Splitting Topics

[TotallyOz]

One of the great things about forums is that anyone can post.  One of the hard things is that it is easy to derail a topic.  Keep topics on point and follow the message center policies.  If you have not viewed them recently, go to the About Us section of the main site and there is a link at the bottom.  The main gist, keep things gentlemanly. 

https://www.boytoy.com/boytoy-forum-policies

I will split topics when they start to veer off topic. I did one with the DeNiro thread and I'll continue to do this.  Start a new topic if you want.  But, lets keep topics on point or others get bored shitless reading things not related to what they go to the thread to view.

Hugs and kisses to all!

[Guest Larstrup]

 Never thought you were this flexible! Are available tomorrow night? 

 

[TotallyOz]

Just now, Larstrup said:

 Never thought you were this flexible! Are available tomorrow night? 

Dude, I am afraid of heights. You would never see me on top of anything (unless a bed in right below me and then I do get flexible).

[Guest Larstrup]

This probably explains why other people handle your luggage while traveling.

[TotallyOz]

19 minutes ago, Larstrup said:

This probably explains why other people handle your luggage while traveling.

I rarely travel with more than 15 suitcases checked in as baggage.  Not never.  Just rarely.

[Guest Larstrup]

Honestly Oz, splitting threads is probably the worst thing you could ever do here. It reminds me of why and how the Organ thread here ( )  was subsequently created over here due to the same style monitoring over there. Splitting threads creates confusion. IMO, either lock, time out, or warn members when things are derailing. Splitting it off to somewhere else only facilitates confusion and perhaps disdain. Isn’t that what the sandbox is for? 

Splitting threads is high–maintenance moderation, imo. It has little value to the original conversation and provides zero value to anyone when when it is latter found. 

I think Gilligan’s Island from over there is the perfect example of why not to do this here. 

Just my feeling. Repeating failed history elsewhere with split thread expressions will not further our voices and contribution here. 

 

[TotallyOz]

1 minute ago, Larstrup said:

Honestly Oz, splitting threads is probably the worst thing you could ever do here. It reminds me of why and how the Organ thread here ( )  was subsequently created over here due to the same style monitoring over there. Splitting threads creates confusion. IMO, either lock, time out, or warn members when things are derailing. Splitting it off to somewhere else only facilitates confusion and perhaps disdain. Isn’t that what the sandbox is for? 

Splitting threads is high–maintenance moderation, imo. It has little value to the original conversation and provides zero value to anyone when when it is latter found. 

I think Gilligan’s Island from over there is the perfect example of why not to do this here. 

Just my feeling. Repeating failed history elsewhere with split thread expressions will not further our voices and contribution here. 

 

I don't visit over there and thus I don't know the history. But, for me, I have split threads in the past to keep things on track.  Some things are OK to veer a bit off course. But, some things are not. However, it is better than closing a good thread or moving it to the Sandbox.  That just tells people that when they don't like a thread they can then derail it and move it to another area. That won't happen.  So, I'll try my way for a bit to see how it goes.  Who knows, my tolerance level is pretty high most of the time so it may be better or worse than the other site.

[Guest Larstrup]

 

[Guest Larstrup]

I hate I can’t repost just the important  organ thread  to make my point, minus which I originally cut off to go right to the organ minus the former stuff. Ok whatever. The Organ thread here has been a joy for many. 

 

[Guest Larstrup]

Regardless, Gilligans Island was what was the core of the Organ thread.  Many  represented everything which went wrong with splitting threads over there’s before.

 

[AdamSmith]

46 minutes ago, TotallyOz said:

I don't visit over there and thus I don't know the history. But, for me, I have split threads in the past to keep things on track.  Some things are OK to veer a bit off course. But, some things are not. However, it is better than closing a good thread or moving it to the Sandbox.  That just tells people that when they don't like a thread they can then derail it and move it to another area. That won't happen.  So, I'll try my way for a bit to see how it goes.  Who knows, my tolerance level is pretty high most of the time so it may be better or worse than the other site.

I don't want to put any Darth Vader impost into this topix.

But Cooper's splitting my Organ Thread was why I finally harrumphed out from Over There.

The mods have absolute right to shift content here; there or elsewhere.

But when they dare tamper with content of a post series, then the site has lost all integrity.

[Suckrates]

 

So much for "Versatility".   I knew when guys said they were, they usually meant they were Bottoms who took it on their back AND their belly. !   

[RockHardNYC]

13 hours ago, TotallyOz said:

One of the hard things is that it is easy to derail a topic.  Keep topics on point and follow the message center policies.

I have always supported forums that value "on-topic" discussions. Back in the day, there were a few travel forums that allowed posts to veer off-topic. Those forums were quickly labeled "chat-rooms," and they didn't survive because it turned off users. It's so easy to go off-topic when the subject is travel, but some of those threads became impossible to follow.

Derailing a thread for the specific reason of degrading, discrediting, insulting, or attacking another member should be immediate grounds for suspension. That's what I call good moderation.

I think what happened to Adam Smith on the other board was an anomaly. And quite possibly there was a personal grudge at play. Admin at the other board often behaved like drag queens. When they were on the rag, they really behaved like women experiencing a terrible menstrual cycle.

Knowing what I've come to know about Oz, I seriously don't agree that this thread has anything to do with what happened to AS over there.

[RockHardNYC]

11 hours ago, TotallyOz said:

Some things are OK to veer a bit off course. But, some things are not... So, I'll try my way for a bit to see how it goes.

Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

[AdamSmith]

21 hours ago, TotallyOz said:

I don't visit over there and thus I don't know the history. But, for me, I have split threads in the past to keep things on track.  Some things are OK to veer a bit off course. But, some things are not. However, it is better than closing a good thread or moving it to the Sandbox.

Very seriously -- speaking as a professional journalist since age 17 -- you must not do that.

Ban any contributor, certainly including me, if required.

Insert moderator-deadly-banishment admonishments whenever required.

Banish whom you wish.

But any forum where mods edit contributors' posts then loses all credibility.

[You will forgive me the following:]

Canto III: The Gate of Hell[edit]

• Per me si va ne la città dolente,
  per me si va ne l'etterno dolore,
  per me si va tra la perduta gente. 
• 
  Giustizia mosse il mio alto fattore:
  fecemi la divina potestate,
  la somma sapienza e 'l primo amore. 
• 
  Dinanzi a me non fuor cose create
  se non etterne, e io etterno duro.
  Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.
•  
  • Through me you go to the grief wracked city; Through me you go to everlasting pain; Through me you go a pass among lost souls. Justice inspired my exalted Creator: I am a creature of the Holiest Power, of Wisdom in the Highest and of Primal Love. Nothing till I was made was made, only eternal beings. And I endure eternally. Abandon all hope — Ye Who Enter Here
  • Variant translation: 'Through me the way to the suffering city; Through me the everlasting pain; Through me the way that runs among the Lost. Justice urged on my exalted Creator: Divine Power made me, The Supreme Wisdom and the Primal Love. Nothing was made before me but eternal things And I endure eternally. Abandon all hope - You Who Enter Here.'
  • Variant Translation: 'I am the way into the city of woe. I am the way to a forsaken people. I am the way into eternal sorrow. Sacred justice moved my architect. I was raised here by divine omnipotence, primordial love and ultimate intellect. Only those elements time cannot wear are beyond me, and beyond time I stand. Abandon All Hope, Ye Who Enter Here.'
  • Note: Full inscription on the top of the gate.

• This miserable measure the wretched souls maintain of those who lived without infamy and without praise. Mingled are they with that caitiff choir of the angels, who were not rebels, nor were faithful to God, but were for themselves. The heavens chased them out in order to be not less beautiful, nor doth the depth of Hell receive them, because the damned would have some glory from them.

• These have no hope of death... mercy and justice disdain them. Let us not speak of them, but do thou look and pass on.

• ...behind it came so long a train of folk, that I could never have believed death had undone so many.

• This way a good soul never passes...
•  
• Abandon all hope, ye who enter here...

 

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Inferno_(Dante)

[Latbear4blk]

20 hours ago, AdamSmith said:

I don't want to put any Darth Vader impost into this topix.

But Cooper's splitting my Organ Thread was why I finally harrumphed out from Over There.

The mods have absolute right to shift content here; there or elsewhere.

But when they dare tamper with content of a post series, then the site has lost all integrity.

I do agree, but I think your last line is an over statement. 

[AdamSmith]

4 minutes ago, Latbear4blk said:

I do agree, but I think your last line is an over statement. 

I profoundly disagree.

My entire professional (and personal) life is founded on these principles:

https://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp

[AdamSmith]

Authority and authenticity and truthfulness of the original speaker's words are the only way to judge -- and certainly, if needed to condemn them -- the only way.

As our current political situation must certainly make clear, nein/

[Suckrates]

 

CREDIBILITY ??????   AUTHENTICITY ????

[TotallyOz]

Adam,

Please explain to me how a topic off thread being split and the off topic posts entirely untouched, unedited or changed and only moved to a new topic is worse than the posts being deleted or the person being banned.

IMHO, we ask people to stay on topic. It is easy to do.  If people have posts that take a topic off course, it makes it harder to find the content they are looking for.  For example, if Tomcal posts about Mexican and Brazilian Boys differences and half way though the subject changes to Thai boys and how great they are and the rest of that thread talks about Thai boys, does it not seem reasonable to move the posts that are off topic to a separate thread and let the conversation continue?

[AdamSmith]

6 minutes ago, TotallyOz said:

Adam,

Please explain to me how a topic off thread being split and the off topic posts entirely untouched, unedited or changed and only moved to a new topic is worse than the posts being deleted or the person being banned.

IMHO, we ask people to stay on topic. It is easy to do.  If people have posts that take a topic off course, it makes it harder to find the content they are looking for.  For example, if Tomcal posts about Mexican and Brazilian Boys differences and half way though the subject changes to Thai boys and how great they are and the rest of that thread talks about Thai boys, does it not seem reasonable to move the posts that are off topic to a separate thread and let the conversation continue?

Because {1) this is not a professional news site; and (2) when CNN or whoever modifies an original post, they add a huge note explaining what and why the editorial powers did it, at the foot of the original piece.

If that has happened here, I was napping and missed it. Please bring me up to date.

[TotallyOz]

3 minutes ago, AdamSmith said:

Because {1) this is not a professional news site; and (2) when CNN or whoever modifies an original post, they add a huge note explaining what and why the editorial powers did it, at the foot of the original piece.

If that has happened here, I was napping and missed it. Please bring me up to date.

Happily.

First post in this thread says a split happened in the Robert DeNiro political thread about the Tony Awards. 

Then the topic changed to people viewing profiles of other people.  That thread is fully intact, unedited and all post unchanged and is here:

If you read the linked topics, nothing in that thread had to do with DeNiro.  Even I was part of the conversation. However, it was not about DeNiro and I felt it deserved a thread of its own.

[Suckrates]

 

Is this really worth talking about ?   It's all good....  and if somewhere along the line, you are missing a piece of a story,  just make it up !   

[RockHardNYC]

1 hour ago, TotallyOz said:

If you read the linked topics, nothing in that thread had to do with DeNiro.  Even I was part of the conversation. However, it was not about DeNiro and I felt it deserved a thread of its own.

IMO, it deserved a trash can. Larstrup was "amazed and verklempt" by his own fantasy. I don't pay the bandwidth charges here, so it's not my place to tell someone how to better spend his time and money.

1 hour ago, TotallyOz said:

For example, if Tomcal posts about Mexican and Brazilian Boys differences and half way though the subject changes to Thai boys and how great they are and the rest of that thread talks about Thai boys, does it not seem reasonable to move the posts that are off topic to a separate thread and let the conversation continue?

This example is a little too anal for me. Oz, I hope you have better things to do with your time. If the subject is "boys," why give the modifier so much importance? I realize that Tomcal might start out interested in the differences between Mexican and Brazilian, but he might end up booking a flight to Thailand once all is said and done. The subject remains boys. I wouldn't bother splitting that thread.

The Lastrup example is a more obvious hijack. With just one post, De Niro turned into an attack on me and my supposed preoccupation with Oz's profile. If the board were mine, Larstrup would be put on notice.

2 hours ago, AdamSmith said:

But any forum where mods edit contributors' posts then loses all credibility.

I see a difference between editing the words of the OP and trying to keep a thread on-topic. That said, I know two very popular sites that have strict rules for posting and moderation. If you break one of their rules in a sentence of your post, the mods will enter your post and delete that sentence. They generally don't give a shit about your feelings. They don't want you breaking their fucking rules. Sometimes, editing offending sentences is the ONLY WAY to keep a board civil, so my thoughts on this are not as strict as Adam's.

All posts submitted to the New York Times require editor approval before publishing. Any article submission will be reviewed and edited by one of their editors (with your permission).

The most famous internet travel boards do not allow curse words (among many other sensitive topics). Travel boards are open to all ages. If you accidentally swear in your post, a mod will delete that word but usually keep the rest. If you say anything that is racially charged, your post will get deleted. If you attack another member, you lose your membership.

Moderation is not an easy job, but it doesn't have to be too anal or get too complicated. No board owner can please everyone. But for the sake of civility and growth, I'm all for some level of smart moderation. Whether you like it or not, it's one of the reasons Daddy's board is currently thriving.

[AdamSmith]

I know I am being a sort of over-the-top 'fiery seventeenth-century Jesuit priest' about this. (As Nixon quoted Alice Roosevelt Longworth describing Bobby Kennedy.)

But I do not yield the point.