Why was Mich's Thread locked?

sluffy · **Posted:** Fri May 04, 2007 1:05 pm

Why was Mich's thread on "In theory number twos don't make good managers!" locked?

Mich did state half way down the thread this -

"I started a new thread of to ask the question about do number twos make good number 1s? If I included it in an existing post it would get lost."

I fully agree with him.

Ths Sammy Lee thread is a massive 19 pages long! - and Mich is raising a subject that is not exclusively about Sammy Lee.

In my opinion the thread should be reopened.

CrazyHorse · **Posted:** Fri May 04, 2007 1:09 pm

I locked it with a link to the official thread.
Just thought it was better to keep it all in one place.

Montreal Wanderer · **Posted:** Fri May 04, 2007 1:14 pm

CrazyHorse wrote:

I locked it with a link to the official thread.
Just thought it was better to keep it all in one place.

I think it the stress brought on by New Mod Syndrome, Sluffy. NMS builds to a point where one has to either lock a thread or rush down the chippy and scoff the lot. Since he had not collected his dole yet, he was obliged to choose the former.

sluffy · **Posted:** Fri May 04, 2007 1:26 pm

CrazyHorse wrote:

I locked it with a link to the official thread.
Just thought it was better to keep it all in one place.

I understand the desire not to have numerous threads on the same / similar subject - but I also think there are times when subjects arise that can and do deserve to stand alone in their own right - rather than to be lumped under one generic heading.

I think Mich as made an interesting point - that although springs from Sammy being made up to the manager's role - is not exclusive just to Sammy Lee - and as such should be allowed debate as a separate thread. The number of post's on this thread in the short while it was 'up' suggested other people had an opinion in the question being asked.

I think the thread should have been left to develop.

Soldier_Of_The_White_Army · **Posted:** Fri May 04, 2007 2:22 pm

Sluffy, if you're going to publicly critisise a member of the MOD crew, you could at least do it on the right forum.

BTW I've moved this into the 'Feedback' forum incase you was wondering!

Montreal Wanderer · **Posted:** Fri May 04, 2007 3:59 pm

Soldier_Of_The_White_Army wrote:

Sluffy, if you're going to publicly critisise a member of the MOD crew, you could at least do it on the right forum.

BTW I've moved this into the 'Feedback' forum incase you was wondering!

Fair dos, SOTWA. Sluffy couldn't pm the mod in question if he didn't know who it was. In any case I don't think it is a criticism so much as the initiation of a discussion of when separate threads should be used. I grant you that too many are started which should not be, especially by those who can't be bothered to read the other threads. I also agree this discussion belongs in Site development and Feedback. It might actually be good to air out views of when it is appropriate/inappropriate to begin a new thread. Just my two cents and I was just joking about NMS, Hoss.

Soldier_Of_The_White_Army · **Posted:** Fri May 04, 2007 4:10 pm

Hoss put the last post of the thread with a link to the official thread before he locked it, so anyone with a question could see who it was.

I've no problem with anyone asking why Admin or Moderating work is carried out, I'll glady explain to anyone who has an enquiry.

Mich's thread was locked because we really don't want several different threads covering the same subject, it makes the forum just chaotic and untidy. Hoss locked it because he doesn't have access to the 'merge thread' option (I do but have no idea how to do it! In fact I'n sure of Keveh has the techno brain for it TBH)

Montreal Wanderer · **Posted:** Fri May 04, 2007 4:22 pm

Good points, and I think we all agree that many unnecessary and often pointless new threads are started. The quesiont remains of when does a subject have enough divergence from an existing thread to warrant life of its own (Sluffy's point I think). A number of people (myself included) sometimes say why they are starting a new thread or sometimes confess (myself included) that they couldn't find an appropriate existing one although they suspected there should be one. Perhaps if posters said "I am starting a new thread because...." it would make it easier for mods to make a decision. I can't help you with merging threads though, if it is anything like mail merge on my computer you can get some very odd results indeed.

Soldier_Of_The_White_Army · **Posted:** Fri May 04, 2007 4:28 pm

Montreal Wanderer wrote:

Good points, and I think we all agree that many unnecessary and often pointless new threads are started. The quesiont remains of when does a subject have enough divergence from an existing thread to warrant life of its own (Sluffy's point I think). A number of people (myself included) sometimes say why they are starting a new thread or sometimes confess (myself included) that they couldn't find an appropriate existing one although they suspected there should be one. Perhaps if posters said "I am starting a new thread because...." it would make it easier for mods to make a decision. I can't help you with merging threads though, if it is anything like mail merge on my computer you can get some very odd results indeed.

If we lock a thread because of this reason, we almost always post the link to that thread. This informs the person why it has been locked and also gives them the opportunity to copy/past their post and repost it in that thread.

Bench · **Posted:** Fri May 04, 2007 4:40 pm

Montreal Wanderer wrote:

Good points, and I think we all agree that many unnecessary and often pointless new threads are started. The quesiont remains of when does a subject have enough divergence from an existing thread to warrant life of its own (Sluffy's point I think). A number of people (myself included) sometimes say why they are starting a new thread or sometimes confess (myself included) that they couldn't find an appropriate existing one although they suspected there should be one. Perhaps if posters said "I am starting a new thread because...." it would make it easier for mods to make a decision. I can't help you with merging threads though, if it is anything like mail merge on my computer you can get some very odd results indeed.

Just to butt in.

While many threads have been started in the last week re Big Sam leaving and the new appointment of Sammy Lee, most of which have a slightly different spin, most have ended up actually covering the same points. So much so that you end up with three our four threads all at different stages of the same discussion. This would have happened in Mich Caines thread, regardless of whether that was the original intention or not.

Dave Sutton's barnet · **Posted:** Fri May 04, 2007 5:02 pm

Bench wrote:

Montreal Wanderer wrote:

Good points, and I think we all agree that many unnecessary and often pointless new threads are started. The quesiont remains of when does a subject have enough divergence from an existing thread to warrant life of its own (Sluffy's point I think). A number of people (myself included) sometimes say why they are starting a new thread or sometimes confess (myself included) that they couldn't find an appropriate existing one although they suspected there should be one. Perhaps if posters said "I am starting a new thread because...." it would make it easier for mods to make a decision. I can't help you with merging threads though, if it is anything like mail merge on my computer you can get some very odd results indeed.

Just to butt in.

While many threads have been started in the last week re Big Sam leaving and the new appointment of Sammy Lee, most of which have a slightly different spin, most have ended up actually covering the same points. So much so that you end up with three our four threads all at different stages of the same discussion. This would have happened in Mich Caines thread, regardless of whether that was the original intention or not.

And as was said in the thread pre-lockout, the No.2 discussion had already been had in that admittedly gargantuan thread.

I can see Sluffy's point, but arguably if it's not BW-related shouldn't it be in Banter? As Bench says, if it's a discussion (in The Trotters forum) about whether coaches make good managers it will inevitably cover the same ground...

Soldier_Of_The_White_Army · **Posted:** Fri May 04, 2007 5:09 pm

At the risk of recieving one of Mich's backhanders! :wink:

You must consider that a thread that is in a similar vain to others will be locked with the link to the said thread purely on human judgement. That being so, others are always likely to think differently.

You have to trust in our judgement, as we always have the sites interests at heart.

Montreal Wanderer · **Posted:** Fri May 04, 2007 7:02 pm

Soldier_Of_The_White_Army wrote:

At the risk of recieving one of Mich's backhanders! :wink:

Not to worry - I'm sure he is looking for that Crazy Horse. Thanks for the explanations.

CrazyHorse · **Posted:** Fri May 04, 2007 8:17 pm

What a coffuffull!

Can I just add that there are currently no less than 10 threads that have been started about Lil' Sam and his appointment as manager, each with a slightly different spin on the subject.

sluffy · **Posted:** Fri May 04, 2007 8:19 pm

Soldier_Of_The_White_Army wrote:

Sluffy, if you're going to publicly critisise a member of the MOD crew.......

I wasn't.

Montreal Wanderer wrote:

I don't think it is a criticism so much as the initiation of a discussion of when separate threads should be used.

Correct.

Soldier_Of_The_White_Army wrote:

Mich's thread was locked because we really don't want several different threads covering the same subject,

But Mich's point of starting the new thread - and which I agreed with was because -

sluffy wrote:

Mich did state half way down the thread this -

"I started a new thread of to ask the question about do number twos make good number 1s? If I included it in an existing post it would get lost."

I fully agree with him.

Ths Sammy Lee thread is a massive 19 pages long! - and Mich is raising a subject that is not exclusively about Sammy Lee.

Montreal Wanderer wrote:

The quesion remains of when does a subject have enough divergence from an existing thread to warrant life of its own (Sluffy's point....).

Precisely!

Dave Sutton's barnet wrote:

I can see Sluffy's point.....

Thank you.

Soldier_Of_The_White_Army wrote:

Sluffy, if you're going to publicly critisise a member of the MOD crew, you could at least do it on the right forum.

But what is the right Forum?

:conf:

The original thread was in The Trotters Forum and moved to another thread in the Trotters Forum - so should the question not be asked in the Trotters Forum also?

I certainly was not asking a question on 'Site Development' or giving any 'Feedback' - so why should I have posted my question there?

However as DSB points out -

Dave Sutton's barnet wrote:

.....but arguably if it's not BW-related shouldn't it be in Banter? As Bench says, if it's a discussion (in The Trotters forum) about whether coaches make good managers it will inevitably cover the same ground...

I actually think it was more important that the question was asked rather that which Forum it was asked in.

And finally - returning to my original point -

sluffy wrote:

Ths Sammy Lee thread is a massive 19 pages long! - and Mich is raising a subject that is not exclusively about Sammy Lee.

It is clear to me that these 'gargantuan thread's' (to borrow DSB's description) become so big that there most obviously be times when a subject does have enough divergence from the existing thread to warrant life of its own.

Are we to put everything about Sammy Lee into one Sammy Lee thread? If so why is the 'Sammy Lee's e-mail inbox' not in there also!

In my opinion this was the case with Mich's thread - hence why I believed the thread should not have been locked or merged.

If the thread did - as Bench suspect's it might have - developed into a discussion on Big Sam leaving - then that would be the right time to lock / merge the thread.

CrazyHorse · **Posted:** Fri May 04, 2007 8:24 pm

Just in case you missed my last post sluffy:

CrazyHorse wrote:

What a coffuffull!

Can I just add that there are currently no less than 10 threads that have been started about Lil' Sam and his appointment as manager, each with a slightly different spin on the subject.

Perhaps there was a genuine place for Mich's new thread. Its just we've been sorting out similar threads for a week now, all on more or less the same topic.

btw, the first reply to Mich was a post about us not needing yet another thread on the subject.

Anyway....what does everyone think about Little Sam being our new manager? :mrgreen:

Montreal Wanderer · **Posted:** Fri May 04, 2007 8:37 pm

CrazyHorse wrote:

Anyway....what does everyone think about Little Sam being our new manager? :mrgreen:

He'll be fine so long as he doesn't catch NMS - New Manager Syndrome.

CrazyHorse · **Posted:** Fri May 04, 2007 8:39 pm

Is that where he get's all over-zealous and locks the players to their positions and deletes anyone who complains? :mrgreen:

trotter · **Posted:** Sun Jul 15, 2007 4:41 pm

Lots of threads and lots of locking going on here :roll:

Zulus Thousand of em · **Posted:** Sun Jul 15, 2007 5:08 pm

trotter wrote:

Lots of threads and lots of locking going on here :roll:

Back in May. What's your point?

There are other sites out there that either (a) have a more draconian policy than TW or (b) have little or no modding input. This site has got along pretty well for quite a while with the existing policy. I'm not sure if your sniping here is constructive at all.

Why was Mich's Thread locked?

Who is online