at the moment doesn't mean that it has to stay that way! Couldn't the moderator start the thread and then move the relevant posts across afterwards?

[Caro]

Dunno if we can "back-date" posts - I'm also not sure if that's a good idea anyway...

Fair point. How about making only one profile (cilia black or call it something else) able to do that then? Just for that particular purpose of starting a new thread.

[Lory]

So how about getting the moderator who does the split (or a random name, like 'cillia black' for the admiration thingy) to post the first post (the thread starter) with a little explanation (like "from the discussion on here... let's discuss that now...").

What do people / the mod team think about that? Is it implement-able?

Not sure what you mean by back date posts

And just because the system is set up a certain way at the moment doesn't mean that it has to stay that way! Couldn't the moderator start the thread and then move the relevant posts across afterwards?

Sorry, I don't think it can be done, as the post will appear on the page in the order they're dated!

I tried a little test


The best we can offer, is to insert an explaination, into the first post but the thread will still appear to have been started by the the other person

[David Bailey]

Not sure what you mean by back date posts

Threads are listed in chronological order - so the first thread selected becomes the "thread starter" even when it isn't. So to alter the first post, we'd have to artificially date a "starter" post or something equally clever...

At the moment, the only other way of doing it would be to edit the first post to say "XYZ Moderator has created a thread from this post", which just looks naff...

And just because the system is set up a certain way at the moment doesn't mean that it has to stay that way!

Sure - but that's a question for administrators (Franck, really) rather than moderators. Even I have limits to my godlike powers

Couldn't the moderator start the thread and then move the relevant posts across afterwards?

No, because the moved posts would still be ordered chronologically - so the thread started would still appear to be the person with the oldest post.

EDIT: what Lory said, basically

[Trousers]

The best we can offer, is to insert an explaination, into the first post but the thread will still appear to have been started by the the other person

Would a better and less invasive suggestion be simply to insert a moderator posting with a moderator flag (rather than Lory (the best moderator) or DavidJames (another Moderator)) that just says

Please note: This thread is off topic!
. . . . . . . . .Should you wish to follow this new discussion please start a new thread!

PLace the offenders name in there as well to make sure we know who is off topic and Hey Presto! No one gets naffed off!

[Divissima]

I can think of one way it could be done (presuming this version of vB is the same as used for the MJDA and CMJ fora). It would be very cumbersome to implement, I think.

The idea would be to have a restricted access forum visible only to admins/mods with a whole load of 'seed' threads in it - i.e. blank threads, no title, no content, etc. just waiting and hoping to graduate onto the proper forum. Then, when a mod wants to split an existing thread to create a new thread (and depending on their admin/mod permissions), they take a seed thread (which pre-dates the post to be split), populate it with information, move it to the public forum then use it as the first post to which the split posts are added.

Whether, as a policy decision, one might want to do this is a different matter.

[David Bailey]

DavidJames (another Moderator))

I like it

PLace the offenders name in there as well to make sure we know who is off topic and Hey Presto! No one gets naffed off!

If you really think that a moderator comment of that kind will defuse rather than inflame the situation, I suspect you're being, shall we say, rather optimistic

[David Bailey]

{ suggestion }

Blimey, that's clever. Cumbersome as hell, yes, but it's doable...

Whether, as a policy decision, one might want to do this is a different matter.

Honestly, I don't think we should - it's misleading to have "fake" posts.

(Also, messing around with the space-time continuum is never a good idea.)

To do it properly, you'd need a visible non-post notice, of the form "Split from thread X by Y because of Z", or something like that, and that might require software work - or at least, some messing around with the configuration.

[Trousers]

I like it


If you really think that a moderator comment of that kind will defuse rather than inflame the situation, I suspect you're being, shall we say, rather optimistic

Defuse - Sounds like we arn't talking about the same thing.

It was you lot splitting threads and starting new ones because someone said a post was off topic. There would be nothing to defuse there methinks Bar the thread splitting

This thread however is simmering nicely but still on topic, but if it were to get abusive then that could require defusing.
Unless of course you know a different meaning for the word Defuse that I ain't come across yet

[Lory]

Would a better and less invasive suggestion be simply to insert a moderator posting with a moderator flag (rather than Lory (the best moderator) or DavidJames (another Moderator)) that just says

Please note: This thread is off topic!
. . . . . . . . .Should you wish to follow this new discussion please start a new thread!

I think this is rather assuming that all posts that go off topic are considered 'bad' (yes, a lot ARE tedious drivel ).

Sometimes some very interesting threads are developed out of the posts that take a debate in another direction.

I would hate to discourage people from posting replies by constantly reminding them they're off topic. And its sounds a bit authoritarian to keep writing warning notes

Basically, we just have to use our own judgement, (sometimes we get it wrong ) as we don't want to discourage folk from contributing full stop because they have to consider the ''rules too much, which would also be a shame (fat chance )

Lastly, sometimes threads go off in another direction for quite a few posts before a moderator even gets round to noticing and to leave those posts in place, might make it difficult to bring it back to the original subject at all


BTW, I like 'it' more than DJ

[Trousers]

{LongSensibleModeratorPost Snip}....{unsnip}

I think the point that I was trying to make on top of Twitly's post was that this process of splitting threads is Rude. To force someone to the top of the pile with a thread started in their name without consultation that cannot be fair or proper.

I had a right ol' row with Franck when it got done to me and feel strongly for anyone who isn't self assured enought to make noise about it.

I ask you to take a look at my analogy about being dragged about a dance floor because I think it works.

Lory you know I hold you in high esteem for your handling of many 'incidents' I have been party to and I am hopeful that if you do indeed 'like it more than DJ' may start using a simple hint rather than the huge blunt sledge hammer response to wayward posts (as you the moderators see them) and I hope (although i cannot guarantee a better response to them) that people can police themselvess more, well with respect to starting new discussion threads and refocusing original threads.

The chance of success may only be a million to one but it just may work (to coin a well known phrase)

[David Bailey]

I think the point that I was trying to make on top of Twitly's post was that this process of splitting threads is Rude.

Thread splitting, based on judgement, is a standard part of the task for most forum moderators - part of the moderator role involves focussing discussions so that people, especially new people, know what's being discussed and can contribute if they want.

Effectively, it's a continuous informal information-architecting task, in some ways.

There's a reasonably informative article on moderator functions here.

To force someone to the top of the pile with a thread started in their name without consultation that cannot be fair or proper.

I had a right ol' row with Franck when it got done to me and feel strongly for anyone who isn't self assured enought to make noise about it.

I agree that being a "false thread starter" isn't ideal. I remember "starting" an infamous thread about teacher quality levels about 18 months ago, and having to defend myself against the accusation of starting a delibrately-inflammatory thread (moi? ) - yes, it's annoying.

But I'd suggest that this is a "system improvement" request, rather than anything else - if the system could be tweaked, I'd be very happy for a "thread creation" notice to be provided at the start of the thread.

[MartinHarper]

How about making the new title of the split thread something like:

"Dancing with Unicorns (split from: Have you danced with animals?)"

This would provide greater context as to the source of a thread of discussion.

(dancing with unicorns is great, but steer clear of combs unless you need curing of poison)

[Lory]

(dancing with unicorns is great, but steer clear of combs unless you need curing of poison)

I tend to avoid them myself, it can get a bit embarrassing, dancing with a partner with a horn

[StokeBloke]

I tend to avoid them myself, it can get a bit embarrassing, dancing with a partner with a horn

Fnarr fnarr

[Minnie M]

Just recently I made a comment about (not saying) which appeared to damage a certain forumite's ego - subseqent posts upheld my comment. Which led to the said forumite calling me "Bone Headed". I thought this was rather harsh as it was not a critism and was certainly not meant to offend. A certain moderator decided to split this thread at this stage result .......... the thread died and not only did I not get my apology or an explanation of such an uncalled statement (which I thought was warrented) the said forumite has totally ignored me since

[Dance Demon]

It's RUDE!
It's WRONG
It's HAPPENING TOO MUCH

Like others, I have also noticed that there does seem to have been a sharp increase in thread splitting since the new moderators came on board. Clearly there are others out there who have similar feelings.

Yes there has, and a certain moderator seems to think that it's his duty to make a comment on nearly every thread........and the thread splitting is definitely happening too much.....