Why are the moderators closing threads like "Parliament Hill Under Attack"?
There was a pretty decent discussion going. Everyone was communicating in a positive manner and there was no rudeness between different points of view.
moved to rabble reactions -CF
Agreed. It was just the sensationalistic thread title that I found obnoxious. Perhaps just a thread title change was all that was necessary, except that, strictly speaking, the first pages of the thread were really just about the news coming in about the shooting. Since there's no more news about that, the issue now is what convenient measures Harper will use the event for, hence my suggestion about the more appropriately titled second thread. Perhaps that's what MegB was thinking.
Yeah, seemed pretty clear that Meg closed it because the discussion had moved on from a "newsy" thread to an "analysis" thread, which had opened up and she wanted to prevent redundancy. Is that a problem?
Also, what's with the plural in the OP? Is there another thread I don't know about? Or is this more of a "since the beginning of time" question? IN which case the answer, as always, is "because we can!"
Sorry CF, it wasn't clear to me on why the thread was closed down.
I have notice a lot of threads being closed off for no reason, maybe it is just me.
[inserting two cents here] -- there would be less confusion if one of our practically omnipotent moderators were to sneak back into the closed thread and insert a "continued here" link at the entry announcing the thread was closing.... you know, like they used to....
bagkitty.... providing simple solutions to complex problems, since forever
Sorry WG, my comment should have said "I understood that" rather than "seemed pretty clear that." I don't think we've been closing too many threads unless things are getting quite rancorous. Haven't even closed any threads because of redundancy lately to my recollection. At any rate, it's never personal.
I thought the thread still had merit since the other new thread has become politically motivated and likely full of drama shortly.
yes, whatever the intention, the closing effectively impedes those attempting to follow an issue from its outset here - at least LINK the suppressed closed thread to the 'new and improved' one you substitute.
And I find the old title serves quite adequately still actually...the proper thing to do of course is to reopen the arbitrarily closed one and close/link your new one.
Noted, Webgear. In this case, though, I think we'll continue in the open thread.
NDPP: There was a link in the closed thread provided by jas. I agree that is best practice and usually followed.
Oh, and "aribtrarily: I don't think that word means what you think it means.
And just for good measure, I don't think its spelt the way you spelled it, Mr Smarty Pants. So there. 
Okay Catchfire, I will not post in that thread. It is all about which leader is the bravest, strongest and has the largest penis.
I agree with Webgear, and I think it's a shame we need to have a rancorous discussion on what should have been a purely administrative matter... i.e. changing the title of the original thread to make it a little less bombastic.
Webgear - please post in the open thread. I've tried to stop the crap about which leader is more heroic. I could use your help.
Seeing as I was the originator of the thread I understand and an comfortable with the reasons why the thread was closed
Some of this things are just personal judgements by the mods
No harm done as far as I am concerned
I do want to thank everyone though though for your measured responses
And in particular I wish to thank we fear and paladin1 for your input which has been very helpful again
Thanks to everyone here
Okay Catchfire, I will not post in that thread. It is all about which leader is the bravest, strongest and has the largest penis.
If the other thread's unsalvageable, Meg's thread is still open. http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/shots-on-hill
There is nothing wrong with the original thread. As jas suggested, the topic moved on to another discussion and the newer thread was linked and more relevent. If you truly miss the original thread you can still visit it.
Is this a rancorous thread? I see a reasonable complaint and a reasonable response punctuated by the usual suspects getting their usual potshots in against the horrible moderators. I don't take those personally nor seriously.
I'm sorry Webgear doesn't want to post in the new thread but hopefully discussion can move on and he will feel comfortable enough to do so.
Catchfire and Meg, this was not an attempt as rancorous thread. I was just curious why the other thread was closed based off my observations.
As onlinediscountanvils mentioned earlier, I will continue posting in Meg's original thread since it is still fresh.
Thanks for the insight and response.
I Agree with what Unionist said.
The closed thread was functioning as an non-partisan omnibus thread for the attack and the issues arising from it. The other thread begins with a partisan post from the Communist Party, and the discussion seemed to be a reaction to that rather than a more general discussion. That's why I posted the two excellent Ricochet articles in the original thread, even though the follow up thread was open. Now people won't go to the original thread, and won't see the two articles. I'd have to repost them in the new thread, which would be redundant.
The decision to close the original thread was mine alone. I did so because other threads were more current and relevent. You can still read the thread and access the great links to other media on the subject, and you have two other conversations you can participate in.
Closing.
