* * *     JREF Forum Thread  * * *

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Thread : AGW Mandate Double Edged Sword
Started at 9th June 2010 03:50 AM by 3bodyproblem
Visit at http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=177649
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 1]
Author : 3bodyproblem
Date : 9th June 2010 03:50 AM
Thread Title : AGW Mandate Double Edged Sword

This new AGW thread mandate is utter nonsense. No one has defined what the moderated "general discussion" thread is supposed to contain.

Case in point the Arctic sea ice anomaly. The natural thread drift led SOMEONE OTHER THAN MYSELF to bring up the Antarctic sea ice anomaly. The discussion progressed to a discussion of the correlation between the two anomalies, of which there were many participants.

So I get nailed today for derailing the thread?

First an foremost I didn't bring up this "derail", I was a participant like any other. 

Second it isn't a derail. If you google it, as the original member who initiated the discussion most likely did, the two anomalies are cited in at least 1 journal source. It's pretty much impossible to discuss global climate change and not talk about the climate changing globally. This is a discussion board, not a freaking news outlet. The progression from "This is happening" invariably leads to "Why is this happening?".

Third and more to the point, this new mandate prohibits the creation of new threads to discuss AGW topics lest we be "gaming the system". So how can you derail a thread where the mandate is to not start a new one? If it belongs in the moderated thread then that's where it should have been put, not into AAH. Why would the discussion of the Antarctic anomaly be fit for neither existing thread? Sure the discussion may have been heated or otherwise against the MA but not all 40 some posts.

I would like to know specifically how the determination this was a "derail" was arrived at, and what criteria is being used to differentiate "general discussion" from specific topics in the AGW threads. Thanks.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 2]
Author : Dancing David
Date : 11th June 2010 02:24 AM

The mods will have to answer but perhaps it was felt to be off topic even though it had occured as part of thread drift and the context of the OP was not seen by the mod (in that drift topic).

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 3]
Author : rwguinn
Date : 11th June 2010 11:40 PM

The mods will have to answer but perhaps it was felt to be off topic even though it had occured as part of thread drift and the context of the OP was not seen by the mod (in that drift topic).
It's been 3 days, and no answer, so I guess they get to close the thread, as usual...

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Post 4]
Author : 3bodyproblem
Date : 12th June 2010 01:42 PM

The mods will have to answer but perhaps it was felt to be off topic even though it had occured as part of thread drift and the context of the OP was not seen by the mod (in that drift topic).

From what Darat said in the appeal this appears to be the case. However, it was never addressed what to do; start a new thread and risk a rule 11 violation or post in the moderated thread.

I understand their intention and support the initiative to eliminate the bickering in these threads but it would be nice to establish some guidelines for future reference.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Downloaded from JREF Forum (http://forums.randi.org) at 13th June 2010 11:17 PM.