[Mobius]

I'm not refering to a specific episode, but rather to what seems to be a well established habit. Therefore, let's keep references to recently locked threads elsewhere.

Quite frankly, I'm not sure split and locked threads with funny/sarcastic/offensive titles can be of use. They have the potential to lead to more flame wars later on (who wouldn't find disturbing an offensive split with his nickname right below it?), flame wars that we don't need. Additionally, said habit makes finding the original thread where the split comes from much harder, thus leading to confusion.

I personally consider this habit a sign of mod power abuse (is it formally allowed?), and would prefer the classic "Re: <original thread>" formula for the reason I posted above. I now wonder what the other community members think about the subject.

First impression on IRC:

21:13:20 SDM: I don't think it should be kept as "Re:[thread name]" because if it was split, it'd be out-of-context already. "Split from [thread name]" might work. But I never had a problem with sarcastic titles and didn't consider it to be a reason for continuing flames.

[Shivan Hunter]

If a topic is split, either someone trolled, in which case they might as well be made aware of it, or it just veered off topic without any one person at fault, in which case no one should be offended by it.

[headdie]

i went No, it could trigger more flame wars soon afterwards.  HLP as i understand it is supposed to be a fun and respectable spot on the net, when we have thread splits with questionable titles it undermines that.  I also support Mobius' Re: <original thread> naming convention convention with the addition of a post explaining why the item was split out, which i know some do.  I am also sure the split titles have contributed to the inactivity of some newbies who were still adjusting to the social rules on the site, lets face it would you hang around a forum where by posts you have made have been split and given a heated title along with possibly a lock on said split?  Ok the career trolls and flamers can take a flying leap, but how many youngsters are we putting off from contributing who's only experience of the net is teen chatrooms and/or forums and/or multiplayer gaming where the rules tend to be a lot looser?

end of the day mods and admins are supposed to lead by example if they are not doing that then it makes their actions questionable

[The E]

If a topic is split, either someone trolled, in which case they might as well be made aware of it, or it just veered off topic without any one person at fault, in which case no one should be offended by it.

Exactly. Changing the thread title of split threads into something vaguely humorous (in the case of trolling-related splits), or something more related to the topic under discussion (in case of topic drift), is something that I personally feel to be necessary. In the first case, to give us all a bit of a laugh (and to drive home the point that disruptive behaviour is annoying), in the second for obvious reasons.

I am also sure the split titles have contributed to the inactivity of some newbies who were still adjusting to the social rules on the site, lets face it would you hang around a forum where by posts you have made have been split and given a heated title along with possibly a lock on said split?

There is only one case in recent history that I am aware of there this actually happened. The noob's name was "Stormy Fairweather". Look him up. Then tell me that that is actually happening often with a straight face again.

end of the day mods and admins are supposed to lead by example if they are not doing that then it makes their actions questionable

Again, I, personally, can not see the negative side here. Through split thread renaming, we all get more clarity or, as may be the case, a bit of a laugh at the sight of utter stupidity.

Also, Mobius, why are you backseat moderating?

[Shivan Hunter]

I am also sure the split titles have contributed to the inactivity of some newbies who were still adjusting to the social rules on the site

Emphasis mine. How exactly are you "sure"? Other than that one troll who didn't do much else, has anyone specifically mentioned the post titles being offensive?

lets face it would you hang around a forum where by posts you have made have been split and given a heated title along with possibly a lock on said split?

Assuming the decision to split in the first place was correct, which is almost always the case here, I wouldn't think twice about it.

Ok the career trolls and flamers can take a flying leap, but how many youngsters are we putting off from contributing who's only experience of the net is teen chatrooms and/or forums and/or multiplayer gaming where the rules tend to be a lot looser?

This community is much more stable and open because it's not a chatroom or multi session where everyone can flame each other, and from what I've seen, newbies are given plenty of chances to adjust to HLP's system. If they don't, it's almost always a case of refusing not to be a dick.

end of the day mods and admins are supposed to lead by example if they are not doing that then it makes their actions questionable

If you think they aren't, there are moderator/admin decisions which are much more questionable than some light humor in split thread titles.

[EDIT] I do think Mobius has the right to be concerned about site policy, but this is clearly a non-issue from where I'm standing. If someone has some new facts to present they may change the case but IMO the mods are right.

[The E]

Yes, if there was a rash of incidents where people were driven off the site by this specific behaviour of ours, Mobius would have a point. From my vantage point, that just isn't the case.

[Shivan Hunter]

Actually I just remembered- Stormy's incident has nothing to do with this at all. He had a thread complaining about a mission called "bug in so-and-so", and battuta changed it to "make so-and-so easier" or something to that effect. It was only after he started raising drama that threads started getting split, and by that point the situation was hardly recoverable anyway.

[Mobius]

You may have a very good reason to split and lock a thread, no doubt to that, but is it really necessary to let anger/rivalry/whatever between members continue even after the thread is locked? It's mostly a matter of interpretations here: what do you guys think the role of moderation should be? One of its main goals, IMO (but other may share my opinion), is to prevent (in the most diplomatic way possible) additional accidents from happening.


What is there to earn from an offensive naming convention? Unless the troll/whatever is banned, an offensive title may call for retaliation, which can occur in another thread (moderators are active posters, too). Shouldn't we as a community try and prevent that?

[Shivan Hunter]

no, the question here is how does it do any harm? It's a bit of harmless fun on the part of the mods/admins. Maybe it pokes fun at trolls, but if they trolled they sort of had it coming anyway.

Actually no, you're right. Nothing should ever be done here unless it has some definite, beneficial purpose. In fact we should replace all the moderators with humorless sentient machines. We could be ruled by- ASSUMING DIRECT CONTROL

[Mobius]

no, the question here is how does it do any harm? It's a bit of harmless fun on the part of the mods/admins. Maybe it pokes fun at trolls, but if they trolled they sort of had it coming anyway.

Well, you have to prove that. Preliminary poll results don't make it that obvious. Also, are you sure it is only the trolls who are "kindly" offended?

[The E]

No, Mobius. It is in fact you who has to provide proof that this is actually in any way damaging, or even really offensive to many people.

[NGTM-1R]

Also, Mobius, why are you backseat moderating?

Though I don't generally agree with Mobius, I think this is a fair question to open and ask. A degree of openness and understanding about moderation will not hurt the moderators and will probably make the rank-and-file happier with them.

The consensus is probably strongly against him, but I do not think we should be openly discouraged from asking question about the hows and whys of moderation. That goes stupid awful places pretty fast and the moderation team is better than such.

(I, personally, find the topic of discussion amusing for the most part, though the habit of splitlocking for the last word annoys me.)

[The E]

On reflection, you are right. My reflexes have gotten the better of me, for which I apologize.

[Mobius]

No, Mobius. It is in fact you who has to provide proof that this is actually in any way damaging, or even really offensive to many people.

In a case that involved me the thread title was so disturbing that I requested the thread to be deleted, and my request was kindly accepted by an Admin. Said thread had a relatively funny, but hardly offensive title, I can only imagine what could happen to another member dealing with a much less funny title. There's plenty of subjectivity here, but it's still a proof.

The questions follow: is it really necessary? Shouldn't the necessity to end arguments take precedence over the supposed need to make a fool of other people? As NGTM-1R pointed out, there's no harm in discussing this subject, so let's see where the poll will lead to.

[The E]

Even so, as far as I am concerned, I don't quite see what the point of this is. As you said yourself, it's all really minor stuff.

And no, it is not, strictly speaking, necessary. It is, however, fun to rename a particularly annoying thread.

[Rodo]

I voted no, being an admin does not give you the right to have the last or absolute word about any kind of discussion on the forums.

[Flipside]

To be honest, when you've warned people that you are going to split a thread if a discussion continues, and asked people to calm down, and they still insist in forcing the administrator or moderator to read through the entire thread in order to split out the useless stuff, then they deserve whatever happens. It's like custom titles, get used to them, because you earn them, and you may not like them.

[Zacam]

blah blah. blah blah blah. blah. blah blah.

I'm just glad I've suppressed my baser instinct to rename THIS thread as being "The Un-Split, Not-Offensively re-Titled Thread of Blah-Blah"

That is all.

(Just to clarify, I am actually completely kidding.)

Whether or not a particular action or behaviour/pattern is "useful" as seen by any one person, in my opinion, is irrelevant so long as it is not actually leading to an egregious problem. None of us get to where we are because we lack personality or an established sense of self. And we can't make ourselves any better by divorcing who we are into being separate from what we do or how we do it.

Having a structure to how splitting or split-locking is handled is, again in my opinion, over kill. If there happens to be a case where one happens that is felt to be out of line, other Moderators as well as Administrators can follow the Cause of Reason when presented with the Voice of Consensus. At the end of any day, we are who we are which is no better or worse or different than anybody else. This does mean that personal beliefs, feelings and attitudes will invariably present themselves in every thing that we do. It is more important, I think, when one can recognize that as well as accept the responsibility for that if and when it comes into conflict with the greater whole, rather than trying to arbitrate and sterilize needlessly. The forum already has policies for users to follow, which the Moderators/Administrators moderate or mediate around/within when necessary.

And when someone doesn't follow them, or doesn't follow a common sense of etiquette (especially after multiple attempts to mediate/moderate), then it often comes down to more creative means of pointing out what has gone wrong. And while that may or may not meet with disapproval for some, it can only really be pointed out on a specific by case basis, not in an overly generalized sense of additional policy. If we want to go that route, might as well endorse the use of an Artificially Intelligent teletype to handle the job then.

As for what a Moderator (or Administrator) is responsible for, is (my opinion) ultimately themselves in alignment with community spirit. But no personality or Moderation or Administration will ever completely manage to address all of the possible foibles of individualism, especially not in cases where the individual refuses to accept the Moderation/Administration taking place or apply it towards correcting their actions. We can't -prevent- anything and everything from happening. We can only Moderate or Mediate -when- things happen as best as we possibly can. And that means dealing with it our own way and with our own personal foibles, for better or worse.

[Mongoose]

I can't say I care either way.  If someone acts like enough of a douchebag to get a split thread with a sarcastic title, then odds are they probably deserved it in the first place.

[Qent]

I greatly dislike your poll options. No, moderators should not make offensive thread titles, whether split or unsplit; however, it is also up to the moderators to judge what is considered "offensive."

I don't know what recent action prompted this, but "Marcov does not want to debate" is not offensive. "Bad posts" is true but painful, and I wish GB hadn't been so blunt, but it isn't offensive or sarcastic.

Finally, "Re: <thread title>" is bad because it's the same naming scheme as actual replies to the original thread. Even "Re: Re: <thread title>" is too similar. "<optional new topid> (split from <thread title>)" is much better IMHO.