CherokeeGA Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 Why is it a little early if virtually everyone and their bro has been discussing it for a couple of days already? Also, imo discussing a specific potential wintry precip. event is not so much "pattern discussion" but more like "specific potential event" discussion imo...i.e., not the same thing. I think that the winter pattern discussion thread should have many of its posts talking about things like ensembles, weeklies, indices, analogs, overall model trends past, say 7 days, etc. If 90% of the posts in the winter pattern thread become devoted to the weekend ZR threat, that's the time imo for it to have its own thread. Otherwise, actual winter "pattern" posts get drowned out too easily. Again, that being said, I realize moderating isn't easy. Only because our recent track record of 7+ days models actually verifying into a real event is... spotty at best. Regardless, I'm not here to irritate the natives, nor will I get into the middle of a tit for tat about when threads should and should not be created. I merely wanted to finish reading the posts in that particular thread because I felt they were informative and I was learning something from them, and now I can't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NGA WINTER Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 If this was a gas 15 day fantasy storm I could understand locking the thread. But like Larry and others have said we have pro mets who think the potential is there for a storm. Open the thread. We are all here because we love weather and love following threats, so why lock the thread? Its not unprofessional to talk about a storm thats 6 days away. Like Brick said its not like we have had a lot to follow this winter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jburns Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 Only because our recent track record of 7+ days models actually verifying into a real event is... spotty at best. Regardless, I'm not here to irritate the natives, nor will I get into the middle of a tit for tat about when threads should and should not be created. I merely wanted to finish reading the posts in that particular thread because I felt they were informative and I was learning something from them, and now I can't. Check again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GaWx Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 Only because our recent track record of 7+ days models actually verifying into a real event is... spotty at best. Regardless, I'm not here to irritate the natives, nor will I get into the middle of a tit for tat about when threads should and should not be created. I merely wanted to finish reading the posts in that particular thread because I felt they were informative and I was learning something from them, and now I can't. I understand. However, even if it doesn't verify, is that a tragedy? How is that bad? At least the main winter pattern discussion thread is less cluttered with what in hindsight would turn out to be a false alarm. IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CherokeeGA Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 Check again. Thank you!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frazdaddy Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 I think 5 days is soon enough. We wil see what the euro says at 12z. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
burgertime Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 My problem is the manner in which it was started. Brick just came on, saw some posts and decided to make a thread with no real input into it or reasoning for why the thread was created. Just "lol ice" basically. I don't think there is a problem with creating a thread but if you're going to create one you need to either be able to back up why it is being created or there needs to reasonable evidence that the threat actually exists. Brick could argue for neither. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GaWx Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 Can't make everyone happy. Read the first posts in the thread. I even got an e-mail about deleting it. Personally I favor the 5 day rule. OK, now I see why you deleted it with several posters objecting to it as well as the email. I had not seen the thread. So, it seems a bit more understandable to me now. As I said, I know moderating isn't easy and the difficulty is appreciated. However, I will still say that always going by a five day rule can be too strict due to situations like this (once so many are already discussing a particular threat) because it drowns out other subjects in the main winter pattern discussion thread. What if someone wants to talk about the trend of ENSO, QBO, AO, NAO, MJO, PNA, etc. for example? So, in effect, I'm saying I don't agree with those first few posts objecting to Brick's new thread. Oh well, we can't all be happy as you said. But at least we can voice our opinions in banter. All this having been said, I'll admit that this threat is still very much up in the air as far as whether or not it turns into something of significance. The 0Z Euro said forget about it, for example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cold Rain Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 IMO, it's not about one specific thread. In a normal winter, 7-10-15 day threats show up all winter long...sometimes within 2 or 3 days of each other. How many of those actually pan out? Would it be ok to start a thread for every single one of those? Any given one of them could have a number of mets and hobbyists and weenies talking about them, regardless of whether or not they're 7 or 10 days away and regardless of whether or not they have broad-based model support. The Pattern thread was created as a way of discussing the general pattern as well as any threats that showed up in the LR, so saying it gets cluttered up with threat-specific conversation is not quite right, because that's part of the purpose of the thread...or it has been. Thinking about it more, in this case, this thread probably was ok because it's the first time something has gotten this close (how sad is that) since we've gotten into winter. And everyone is excited about it. But in a normal winter, there should be at least some framework to adhere to, shouldn't there? Otherwise, you have the potential for threads about everything all over the place, and that can be just as aggravating of a thing. In the end, there won't be perfect agreement on it. But a little bit of order to the process doesn't hurt anything, IMO. Anyway, that's my view, which is no more correct than any other opinion that's been put forth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strongwxnc Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 Good point.. My problem is the manner in which it was started. Brick just came on, saw some posts and decided to make a thread with no real input into it or reasoning for why the thread was created. Just "lol ice" basically. I don't think there is a problem with creating a thread but if you're going to create one you need to either be able to back up why it is being created or there needs to reasonable evidence that the threat actually exists. Brick could argue for neither. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GaWx Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 My problem is the manner in which it was started. Brick just came on, saw some posts and decided to make a thread with no real input into it or reasoning for why the thread was created. Just "lol ice" basically. I don't think there is a problem with creating a thread but if you're going to create one you need to either be able to back up why it is being created or there needs to reasonable evidence that the threat actually exists. Brick could argue for neither. Isn't there already reasonable evidence of at least a threat? A threat doesn't necessariy mean a likelihood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue_Ridge_Escarpment Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 I don't get the big deal here. This is a message board in which weather enthusiasts post and read about upcoming weather events or a pattern. If someone wants to create a new thread then so be it, it's not like we can only have so many threads per month. If you don't think it is a legit threat then don't go to that thread to read or discuss, it's not preventing anyone from reading another thread they prefer to read. Geez, feels like I'm back in junior high. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cold Rain Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 OK, now I see why you deleted it with several posters objecting to it as well as the email. I had not seen the thread. So, it seems a bit more understandable to me now. As I said, I know moderating isn't easy and the difficulty is appreciated. However, I will still say that always going by a five day rule can be too strict due to situations like this (once so many are already discussing a particular threat) because it drowns out other subjects in the main winter pattern discussion thread. What if someone wants to talk about the trend of ENSO, QBO, AO, NAO, MJO, PNA, etc. for example? So, in effect, I'm saying I don't agree with those first few posts objecting to Brick's new thread. Oh well, we can't all be happy as you said. But at least we can voice our opinions in banter. All this having been said, I'll admit that this threat is still very much up in the air as far as whether or not it turns into something of significance. The 0Z Euro said forget about it, for example. Who knows what the best answer is. Maybe just have no rule on it and let the mods decide if the OP gave the thread enough credibility. I mean, if a 7 day threat really has enough model support within the context of a good pattern, then should you have to wait till 5 days out to start a thread on it? Probably not. The mods can decide. I do agree with Burger, though. It seemed like the thread was just started because it's fun to start a thread. There ought to at least be half of a fraction of an attempt to support why you're saying what you're saying. Someone that's been around as long as Brick and has posted on these boards as much as he has should at least make an effort. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
superjames1992 Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 I like having different threads. The pattern thread should be for pattern discussion, IMO. Discussion of next week's potential event was crowding out pattern discussion talk. If we're just going to have one thread, then what is the point of the subforums? Why don't we just go back to one weather discussion subforum for everyone and have megathreads like we used to? It is what it is, though. No big deal or anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
burgertime Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 Isn't there already reasonable evidence of at least a threat? A threat doesn't necessariy mean a likelihood. It could certainly be debated. For me it had a lot more to do with who was creating it. Sucks but just being honest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brick Tamland Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 My problem is the manner in which it was started. Brick just came on, saw some posts and decided to make a thread with no real input into it or reasoning for why the thread was created. Just "lol ice" basically. I don't think there is a problem with creating a thread but if you're going to create one you need to either be able to back up why it is being created or there needs to reasonable evidence that the threat actually exists. Brick could argue for neither. Because people are already discussing it in the pattern thread. RAH even mentioned it today in their discussing that they are keeping an eye out for it. The reasoning was because it is a specific threat and to keep it from the pattern thread. What else do you need? Total model consensus? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
franklin NCwx Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 Now we are going to fill the banter thread on whether or not there should have been a thread or not. Then the pattern discussion thread will be filled with posts discussing the threat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
South_MountainWX Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 We live in the south people and this is a weather board i think deleting the thread was a lil harsh people seriously have nothing better to do than complain....all ive herd is this winter sucks i wish there was somthin to track well here ya go you cant have ur cake and ice cream too! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jburns Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 Because people are already discussing it in the pattern thread. RAH even mentioned it today in their discussing that they are keeping an eye out for it. The reasoning was because it is a specific threat and to keep it from the pattern thread. What else do you need? Total model consensus? This far out? Yep. For a couple of runs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
burgertime Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 Because people are already discussing it in the pattern thread. RAH even mentioned it today in their discussing that they are keeping an eye out for it. The reasoning was because it is a specific threat and to keep it from the pattern thread. What else do you need? Total model consensus? So what do you like at 5h about this setup? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brick Tamland Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 Can't make everyone happy. Read the first posts in the thread. I even got an e-mail about deleting it. Personally I favor the 5 day rule. Seems like most people want the thread open, though. And unless there is something in writing int he rules that said it has to wait until 5 days out versus 7, the it didn't violate any rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snowless in Carrollton Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 I thought it was 5 days out ? The thread says Jan 10-11 potential threat and Jan 10 is 5 days out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brick Tamland Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 Who knows what the best answer is. Maybe just have no rule on it and let the mods decide if the OP gave the thread enough credibility. I mean, if a 7 day threat really has enough model support within the context of a good pattern, then should you have to wait till 5 days out to start a thread on it? Probably not. The mods can decide. I do agree with Burger, though. It seemed like the thread was just started because it's fun to start a thread. There ought to at least be half of a fraction of an attempt to support why you're saying what you're saying. Someone that's been around as long as Brick and has posted on these boards as much as he has should at least make an effort. I didn't start it just to start a thread. I started it because we are inside 7 days and people were talking about it. East was talking about it. RAH mentioned it. I started it because it was a specific threat, and to keep it from the pattern discussion in the winter discussion thread. That's the reason I made it. I swear, it's ridiculous how strict some things are here. Some of you need to relax. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brick Tamland Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 This far out? Yep. For a couple of runs. This far out? It's inside 7 days. Whatever. If someone else had started it there would not be a problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brick Tamland Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 So what do you like at 5h about this setup? Oh, so only experts are allowed to start threads for specific storms? Is that in the rules? I already said why I started the thread and it was to keep the discussion for the specific threat out of the pattern thread. That's what others have done. Don't be a jerk about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
South_MountainWX Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 I didn't start it just to start a thread. I started it because we are inside 7 days and people were talking about it. East was talking about it. RAH mentioned it. I started it because it was a specific threat, and to keep it from the pattern discussion in the winter discussion thread. That's the reason I made it. I swear, it's ridiculous how strict some things are here. Some of you need to relax. Tell me about it...heck we were showing a torch last week for this period an look now what more do people truly expect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoDa-wx Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 This far out? It's inside 7 days. Whatever. If someone else had started it there would not be a problem. DING DING DING. Exactly what's wrong here. If burger started it this conversation wouldn't be happening. Now mods are deleting threads based on their personal preference. Lovely site. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jburns Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 I thought it was 5 days out ? The thread says Jan 10-11 potential threat and Jan 10 is 5 days out. There is no potential threat for the 10th. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue_Ridge_Escarpment Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 Abuse of power. Thread can be re-opened with a 2/3 vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GaWx Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 What if we have one thread devoted to all specific storm threats more than 5 days out..say 6-10 days or so? Or maybe 6-8 days? (i.e., all of those in one thread) Would that be a good compromise? Opinions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.