It certainly was, as well as the issue of the incredible sidetracks that were taking place in the thread.
No, it’s not about anyone splitting threads, since when I pointed out that I did it freely, you said you don’t. It isn’t even about your splitting threads, not unless it’s specifically splitting threads that fills you with fear; I think it’s really about your starting new threads about your beliefs about climate change.
For example, if you were participating in a thread about Gotham, and someone said that Balloon Man were the lamest Batman villain ever, and you got curious if that were true, would you feel free to start a new thread about the lamest Batman villain ever?
That isn’t true. Why would you make up something about what I said? It’s right there above your post.
Is this the point where I am supposed to lose my shit at you for this kind of shenanigans? Because no thx.
“I feel free to use the “new thread” button”.
I do not.
“when I pointed out that I did it freely, you said you don’t.”
No, I said I do not feel free to use the new thread button. It’s why I asked questions in this thread, rather than starting a couple of new topics in GD based on side tracks in another topic.
That no GD Mod, or even some great and powerful Mod ever answered my specific questions is a bit telling.
I’m not seeing the hair you’re splitting, but whatever. Consider my Gotham example: would you feel free to start a new thread in Cafe Society about Batman villains? Would you feel free to start a new thread in other forums on an issue other than climate change?
It certainly is, but probably not in the way you think it is.
Split threads in general are acceptable. The mods have not only said this before but have flat out told people to start new threads on occasion.
Splitting the thread where you were told to put all your climate change stuff is likely unacceptable, but only because you were almost certainly told to keep all of it contained in that one thread. This often happens to posters who have a pet topic and get obnoxious with it in other threads.
Nobody has said “climate change stuff” was “unacceptable”, either before I asked in this thread, or since. Certainly no Mod has ever said anything about keeping anything contained, aside from the Fukushima nuclear disaster, which is off limits, but not for the reason you might think.
The XKCD issue were a separate thing, completely off topic from the global mean issue. (local weather and perception of cold, as opposed to global climate change)
Last time I’ll ask, after which I’ll assume you’re deliberately avoiding the question: would you see any problem whatsoever with starting a new thread about an innocuous topic, e.g., the aforementioned Gotham topic?
Promise?
Yup. That no great and powerful OP ever answered my specific question is a bit telling.
Check the OPs of ATMB threads, Jim. It’s really what’s best for your blood pressure.
That’s your belief system. I consider it polite and respectful to ask the Moderation team and forum management about something, BEFORE I do it, based on my perception about several issues. This was mentioned already of course.
Aside from the sensitivity factor, there was the lack of any examples in GD
Pretty straight forward and clear.
That was nice to hear, but since the Mods for GD didn’t answer, and the thread mentioned was locked, it doesn’t seem likely it would be OK. And then there was the other issue.
Exactly. If the same people make it about their general idea of global warming, and the Mods don’t stop it, what’s the point? If any and all subjects related in any way to climate, or even the weather, get turned into the same sort of general global warming debate thread, it’s just annoying.
I know the Mods don’t want that.
I don’t moderate GD and can’t comment on any specific posts there.
However, in general, it’s perfectly fine and often preferable to split off a topic into a new thread, especially when the post would otherwise be a hijack of the existing thread.
That said, there are a few situations in which you shouldn’t split off a topic into a new thread.
If the new topic is not sufficiently different from the one being discussed, then it should remain in the existing thread rather than start a new one.
If the user in question has been told to restrict all posts on a particular topic to one thread (and this applies to more than one user on this board, so no one should feel singled out here) then splitting off a closely related topic probably violates the moderation instructions to restrict the aforementioned topic to a single thread and shouldn’t be done.
When in doubt, you can always contact one of the moderators of the forum that you wish to post in and ask them if the topic should be split off or if it should remain in the existing thread.
Other than any GD specific questions or questions about a particular thread, does this answer all of your other general questions about splitting off threads?
Once the blood stops squirting from your eyes you’ll be fine!
BEFORE :mad: AFTER <No, really, he’s not blind!
CMC fnord!
I will entertain requests to split threads.
Depending on how entangled the posts may be that a poster is hoping to split off, I may or may not grant the request. I am not about to try to decide which posts of multiple paragraphs and views should go to the new thread or remain in the existing thread.
It does not happen often and I think the simpler way is for the interested poster to create a new thread, then link to it in the original thread, leaving any post(s) that suggested the split in the original to show the logic behind the split. However, as noted, I will entertain the request. (Probably with re-runs of Gilligan’s Island; we have a limited entertainment budget.)
This is rather nice. Yours?
Thanks, and near as I can tell it is!
Pretty much. The specific questions in regards to the threads I wanted to start (split off) still haven’t been answered.