| PAGES: «prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 next» | REPLY TO THIS THREAD QUICK REPLY START NEW THREAD |
| ChiroVette |
Aug 03, 11 at 9:37pm ^
re: Q&A, Feedback, Suggestions, Requests...
|
|
Log in to remove this sponsored message ![]() As for the whole circular debate thing, my answer to that one remains the same, as I suspect Wo Daddy Wo and Curt Connors would agree: If you guys want those topics, whether it is abortion, "non scriptural proof" for your beliefs, "Does God Exist," or whatever, then give us reason to keep them open! Guys, they are being closed because we are absolutely, unequivocally sick to death of the long-winded, circular arguments that go nowhere! We are just NOT going to allow page after page after page in sequel thread after sequel thread that basically just go round and round. When everyone on both sides of the aisle is basically saying the same things over and over again...Christians disrespecting atheists, atheists disrespecting all faith-based beliefs, and on and on, then the thread IS THE PROBLEM and needs to be tanked. Furthermore, you guys don't seem to even attempt to understand that we are allowing that type of discussion in one or two threads. But not in every single freaking thread on the front page! This is why we are sort of "rotating" them. Right now the abortion thread is active and, of course, as circular as ever! Before we had DG's thread for non-scriptural proof. When Abortion reaches 30 pages, I will close that one and Wo, Curt, or I will revive another topic. No offense, but you folks are talking like we are clamping down on all discussions and that we are running this forum intractably and without compromise, and that just isn't the case! Honestly? If that were the case, I would tank EVERY CIRCULAR thread as soon as I saw nobody was willing to move the discussion forward, and wash my hands of it. But our compromise, if you will, is allowing a certain number of these threads AND giving you 30 full pages in which to gyrate round and round. Yet you guys are making it sound like we are moderating with fascism. I started saying this above and will continue: If you want threads like "Does God Exist," "Abortion - Right Or Wrong?" "Give non scriptural arguments for your beliefs," and so on and so forth, AND you want us to allow as many sequels as needed, then you have to give us something in return. You have to POLICE YOURSELVES and keep the discussions moving forward. You have to find the will to EXTRICATE yourself from the circular trap, even if it means letting someone else you disagree with have the last word. Or better yet, contact a mod if you feel the discussions are pointless and circular and we will try to intervene. Look, I am NOT going to tank a thread because one member, say silverboner, keeps wall-o-texting in repetitive, circular fashion, but I would ask EVERYONE ELSE to not join in, to resist the temptation to go back and forth with points that have been covered so many times ON THAT VERY PAGE, let alone the entire thread. You want us to allow more religious/atheist discussions, fine. WE WANT TO ALLOW THEM. But you guys need to participate in the goal of keeping them on track and moving forward. It's up to you NOT US! quote No Vacancylol Sorry, honey. Do you need a hug? ![]() -------------------
| |
| quote quick quote edit quick edit del posts in thread report | |
| Mastix |
Aug 03, 11 at 9:58pm ^
re: Q&A, Feedback, Suggestions, Requests...
|
|
Alright ChiroVette, just give me one more chance to let you reconsider and then I swear I'll give up. XD The thing about what you're saying about "something in return" is that some of us try really hard to do just that, and we don't get anything back for it. Like myself and others have said, some of us really do discuss interesting and progressive topics in these threads, but you keep shutting them down because most other people fill it with crap. It's unreasonable to expect us to stop those people ruining the party, before those of us that are making good discussions are allowed to have our threads. We can't force people to do that. It's the internet, after all. Just please please consider it guys. You know very well some of us were having great discussions in those threads.
![]() ------------------- | |
| quote quick quote edit quick edit del posts in thread report | |
| robotbear |
Aug 03, 11 at 9:59pm ^
re: Q&A, Feedback, Suggestions, Requests...
|
quote No VacancyI'm for it. And I understand perfectly why they do it. Afterall, these guys were here when it was run by Rome and Koloth and saw the same topics that become circular here be circular there, but they went on for, how long was the one religious one? didn't it have like 15 installments and every one of them was exactly the same. I know I stopped going to most of those threads that I know are just going to be circular, because not reading silver's posts makes it so much easier to not get sucked into the circular death trap that is arguing those topics with him. Maybe the best way to appease them Chiro is to give a warning post in circular discussion and give something like a page or two page limit in which the discussion must start moving in a forward direction or it will get canned? quote MastixMost the circular ones are still given 30 pages which is the amount of pages allowed a thread until a new one is made, and you said yourself the better discussion is usually in a sub-topic/ sub-discussion. If that is the case than make a thread about that sub-topic where you and the people having the sub-discussion may continue without the party-poopers. -------------------
| |
| quote quick quote edit quick edit del posts in thread report | |
| No Vacancy |
Aug 03, 11 at 10:03pm ^
re: Q&A, Feedback, Suggestions, Requests...
|
quote ChiroVetteIts not though, is it. You're still deciding the metrics of success/failure in a way I and others don't agree with. You say it's an insurmountable problem if an argument is circular but I don't think any of us see it that way. I see it more as an unavoidable side effect of an amazing and engrossing discussion. I'm happy if it becomes circular. It doesn't seem to be a problem with anyone but the mods because while many people may argue circularly there are many who don't and enjoy things thoroughly. Furthermore these debates by their nature are never going to go anywhere, the ethics of abortion are being discussed in the highest circles and they haven't made it anywhere, you can't expect a little discussion on the Internet to best them and make progress can you? quoteYes ![]() quote robotbearSo how about you stay away from the threads if you don't enjoy the state of them and let those who don't mind it discuss them, rather than saying "I don't like it so shut it down". Noones ever going to stop them being circular, it just will always happen that way by nature of the topics. So it's a choice between leaving them open and tackling any rule breaking and disrespecting on a case by case basis as should happen with kidding anyway, and just shutting everything down so even the people that enjoyed them can't use them anymore. | |
| quote quick quote edit quick edit del posts in thread report | |
| robotbear |
Aug 03, 11 at 10:07pm ^
re: Q&A, Feedback, Suggestions, Requests...
|
quote No VacancyOf course the abortion topic is going to be circular, Chiro said that, he also said they only want one or two threads to be circular never ending topics on the first page. They want most of the first page to be topics that are actually moving forward and progressing. That is why they have the controversial topic of the month, it is one of the circular threads that is allowed and encouraged even though they know before they start it that it will be circular. -------------------
| |
| quote quick quote edit quick edit del posts in thread report | |
| Bakka |
Aug 03, 11 at 11:04pm ^
re: Q&A, Feedback, Suggestions, Requests...
|
|
Not that I think any of this discussion will result in any sort of change, but I feel like rambling.
I don't think I truly mind circular threads, sometimes they can be interesting. But the more I read them and see the same avenues of discussion over and over the less interesting they become because of their substance. That's inevitable. Though what I do sometimes find interesting is the semantics, linguistics and the discussion element of topics. Maybe it's more a personal thing but I find it fascinating watching people construct their debates and concepts and things of that nature. But other than that and something that I'm sure is more for everyone. I honestly do find that every now and then apart from the sea of unspoken agreement and constant misunderstanding and rehashing that this forum often is there really are gems of thought provocation every now and then that even appear in these grand circular debates. I do think No Vacancy made an very valid point, even though I may be bored of them mostly and so will other members who have seen the whole song and dance over and over again. That shouldn't be the criteria that we judge what people are allowed to discuss, there is no gun to our heads to read the grand circular debates and there are some people that maybe will want to discuss aspects about these grand circular topics. Anyway my philosophy to this whole forum, is simply; if people want to discuss it they should be allowed to, as long as they are civil, willing and above all else thoughtful(as in not being superficial and show that you've actually put some thought into the topic). | |
| quote quick quote edit quick edit del posts in thread report | |
| Mister MacPhisto |
Aug 03, 11 at 11:04pm ^
re: Q&A, Feedback, Suggestions, Requests...
|
|
Circular threads are closed threads. And I'm not meaning closed as in a mod comes in and shuts it down. Closed as in inaccessible. They might be perfectly fine for the few people that are incensed by this or that topic or whichever viewpoint. And the others who like to argue for the sake of arguing. But they prevent people from getting into them and getting something out them, much less contributing. Way back when Wo and I made changes this was something that was discussed and considered at length and quite heavily. They were also broad and unfocused topics. Tossing up something like Abortion: Right or Wrong? has no progression and typically challenges neither viewpoint to think outside their little boxes. Don't believe me? Look at the US Congress. Making a more focused topic promotes stronger discussion putting people in the position of needing to more closely examine their own thoughts and not just those they disagree with. That is something more challenging. Something requiring more thought. A high tide will raise all ships and all that.
The name of the place isn't Controversy Lounge. Controversial topics are all well and good, and while some might view them as the forum's bread and butter or workhorses, they are only a SMALL part of the topics available to this forum. And saying something like how if you don't like such and such thread, then stay out of it isn't to robotbear isn't helpful, No Vacancy. When people want to play that game, it invariably goes in the direction of "if you don't like the state of a forum, then stay out of it". And that leads to problems. And if the little discussion on the web shouldn't be held to a standard all because of discussion in higher circles not going anywhere, it seems you've done no more than identify discussion of the topic as essentially pointless. So why bother having a forum bogged down in pointless discussion? ------------------- ![]() Books&Lit Comics Transformers: The Movie Gundam Collectibles | |
| quote quick quote edit quick edit del posts in thread report | |
| No Vacancy |
Aug 03, 11 at 11:22pm ^
re: Q&A, Feedback, Suggestions, Requests...
|
quote Mister MacPhistoAnd how does closing the threads to everyone improve chances of a newcomer contributing? The way I see it: The old way - worst case scenario; allows only those who are incensed and like to argue for the sake of it to enjoy it The new way - allows noone to enjoy it quoteComparing the PPD from when those threads were allowed to when they were banned, I think nobody would deny there was a HUGE drop. quoteN'aw dude that's totally not a fair comparison. It's more like saying "I don't like the wii so I want to delete all wii related forums". He's just saying he doesn't get anything out of those threads so they should be deleted. He never said it was to do with the "state" of it with regards to rulebreaking etc. I agree if people want to get pissy about rules being broken then that's fair enough, but not for personal opinion about something like whether they enjoy circular debates or not. quoteNo discussion has a "point". We aren't going to achieve anything by discussing it. By the very nature of philosophy, anything philosophical cannot be "proven" or "unproven" as such. So nothing has a point. Many do it for the fun of it and the intellectual exercise of mentally jousting with others, and it's great fun. I would expect moderators of an Intellectual Exchanges forum to appreciate that. | |
| quote quick quote edit quick edit del posts in thread report | |
| Mastix |
Aug 03, 11 at 11:42pm ^
re: Q&A, Feedback, Suggestions, Requests...
|
|
Mister Macphisto, I really don't agree that the threads are inaccessible to people because of circular topics. I drop into them all the time, and in fact I think everyone does. Sure you have to read a bit to catch up, but that's true of any thread. And even so, there's always the general topic to respond to if you don't want to read all the posts. You can just drop in and give you opinion, and usually people absorb it into the discussion. I don't know where you're getting the inaccessibility idea. I remember back in the day this place was teeming with threads that were controversial and it was far more active than it is now. That made the place more accessible to me and more fun. Right now I only come here when I see the one discussion that interests me that seems pretty active. But those are few and far between because none of these topics that generate a lot of active participation are here anymore. I guess I feel like myself and others are being excluded from the forum because some people feel this place is above certain topics and discussions. Surely if people don't like the topic of a thread, they can start a different thread with a more specific discussion that will attract that demographic.
![]() ------------------- | |
| quote quick quote edit quick edit del posts in thread report | |
| robotbear |
Aug 03, 11 at 11:45pm ^
re: Q&A, Feedback, Suggestions, Requests...
|
quote No VacancyDiscussion does have a point. The point is to share your opinions, have them critiqued by others and thus form a fuller and better opinion. But the circular arguments just get to the point of "your wrong, my view of... is correct and yours is wrong." "No, your view of ... is wrong and my view is correct." that doesn't help anyone understand anyone else's stance or opinions which is the point of discussion. quote Mister MacPhistoWhen Wo, Chiro, and Curt took over as mods on this forum this way was exactly what people came into the Q&A forum and bitched about saying it was too closed off for new comers and scared away people and was boring because it was always just the exact same 2-3 people arguing the exact same topics in never ending threads. Now less than a year later it is some of you people who I do not remember seeing here under Rome and Koloth that are saying it should go back to that, even though the reason you probably started visiting this forum and actually contributing is because it stopped being that because Chiro, Curt and Wo changed it. quote No VacancyI didn't say I didn't get anything out of them. The first time these topics came up I got a lot out of them from the first 15 or so pages, but after that it became circular with no new information or discussion occurring, simply the reiteration of points already made without any kind of progression. I don't visit the threads that I know I will end up talking to silver about the exact same topic I already discussed with him in a different forum and that already went circular in that thread because there is no point. I know his argument, he knows mine on the subject, neither of us will convince the other and unless someone can manage to bring up a new point or a new view the thread has essentially become a lifeless zombie that just keeps repeating itself "BRAAIIIIINNNSSS." "BRAIIIIINNNNS." "BRAIIINNNSSS." there is no value in such a discussion and if there is somewhere embedded in the zombie repetition a topic that people are actually interested in and will have progressive conversation about than I would think it would be easier for them to just create a thread on that embedded subject rather than try to sift through all the zombie droppings to find the gems when they could just wash away the zombie droppings by creating a new thread about the gems. quote No VacancyNotice a great great many of the post from that time were from a guy named Rome, he was the mod, he stopped coming here when his modship was taken away because he was upset. Edit: Aug 03, 11 4:57pm -------------------
| |
| quote quick quote edit quick edit del posts in thread report | |
| Mister MacPhisto |
Aug 04, 11 at 12:28am ^
re: Q&A, Feedback, Suggestions, Requests...
|
|
robotbear, it was Wo and myself that initially changed things.
Though some excellent peeps came in and maintained and added to all that with Wo.Mastix, I'm going to use a comparison for circular being inaccessible that you should appreciate. An anime one. Focused topics are like Ghost in the Shell or Vampire Hunter D or Cowboy Bebop. People can get into them and know they are going somewhere. And will hopefully experience some good stuff along the way. Circular topics are like your massive franchises be they Dragonball or Gundam. The hardcore love them, the casual tend to stay away from most but might dip in a little. But the simple truth is there is often too much going on for too long for anyone to actually appreciate everything, along with knowing where to start, and then being guaranteed they will see some of the same things AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN. But no, everyone doesn't drop into those threads all the time even though you do and think everyone does. But going on about how any forum was better at some point or busier isn't really helpful now is it? ASSUMING I agreed with you I would say it wasn't due to a forum policy but due to the added presence way back when of members like KngAlaric, CleavesF, or Blackheartedwolf. I could name others and don't want to shortchange anyone, but honestly if we're shining yesteryear as preferrable those three will more than suffice. Practice and policy is merely the shape of the coastline. A high tide raises all ships (like I said earlier). Alaric was DEFINITELY a high tide. Maybe you could be a high tide too. Maybe not. Maybe someone else. Fact is, practice is how it is atm. It had quite a bit of solid thought put into it. And it will take quite a bit of solid thought to change it. And "it was more active back when" isn't it. And neither is "I liked such and such better". ANY and EVERY forum could be viewed that way. You want a change? Come up with something that the forum mods find compelling. ------------------- ![]() Books&Lit Comics Transformers: The Movie Gundam Collectibles | |
| quote quick quote edit quick edit del posts in thread report | |
| Mastix |
Aug 04, 11 at 12:50am ^
re: Q&A, Feedback, Suggestions, Requests...
|
|
Mister MacPhisto, that's what I'm trying to do, trust me. I might not be very convincing just yet, but I'm certainly trying to think of ways to get through to you on this. Because personally, I want a platform that allows me to discuss things with people without fear of interruption, whatever the topic, and I had hoped Neoseeker could provide that for me, because I really like this community. Right now, it sadly doesn't. But let's compare it to your "mainstream anime" analogy. First, I think it's a bit inaccurate, because hard-core viewers tend to watch more of those specific shows you mentioned. It's the casual ones that never get beyond the main stream like DBZ. But that's not really important, I suppose. Let's assume you're analogy is accurate for now. What current policy seems to advocate is that these main stream DBZ-type shows shouldn't be allowed. Why? What about those hardcore types that want to sate their hardcore needs? Can't they co-exist with the casual viewers? In other words, why can't their be hardcore threads AND casual threads? Members can regulate themselves in this regard, and I don't think that moderators need to step in in this case. People who don't like the heavy controversial topics like religion debate can go to other threads and delve into their specific topics.
I don't know how I can put this better. I understand you've thought about it a lot, but I dislike that it seems like the camp that likes debating because they just enjoy reading other people's formulations and enjoying the rush of argument aren't allowed to have a platform here. Maybe we should get a subforum or some kind of partition. Would there be any harm in that? It really seems like whatever demographic we have deserves some kind of platform. I'm not sure if we're a minority or not (my theory is that we're not), but I think we shouldn't be subject to the tyranny of the masses if we are. ![]() ChiroVette, I also sort of resent being insinuated as a lesser member because I enjoy these discussions. You seem to have concluded that my support of these threads means I don't have an open mind. It sounds self-gratifying to say, but I like to think I do have a very open mind, and I think members like Byzantine would happily attest to the fact that I've engaged them in meaningful and interesting debate in a thread you deemed unfit to continue. Please afford me some respect. Controversial topics can be and are discussed by some of us with complete civility and with an open mind, and we'd like to be allowed to continue those topics even when others are dancing in circles. Honestly, you continue to act as if you're doing this to bring in these superior members, but where are they? Are they being kept out by that one thread you're allowing? Because yes, I do feel like that one measly thread that gets shut down and is not allowed to have a sequel (you've said a number of times that these threads would not be afforded these) is stifling. You keep saying it's generous, but what are you losing? A little pride in having only the subjects the moderators deem worthwhile? Look, it's not like I want to have these threads so I can advance some agenda. It's not like I want to stick it to the religious people. I just enjoy debating religion because it's fascinating. For every 10 dogmatic idiot posts, there's one I find fascinating and that makes me think, and I love that. I love being challenged. I want more of that here on neo, but you've deemed the whole thing a waste of time because a bunch of people spoil the party. Edit: Aug 03, 11 6:12pm ------------------- | |
| quote quick quote edit quick edit del posts in thread report | |
| ChiroVette |
Aug 04, 11 at 12:58am ^
re: Q&A, Feedback, Suggestions, Requests...
|
quote MastixYes, in fact you do. You get the threads you like to stay open rather than get closed because they are a circular eyesore in the forum. And AGAIN, we are allowing a certain amount of them AND letting the discussions run their course. I mean, are you really going to say that we are mean for ONLY allowing the circular abortion thread to go thirty pages? lol Come on now. quote No VacancyAnd this is what I don't get...this right here! How is it an amazing discussion when the SAME THREE PEOPLE repeat the same points over and over and over again and the discussion stays stagnant? I don't get it. It is like a frustrating exercise in mundane, circuitous futility. quote No VacancyI am not going to bitchslap you for this, but I really should. (lol do I wish we had a bitchslap smiley!) Okay, seriously, you totally missed her point. What robotbear is saying is that the discussions would interest her...should interest her, but because of their direction, they are a real turn off, and I completely agree. quote Mister MacPhistoI agree with your entire post, but this point really stands out. The problem, as I said above, is that these bickering, circular threads end up being a real turn off for many people who may be lurking and not posting. I know I try to stay out of them and I have noticed that once the discussions become circular we LOSE the input many of the more intelligent and philosophical among us. So what happens? Well, we get two or three people reiterating their points ad naseam and everyone else, who might have something to say or an interest in the topic just backs away with their hands in the air, shrugs their shoulders, and says, "No way am I getting into that shit!" Robotbear, I don't even know what to say. I don't have a favorite member of this forum, but if I did it would be you! You and I don't usually agree on topics of spirituality, and that is totally cool because I enjoy your commentary and analysis even when we disagree. Everything you are saying in this thread makes perfect sense, and NOT just because you agree with me (though that, in and of itself is highly commendable. ) but because you are one of the people I am referring to when I say that threads that start getting like that are a real turn off to the best members of this forum. You, Byz, and several others used to post here all the time, and would contribute a vast wealth of not only personal information but in-depth ideology. And now, with all these circular discussions, we end up with threads stuck in verbal quicksand.This forum has a reputation of being elitist and pompous, and to some extent I am prepared to accept that, in VERY SMALL doses. Look, this is NOT an easy forum to be a vital member of, because it asks that you open your mind to new possibilities that may challenge and call into question your beliefs and ideals. But I see so little of that in any of the threads because so many people are too into their dogmas and their preconceptions. Allowing SOME circular threads is, to my way of thinking, a viable compromise. Allowing them to go 30 pages when I would prefer they not even go ONE, to be quite frank, is us trying to allow you folks to have your cake and eat it, too. The problem I see is that some people are just trying to tie our hands completely. We can't even offer you viable compromises without it invoking your ire, but instead have to allow every discussion to be as circular as the relatively few people here who argue like that want it to be! Further, we have to keep allowing sequel after sequel. That is what bothers me about the position of our detractors. You guys are acting like we are over-moderating to the point where we are clamping down discussions, but I have to ask: If I allow a circular thread to go thirty pages, how is that not downright generous if I don't even want it to go one? If I allow several threads on the front page to keep being circular, how is that not being more than fair, when what I want is to pull the plug on all of them? Wo, Curt, and I may be the mods, but this is all of our forum, yours too. And in that spirit, we have bent over backward to allow you the proverbial cake and to eat it, too. But that's not enough. Some of you guys want to back us so far into a corner where you intimate that not meeting your demands is tantamount to fascist-moderating, when you refuse to see how far we have gone to GIVE YOU places for that sort of thing. Mac said it best: "A circular discussion is a closed discussion!" and for those of you confused by his statement, he was NOT talking closed in the moderator sense, but because it is a real turn off for everyone who wants to actually DISCUSS not bicker, talk not argue, and move the discussion forward, not in circles. Edit: Mastix, I was not insinuating you were a "lesser member." In fact, I don't even know you very well at all. Edit: Aug 03, 11 6:27pm -------------------
| |
| quote quick quote edit quick edit del posts in thread report | |
| Justin Time |
Aug 04, 11 at 2:06am ^
re: Q&A, Feedback, Suggestions, Requests...
|
|
Circular threads are not circular because the same members never change their opinions and keep arguing with the same examples. They appear circular because new people join the discussion, and older members discuss increasing shades of grey. Look at all of the Does God Exist? threads (there were close to thirty last time I checked), there are new people in every single iteration. Perhaps it is not that the arguments are always circular, but that new people come in and start from the beginning again. Sure, some people are guilty of circular arguments and not reading any of the discussion, but they should be dealt with on an individual basis, not in a way that detracts from everyone's user experience.
Also, starting up controversial discussions and trying to make them specific just skews things away from the big picture. Asking "Should a teenage rape victim be allowed to consider abortion as an option with any special allowances that would not be granted to someone that was lazy, got pregnant and simply does not want the baby?" limits the discussion to that specific anecdote and facet of the much larger situation of abortion. These topics are controversial for a reason, they are moral problems that are not easily solved. Continued discussion in those large threads have allowed the exploration of a lot of grey areas. This is a philosophical forum, and not all problems should be restricted to specific real world anecdotes, and not all discussion that doesn't arrive to an immediate or unanimous conclusion is unworthy of continuous discussion (I would argue that those are the things most worthy of constant discussion). Anyways, that is not what I originally came in here to discuss. I came here because I am concerned with the moderators' recent rule of closing threads that don't have the original poster's opinion summed up lengthily enough. I can kind of see where you were coming from here, but I don't really see what was wrong with this post. So what if they expressed their ideas in a sentence or two? Willo obviously believed that we should be worried about overpopulation and stated his/her reasons in a rhetorical way. Also, I do not see the problem with introducing a broad topic in a neutral way that is uncolored by your own personal opinion. In fact, that is how a lot of people prefer to open threads. I also don't see the problem with quoting a source that puts forward an interesting question or opinion in an easily read way that you may or may not agree with and asking for discussion. In the new policy about circular threads, it is claimed that this is to make the Thinker's Lounge more accessible and new-user friendly. But simultaneously you are closing threads that aren't opened in a way that is completely academic, which discourages new users from posting. I think both policies amount to too much micromanagement of the forum and discourage participation and new members. ------------------- Awaiting Moderation | |
| quote quick quote edit quick edit del posts in thread report | |
| No Vacancy |
Aug 04, 11 at 10:04am ^
re: Q&A, Feedback, Suggestions, Requests...
|
quote ChiroVetteBut if those three people enjoy it then what's the problem? You're not exactly increasing the accessibility by closing it down are you? You're literally gaining nothing other than shutting the few people out who enjoyed it. And anyway sometimes it was the same three people for a short while but inevitably others came in and commented and started some other discussion. Back in 08 I used to pop in and pop out the whole time (on my alt account in case anyone tries to say NO U DIDN'T!) and it wasn't a problem for me. To be honest Chiro I don't remember you participating much in those threads up until I left neoseeker at the end of 2008. Maybe it's just my faulty memory so don't take it as an insult. And if this is true then I think maybe you didn't see the few gems that made the circular arguments worthwhile. Entering a circular thread it's a great and interesting challenge to break it and get your opponent to a place where he can't argue back. I remember one guy doing that with both bobbyg2 in the evolution thread and massive attack. I happen to be a good friend of that member and he has told me that these new policies will mean he is never coming back to this forum, which is a damn shame. And actually Justin Time has hit the nail on the head btw. It never felt a problem being circular and I guess it's because it wasn't truly circular it just looked like it. Hence why I wonder if Chiro not discussing much in them (again no offence meant if I remembered it wrong) maybe leads to a misperception of what it was actually like? At the end of the day if many people keep posting with intelligent posts, then it's not bothering them, so why should it be a problem? Have you made it better by getting rid of those threads altogether? And how so? Honestly I think that this policy sucks and I can't see myself posting here any more while it's in force. Edit: Aug 04, 11 3:33am | |
| quote quick quote edit quick edit del posts in thread report | |
| [All dates in (PST) time] | Threads List « Next Newest Next Oldest » |
| REPLY TO THIS THREAD QUICK REPLY START NEW THREAD | PAGES: «prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 next» |
Powered by neoforums v1.6.5b (aperture)
Copyright Neo Era Media, Inc. 1999-2013






