Threads about threads...what's up with that?

[SugarHut]

Forgive me sounding a bit stoopid.

I have noticed that when someone write a thread that refers to something previously written, people tend to comment "Thread about another thread" as if they are pointing something out...surely we all know that bit as the OP tends to mention that it is.

Just noticed a thread I was watching has been deleted with the description "TAAT" which presumably is "Thread about another thread."

I understand what that means...why is it not allowed? This may be glaringly obvious, but I honestly can't see why? Or is it when the original thread gets deleted for a more valid reason, then someone starts up a second thread, which needs deleting also, and is given the description "TAAT?" What if the original thread still exists, are you still not allowed to start a second thread discussing it?

I be confuddled.

This shouldn't be in AIBU either really should it...is there an Am I Being Stoopid?

(YABS)

I think it's to do with repeating the same points over and over agai.Also if you are new to the site, and all the threads are in reference to old threads, you wouldn't know where to start

please forgive my sodding typos!

Because its like talking about someone behind their back. If you have something to say about a thread,you should say it on that thread. Starting another thread to discuss the first is just rude.

It's not though is it....like talking behind someone's back I mean. All the threads are public viewing, so it's not really being snide and secretive. I don't see the difference between commenting on a thread, or commenting on a thread related to it?

I do see the repetition issue though, that makes sense. And the new user thing.

Ooh well said annbellelee

It is though, because the OP of the first thread isn't going to look at every single therad on the site, they are just as likely to miss it as see it.
There is a difference, whether you see it or not. And since there is an actual rule against it and you can be deleted for it, it seems the brass agree with me rather than you.

Gosh, how stroppy, do you see arguments in everything even where there are none? I'm asking what the specific reasoning behind the rule is. Not a debate about if the rule exists, as it clearly does.

You do realise they'll be slagging this thread off in the slap site, don't you?

Slap site? I am soooooo not down with the lingo

I agree with AnnabelleLee

Deal with the things that come up in the threads in which they occur.

TAATs are deleted.

If you don't like how MNHQ moderate this site (which is very light touch) then go to a site which is more in line with your views.

this is a thread about thread about a thread!

I think MNHQ also want to stop people talking about a thread that has been deleted... Like the one today where the OP was saying her sister is jealous of her because she is so successful, rich, has a DD yada yada yada.

It looked like it was someone doing a wind-up, but they dont want everyone talking about it.

If OP had really wanted to know, she'd have posted in site issues, or emailed MNHQ.

Instead, it's the umpteenth thread in AIBU (since the influx) whining about the MN norms.

Christ what a lot of attitude over nonsense. At what point did anyone actually read what I wrote and determine I think it's either wrong to moderate this way, or that I don't think it even happens?

Jeeeeeeez.

Bangs head against wall and awaits someone helpful who READS the OP.

I'm telling you that reasoning, and you are disagreeing. However I've seen posts from Hq, in Site Stuff (where this thread should be), and I am right.

So,you're welcome.

Bangs head against wall and awaits someone helpful who READS the OP

Not been here long then?

this is a thread about thread about a thread!

Just what I was about to say. My head has exploded!

Christ!!! I give not two shites about any other thread. Nor am I mentioning any. I am asking my own independent question!!

I want to know the reason WHY threads about other threads are not allowed. For pure curiosity. No other motive.

I think it's a stupid rule

You asked a question, you got an answer. So what the fuck is all the drama about?

So the MN rule is actually "no threads about threads because it's like talking behind someone's back"

I just presumed that was your interpretation and not the MN official reason, because it sounds a bit, well, too playground?

Drama is not coming from me. Sad that I even have to point that out.

You have your answer:

(1) if it is taking the contents of one thread to another so that people can talk (usually rudely) about people on the original thread

or

(2) a new thread about a thread that has been deleted

Neither are a very good idea and tend to be deleted, because them's the rules and if you don't like them take it up with MNHQ instead of yelling at people on here

Sugar, I think these responses are bizarre...