Thread titles have become meaningless. I have to click on Roy Moore to find out we are debating St. Thomas Aquinas? His works are thought provoking and the epitome of Aristotelian logic, why not a new thread? You all must know that this is only one of dozens of examples. If something isn’t done, I see no future for this forum.
Ideally, yes, a new thread for a new topic. In practice, though, threadjacking (to one degree or another) is as old as RO, and probably internet forums in general. We could probably stand to have more coherence (which is one reason I started the consolidated immigration issues thread), but it’ll never be perfect. The question is, how much threadjacking is too much?
Do other folks prefer less thread drift? It makes some sense either way imo.
Roy Moore as Roy Moore was a dead thread eons ago, but it has worked its way across a number of subjects in the natural way conversations meander. We can start enforcing more thread discipline if folks would prefer that.
It’s definitely very high here. It doesn’t bother me much, but I get why folks might prefer much less.
OD has a point, and I’m just as guilty as the next guy.
Is hard sometimes to know just when to start a new thread, but this Roy M. thread went off the rails a long time ago.
I would say that one time for drift AND one time for a response to that drift, but any more than that (IOW, when it gets to TWO replies to that drift) it’s time to start a new thread.
Also, if the drift itself starts ANOTHER drift, it’s time to start a new thread.
I agree that drift is inevitable and we don’t want to stifle it, but a line has to be drawn somewhere. Two responses and then draw the line or drift upon drift, or if not, we get what OD is talking about.
Ok 2-0 lol I do see your point, OD. I’m game to police this, but we definitely need help with it. If you guys flag them or I see them, I’ll go in and lay down the law.