Cancelling threads for redundancy

[SMM]

Today BlueVelvet closed a thread about 9/11 conspiracy. It was deemed to be redundant. There were several posters who complained because a similar thread had been recently open. The last post on the thread was early May - nearly two months ago. This is a very sensitive subject for many people. No one wants to believe 9/11 is any more than what has been reported. But, if there is no interest, the thread will die. It does not need to be censored. The excuse of being redundant is incredibly lame. How many posts a week do we get about:

1) What external hard drive should I get?
2) Where is the best source for memory for ...
3) Should I buy my ..... now?
4) Should I buy a ...... or a .......?

etc, etc, etc.

There is an incredible amount of redundant posting here. So, why single out one controversial subject, and ban it for redundancy, when it is relatively non-redundant by this forum's standards? Let's not get in the habit of deciding what people want to talk about, OK? Most posters on the new thread were against having another one. But, that is not their choice. Participating, or ignoring it is.

 

[Blue Velvet]

It was redundant. People asked for the thread to be closed and discussion could easily have continued in one of the threads linked to. Two months isn't that old on a topic that's now six years old.

You know the score though. Please take this up by PM, thanks.

 

[xsedrinam]

There were at least two veteran MR posters from the PRSI in addition to a Mod who called attention to the thread's redundancy as the theme has been around for some time.

If you PM'd a Mod and made your case, that would seem the responsible thing to do.

 

[Salasm]

my last thread got deleted and it wasnt even redundant

 

[IJ Reilly]

Do we need another thread about redundancy?

 

[xsedrinam]

Do we need another thread about redundancy?

You can say that again. It's been a long day. iDone.

 

[SMM]

It was redundant. People asked for the thread to be closed and discussion could easily have continued in one of the threads linked to. Two months isn't that old on a topic that's now six years old.

You know the score though. Please take this up by PM, thanks.

No, I do not know the score. I do not recall ever having an issue to bring forward.

Evidently, this is not the way to do it. For that I apologize.

 

[.Andy]

Perhaps it's all another liberal media conspiracy?

 

[solvs]

Am I the only one happy about someone like BV helping to clean up the PRSI forums a bit? Maybe a post merge would have worked, don't know, didn't see the thread in question. Just not ready to claim conspiracy. From what little I know of BV, and some of the other mods brave enough to venture into PRSI, they seem to strike a good balance of free speech and moderation considering.

If I have a problem, a quick PM usually suffices.

 

[MrSmith]

People asked for the thread to be closed and discussion could easily have continued in one of the threads linked to.

So if some of us ask, 90% of the iPhone threads can be closed. Well, I'm asking.

 

[SMM]

I opened this thread, so maybe this can close it.

I did not in anyway attack BV. I was explicit in stating she was acting on behalf of many posters who did not want the thread to continue. I am part of a minority position that believes the thread should have been allowed to run. I will restate my reasons:

1) On the issue of redundancy - I cannot find a 'test' to whether a thread should be considered redundant. We often have several variations, or exact subjects, active concurrently. The current iPhone is an extreme example. What I have observed, some posters will comment something similar to, "This is being discussed on thread....". But, the thread is seldom actually whacked. The 9/11 thread deals with a subject which is part of many ongoing investigations. As such, it is dynamic. The original thread died out in early May. It is very common for a subject to resurface on the Political board.

2) There is a built-in mechanism for a thread to die. If there is no interest, there is no activity, and is just slides off the page. I think this is a much fairer way of dealing with a situation like this, than having a group decide it will not even be discussed. One of the things I really like about MR is the fact that there is a great deal of freedom in what someone can post and talk about. I do not think that happened in this case.

3) It was mentioned by many that this should have been taken up as a PM. First of all, I did not know that was the preferred method. But, I have seen this forum "Site and Forum Feedback" in my wanderings. I am not sure that I have ever participated in it, having few suggestions, and even fewer complaints. But, the title seemed apt to my intent, "Feedback". It did not occur to me to send a PM. Who would I send it to? BV was not my intended audience. She responding to the wishes of others. It was they who I was really addressing.

I still think my opinion is valid. However, we all must accept the possibility that other may not share 'opinions', and just move on.

 

[Blue Velvet]

On the busiest night in MR's history, I was more concerned about other more important things than locking a thread — of which there are more than one on the identical subject — in the Political Forum.

It's not something that gets debated about... and the Political Forum is not a free-for-all, despite what some people might like.

I don't mind redundancy in Mac-related threads, because that's what we are all here for, it's the raison d'être of this site.

And if you had PM'd me and given good reasons for unlocking it, I would have done so, instead of dragging your dirty laundry into public.

If you feel that strongly about this trivial matter and want to start another, go right ahead. If it gets reported, we'll look at it. For now, this discussion is pointless. And redundant.