Q&A, Feedback, Suggestions, Requests... - Page 2

Well the mods are normal members, too, and we are not just posting as mods but as members. Look, honestly, let's just be clear about bumping threads: If you see a discussion that is five or even ten years old and it is a really rocking discussion with a whole bunch of pages of intense discussion that just sort of fell by the wayside to the back of the forum, then go ahead and bump it. This forum is not going to be regulated as strictly, with regard to bumping threads as, say a game forum. However, if you see a thread with one or two pages of all right to mediocre discussion from FIVE years ago? Come on now. Just create a new topic already.

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 Vacancy

quote ChiroVette

As for the point that Mastix brought up

Hey, I brought it up

lol Sorry, honey. Do you need a hug?

quote No Vacancy

To be honest Chiro it seems like every member I've talked to or seen talk about this issue is against it.

I'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 Mastix

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.

Most 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 No Vacancy

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?

Of 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.

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?

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.

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.

quote Mastix

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.

Yes, 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 Vacancy

Its 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.

And 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 Vacancy

So how about you stay away from the threads if you don't enjoy the state of them

I 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 MacPhisto

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.

I 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.

quote ChiroVette

And 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.

But 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.