Title of threads split from existing threads

[rusty_shackleford]

This is regarding:

I don't consider threads split off from another as that user's thread, not going to apologize for locking it to prevent title vandalism.

The threads are more of communal threads, therefore I don't know whom or what they should be titled. I'd like feedback, thanks.

[asf]

name them:

jannies are gay and keep splitting threads

[Irenaeus]

I'm finding the names for the splits appropriate, sometimes even funny.

[Oyster Sauce]

Just a neutral title that covers the topic of the split is fine.
Also, I've seen more splits on this forum within a couple weeks than I've seen within years on others. I don't have an issue with this, but I'm expecting drama when someone actually gets punished for rule 3-A instead of split off.

[rusty_shackleford]

Also, I've seen more splits on this forum within a couple weeks than I've seen within years on others. I don't have an issue with this, but I'm expecting drama when someone actually gets punished for rule 3-A instead of split off.

Thanks, I love this kind of feedback.

[Anon]

The "marrying age" thread title specifically raised concerns about potentially trying to manipulating users into silencing about a certain subject. I do think the choosing of the title should take into consideration BOTH the overall context and whatever the first comment is trying to convey, as "marrying age" doesn't fit at all what first comment was saying and it would be confusing to users who didn't know the context.

[rusty_shackleford]

The "marrying age" thread title specifically raised concerns about potentially trying to manipulating users into silencing about a certain subject. I do think the choosing of the title should take into consideration BOTH the overall context and whatever the first comment is trying to convey, as "marrying age" doesn't fit at all what first comment was saying and it would be confusing to users who didn't know the context.

@WhiteShark you've been found out, your agenda of manipulating the narrative has been unveiled. Repent.

[Anon]

I said "raised concerns about potentially trying", not that the author of the change intended that, then I gave a suggestion to tackle this matter objectively. I'm not getting the issue tbh

[rusty_shackleford]

I said "raised concerns about potentially trying", not that the author of the change intended that, then I gave a suggestion to tackle this matter objectively. I'm not getting the issue tbh

I rarely do direct moderation duty anymore, I made this thread mostly to get feedback on what to do in this situation. This feedback will be read by the moderators, and we'll probably discuss ways we can change policy if needed. In this context it (now) applies to both thread titles and how often threads should be split, btw.

[BobT]

Eh, not a big deal, really.
The Vergil trolling ones etc. are fine as it's obvious just a place to dump stuff and have a laugh.

Otherwise, just make it "as it says on the tin". So it's clear what the new thread is about. As long as the first post is clear enough then you may as well title it as per the new topic at hand, rather than have it be anything to do with the old one.

[rusty_shackleford]

Eh, not a big deal, really.
The Vergil trolling ones etc. are fine as it's obvious just a place to dump stuff and have a laugh.

Otherwise, just make it "as it says on the tin". So it's clear what the new thread is about. As long as the first post is clear enough then you may as well title it as per the new topic at hand, rather than have it be anything to do with the old one.

Yes, well, some posters seem to believe we have some grand conspiracy to steer discussions according to what we title threads therefore I wanted to ask what we should be titling them.

[WhiteShark]

The "marrying age" thread title specifically raised concerns about potentially trying to manipulating users into silencing about a certain subject. I do think the choosing of the title should take into consideration BOTH the overall context and whatever the first comment is trying to convey, as "marrying age" doesn't fit at all what first comment was saying and it would be confusing to users who didn't know the context.

Threadsplitting is very hard to do cleanly. I had no intention of silencing anybody. I did my best to pick the title that reflected the overall content of the new discussion. What do you think I should have chosen instead?

[WhiteShark]

Also, I've seen more splits on this forum within a couple weeks than I've seen within years on others. I don't have an issue with this, but I'm expecting drama when someone actually gets punished for rule 3-A instead of split off.

Ideally, disciplinary action under 3A is taken as well as a thread split. They're not mutually exclusive. We can issue a warning without also quashing the new discussion.

[Oyster Sauce]

Also, I've seen more splits on this forum within a couple weeks than I've seen within years on others. I don't have an issue with this, but I'm expecting drama when someone actually gets punished for rule 3-A instead of split off.

Ideally, disciplinary action under 3A is taken as well as a thread split. They're not mutually exclusive. We can issue a warning without also quashing the new discussion.

Sure but the current precedent is just splitting the thread with no warning given despite the rule violation. You should have an answer ready for the fellow who says "I'm the 50th guy to go off topic and cause a split, why am I the first one given bad boy points for it? This was a planned hit, fuck janniggers. KILL WHITESHARK NOW!"

[rusty_shackleford]

Also, I've seen more splits on this forum within a couple weeks than I've seen within years on others. I don't have an issue with this, but I'm expecting drama when someone actually gets punished for rule 3-A instead of split off.

Ideally, disciplinary action under 3A is taken as well as a thread split. They're not mutually exclusive. We can issue a warning without also quashing the new discussion.

Sure but the current precedent is just splitting the thread with no warning given despite the rule violation. You should have an answer ready for the fellow who says "I'm the 50th guy to go off topic and cause a split, why am I the first one given bad boy points for it? This was a planned hit, fuck janniggers. KILL WHITESHARK NOW!"

There was a warning given, we even debated it in IRC.

[Oyster Sauce]

Ideally, disciplinary action under 3A is taken as well as a thread split. They're not mutually exclusive. We can issue a warning without also quashing the new discussion.

Sure but the current precedent is just splitting the thread with no warning given despite the rule violation. You should have an answer ready for the fellow who says "I'm the 50th guy to go off topic and cause a split, why am I the first one given bad boy points for it? This was a planned hit, fuck janniggers. KILL WHITESHARK NOW!"

There was a warning given, we even debated it in IRC.

I'm not referring to a specific split and I assume most are not given warnings (I could be wrong I don't even know what a warning does)

[rusty_shackleford]

Sure but the current precedent is just splitting the thread with no warning given despite the rule violation. You should have an answer ready for the fellow who says "I'm the 50th guy to go off topic and cause a split, why am I the first one given bad boy points for it? This was a planned hit, fuck janniggers. KILL WHITESHARK NOW!"

There was a warning given, we even debated it in IRC.

I'm not referring to a specific split and I assume most are not given warnings

Not all splits are due to rule violations, we recognize that threads naturally meander to and fro.

We recognize that discussions in threads naturally drift away from the original topic. These discussions will be merged into other threads or split into their own threads once the discussion is no longer active so as to not disrupt them.

Contrast with:

Stay On Topic: Respect the purpose of each thread and do not deliberately derail discussions. If you have a new topic to discuss, feel free to start a new thread in the appropriate section.

[loregamer]

I don’t think the title matters, really. There just needs to be visibility that the thread was split from another instead of looking like it was submitted by the first poster.

[BobT]

I don’t think the title matters, really. There just needs to be visibility that the thread was split from another instead of looking like it was submitted by the first poster.

Do as they do now (choosing a new title) with a note at the bottom, "Split from [thread link]". Job done.

[loregamer]

I don’t think the title matters, really. There just needs to be visibility that the thread was split from another instead of looking like it was submitted by the first poster.

Do as they do now (choosing a new title) with a note ag the bottom, "Split from [thread link]". Job done.

Si, senior. Problem solved, I think.

[Irenaeus]

I don’t think the title matters, really.

They matter, a lot.

[Hauberk]

How about not splitting threads instead? It's reminds me just a teeny weeny bit of what that guy nobody likes does all the time over on that ...other forum.

[rusty_shackleford]

How about not splitting threads instead? It's reminds me just a teeny weeny bit of what that guy nobody likes does all the time over on that ...other forum.

We were being overly lax with regards to people purposely derailing threads, but it's getting tiresome. There probably will be less splits going forward, reserved mostly just for topics that have diverged to such a point that they deserve their own thread but not because someone was doing a drive-by unrelated shitpost.

[Anon]

Giving warnings to people who derailed topics before you warned to not do it anymore was a douche move ngl

[Hauberk]

How about not splitting threads instead? It's reminds me just a teeny weeny bit of what that guy nobody likes does all the time over on that ...other forum.

We were being overly lax with regards to people purposely derailing threads, but it's getting tiresome. There probably will be less splits going forward, reserved mostly just for topics that have diverged to such a point that they deserve their own thread but not because someone was doing a drive-by unrelated shitpost.

That's nice to read. For the record I'm not a fan of all the homomorph spirals either.

[rusty_shackleford]

Giving warnings to people who derailed topics before you warned to not do it anymore was a douche move ngl

it's in the rules
we have like four rules

[BobT]

How about not splitting threads instead? It's reminds me just a teeny weeny bit of what that guy nobody likes does all the time over on that ...other forum.

Nah, sometimes it can clean up a good topic and get it back on track, or just have the content be better.
Other times it can actually spawn a new, better topic.

It's the right thing to do in some circumstances (where there's some quality to be extracted, or preserved). The challenge is picking the right time.

[Hauberk]

How about not splitting threads instead? It's reminds me just a teeny weeny bit of what that guy nobody likes does all the time over on that ...other forum.

Nah, sometimes it can clean up a good topic and get it back on track, or just have the content be better.
Other times it can actually spawn a new, better topic.

It's the right thing to do in some circumstances (where there's some quality to be extracted, or preserved). The challenge is picking the right time.

Potentially, yes. It could also generate confusion of the highest order. Or serve as a tool to remove bothersome truths which doesn't fit "the narrative". Not saying it happens here, but it certainly does ...elsewhere.

[Anon]

Giving warnings to people who derailed topics before you warned to not do it anymore was a douche move ngl

it's in the rules
we have like four rules

Yeah and all that talk about applying rules minimally just gets thrown out of the window?

But I get it don't worry, the natural course of every forum is the moderation eventually trooning out.

[rusty_shackleford]

Yeah and all that talk about applying rules minimally just gets thrown out of the window?

The rules are interpreted minimally, and it was a thread derail. Everyone involved got hit with a warning.