Confused as to why my thread was closed

[Czarcasm]

When SeaCanary opened this thread in General Questions about a quote that John Wayne supposedly made to Jesse Helms, Colibri moved it to Great Debates, saying

If that was the case, then you’ve pretty much poisoned the well with regard to getting a straight GQ answer by including this statement in your OP. Let’s move this to Great Debates.

Because I wanted to know the answer to the original question that nobody in that thread was addressing because of the hijack created by SeaCanary’s poisoning the well, I then reposted the original question, minus the well poisoning, in General Questions. Colibri then closed my thread, saying

The factuality of the statement can still be addressed in the thread that was just moved to Great Debates. I don’t think we need an additional thread on the subject.

Now, either the original thread poisoned the well, or it didn’t. Why didn’t Colibri either clean up that thread or just kill it and allow it to be reposted without the well poisoning, because as it stands now, all we’ve got is an argument about how racist Jesse helms is or isn’t.

[Czarcasm]

I tried to re-ask the question posted in the OP in the original thread here…and didn’t get any responses-that’s why I posted a new unpoisoned thread. Even a moderator is participating in the permanent hijack of that thread, so any hope I have of getting the question answered is pretty much dead now, unless it is addressed in a new thread.

[John_Mace]

What part of Colibri’s note did you not understand? Made perfect sense to me.

[Czarcasm]

@John_Mace

What part of Colibri’s note did you not understand? Made perfect sense to me.

I was not starting a new thread about the same subject, because the original thread is now about another subject, and shows absolutely no sign of getting back on track.

[Darth_Panda]

I have to agree with Czarcasm here, that GQ thread asking for a simple answer without the baggage of the other thread wasn’t hurting anybody.

[John_Mace]

@Czarcasm

I was not starting a new thread about the same subject, because the original thread is now about another subject, and shows absolutely no sign of getting back on track.

It’s also now about an additional subject, but it’s still about the original subject, too. Give it more than a few minutes to “get back on track”.

[Czarcasm]

@John_Mace

It’s also now about an additional subject, but it’s still about the original subject, too. Give it more than a few minutes to “get back on track”.

A few minutes? That thread was started six days ago.

[John_Mace]

@Czarcasm

A few minutes? That thread was started six days ago.

Your post in that thread was today and your new thread was started today.

[Colibri]

I think my note when I closed the thread was pretty clear:

@Colibri

The factuality of the statement can still be addressed in the thread that was just moved to Great Debates. I don’t think we need an additional thread on the subject.

Colibri
General Questions Moderator

The title of the original thread can still be seen in GQ, and anyone with information on the subject can easily post it in its new location in GD. If no one has posted such information yet, it’s likely that no one knows the answer. I don’t think you’re significantly more likely to get an answer with a new thread in GQ. And considering that the question relates to politics, and refers to three such controversial personalities as Cruz, Helms, and Wayne, the likelihood that it would be hijacked again is great. I see no benefit to having two threads on the subject when the question can easily be answered in the first one.

[samclem]

@Czarcasm

I tried to re-ask the question posted in the OP in the original thread here…and didn’t get any responses-that’s why I posted a new unpoisoned thread. Even a moderator is participating in the permanent hijack of that thread, so any hope I have of getting the question answered is pretty much dead now, unless it is addressed in a new thread.

I don’t think there’s an actual answer. When the original OP was made, I went and looked for perhaps an hour using all my newspaper databases and my mad skilz at researching. Nada.

[hajario]

@samclem

I don’t think there’s an actual answer. When the original OP was made, I went and looked for perhaps an hour using all my newspaper databases and my mad skilz at researching. Nada.

Shouldn’t you have posted this in the GD thread?

[Morgenstern]

Czarcasm has a point. I’ve seen many warnings for hijacking a thread where the mod suggested a new thread be opened on that subject. And now, when a new thread is opened, it’s declared redundant and closed.

[John_Mace]

@Morgenstern

Czarcasm has a point. I’ve seen many warnings for hijacking a thread where the mod suggested a new thread be opened on that subject. And now, when a new thread is opened, it’s declared redundant and closed.

But a mod didn’t suggest opening a new thread in this case.

And when they do, it’s advice to the folks hijacking the thread. So, they are instructed to open a thread about the hijack, not a new thread about the original subject.

[Colibri]

@Morgenstern

I’ve seen many warnings for hijacking a thread where the mod suggested a new thread be opened on that subject. And now, when a new thread is opened, it’s declared redundant and closed.

As John Mace has pointed out, in this case I did not suggest that a new thread be opened. As I said, I felt that no new thread should be necessary. I didn’t expect a new thread to be opened, so I closed it as redundant when it was opened.

[yellowjacketcoder]

@Morgenstern

Czarcasm has a point. I’ve seen many warnings for hijacking a thread where the mod suggested a new thread be opened on that subject. And now, when a new thread is opened, it’s declared redundant and closed.

@John_Mace

But a mod didn’t suggest opening a new thread in this case.

And when they do, it’s advice to the folks hijacking the thread. So, they are instructed to open a thread about the hijack, not a new thread about the original subject.

@Colibri

As John Mace has pointed out, in this case I did not suggest that a new thread be opened. As I said, I felt that no new thread should be necessary. I didn’t expect a new thread to be opened, so I closed it as redundant when it was opened.

I have to agree with Czarcasm here. 90% of the time when a thread goes off track, the mods tell us to open a new thread for something. The one time someone does that without the mod suggestion, they get smacked down for it. Apparently this means we should only open related threads when a mod suggests doing so? (And in this instance, Czarcasm isn’t getting his answer, since the original thread has derailed and he’s not allowed to open a new one).

Colibri is a decent mod, I think he just modded overzealously on this one .

[Morgenstern]

@Colibri

As John Mace has pointed out, in this case I did not suggest that a new thread be opened. As I said, I felt that no new thread should be necessary. I didn’t expect a new thread to be opened, so I closed it as redundant when it was opened.

My point was more along the lines that opening a new thread is the preferred method of seeking a discussion on a point that’s close, not not identical to the OP.
Here, the OP wanted to discuss something that lost it’s footing in the original thread.
I feel his thread should have been allowed to mature.

I find Colibri guilty of thread infanticide.

[Colibri]

@yellowjacketcoder

The one time someone does that without the mod suggestion, they get smacked down for it.

Closing a thread isn’t a “smackdown.”

Apparently this means we should only open related threads when a mod suggests doing so?

That would probably be the best idea. If in doubt, you could always PM the moderator to ask.

(And in this instance, Czarcasm isn’t getting his answer, since the original thread has derailed and he’s not allowed to open a new one).

There’s nothing preventing him from getting his answer in the GD thread. The fact that no answer has been provided so far suggest that no one knows it.

[Czarcasm]

@Colibri

There’s nothing preventing him from getting his answer in the GD thread. The fact that no answer has been provided so far suggest that no one knows it.

Or that the topic that is being discussed in that thread now has absolutely nothing to do with the OP, which is why I was surprised you didn’t shut it down in the first place instead of transferring it, hijack intact, to another forum. At the very least I think you might have changed the title to reflect the new topic.

[John_Mace]

@Czarcasm

Or that the topic that is being discussed in that thread now has absolutely nothing to do with the OP, which is why I was surprised you didn’t shut it down in the first place instead of transferring it, hijack intact, to another forum. At the very least I think you might have changed the title to reflect the new topic.

The mostly likely reason is that anyone who thinks they might have the GQ answer has already posted. Sometimes the answer is: We don’t know. This looks like one of those times.

[Czarcasm]

@John_Mace

The mostly likely reason is that anyone who thinks they might have the GQ answer has already posted. Sometimes the answer is: We don’t know. This looks like one of those times.

Or people coming into the thread think either that the thread wasn’t about what they thought it was about and back out, or they get caught up in the hijack.