[karajorma]

Thanks Spoon, hopefully we can try to read less into each others posts from now on.

[Mobius]

This has nothing to do with the heated part of the discussion, though it's somehow related to it.

In the past years, I noticed a number of abuses with regards to split threads. A great many thread titles were intentionally changed to sound offensive and look like some sort of "divine punishment" for community members who were supposedly doing something wrong. Just like in this case, with the results you can see. The difference here is that Spoon made it clear while many others accepted this abuse and pretended it was normal.

Non to mention the fact that sometimes it was nearly impossible to determine which thread led to which split, thus causing confusion.

I wonder... since the need of offending a member when splitting a thread is questionable, why can't split threads just maintain the standard "Split from <topic>" title? A split thread getting locked should be the end of an argument, not the start of a second one.

_{(I'm sorry for the odd phrasing of this post, it's hard to write coherently using a phone.)}

[karajorma]

That's a fair enough point in some respects. I think "Split from <topic>" should always be in the title, however I don't think it should BE the title, especially if the split isn't locked and the discussion continues on its tangential topic, it makes more sense to give people an idea what the topic might be.

But yeah, there's no need to add insult to injury if the poster is likely to feel aggrieved by the split.