Originally Posted by
essxjay
I'm sorry. You're right. You were referring to a different process -- forum management, specifically forum subdivision.
It's become clear that members are unaware that mods have a number of tools and additional BB permissions that we don't use often. Merge and delete (threads or posts) are probably the best known examples of built in menu options we may select from to keep the flow of discussion smooth and placement of topics tidy. I imagine those tools seem unremarkable and uncontroversial because they are so common? But that we may also elect to subdivide a forum to keep the flow of discussion smooth and topic placement tiday is somehow controversial or overreaching? Were posters upset because they didn't know the extent of permissions and tools available to us or because they weren't notified in greater detail about what we planned to do? (No, these aren't rhetorical questions; yes, I care about what the answers are.) That we chose to avail ourselves of existing management tools and methods for the explicit purpose of doing our jobs was rational under the circumstances.
I think that's probably it. I also bet posters would have wished to have more input in the process that transformed a forum many were very passionate about.
Note: I'm glad there was a change. TS/S was becoming unreadable. However, it makes me wary about how the combination of the CO/UA forum is going to play out. Will the mods there ask for input on how the members want their forum to be run? Or will they just institute the policies they feel are best.