Q&A, Feedback, Suggestions, Requests... - Page 3

quote Byzantine

The idea is to get new blood, as circular arguments held by the same elite group of 4-10 is intimidating to newcomers, and alienates most people who aren't part of that "group" out of the discussion. You'll also find that, when things get particularly fierce in those circular heated discussions. Alienating others from discourse, no matter the intent, is not acceptable, as anyone and everyone should feel welcome to share their thoughts.

And closing the threads does this how?! Im only arguing against the thread closures. I take your point about creating more specific threads but to me this is just intellectual shackles. Discussions need to have some degree of freedom to discuss wider implications of the topic at hand. How can one argue a specific perception of god without being allowed to discuss the nature of god itself, which would then be arguing about more than that one perception and thus illegal by your rules?

To be honest Byzantine I've noticed no more new members joining than before. All I've seen is all the old members have left and this forum dying.

quote No Vacancy

To be honest Byzantine I've noticed no more new members joining than before. All I've seen is all the old members have left and this forum dying.

I have noticed new members. I have noticed people that pop in and out like you say you used to do on and alternate account. But part of the point of closing down a thread where there is no progress is that it can free up those regular posters who are having that debate to create more new threads with more specified topics that are not 25 pages with massive block text the last 8 pages of which are only two people saying the same thing over and over and over. If those people are forced to find a different topic, then there becomes more topics available as they can/will make them. New threads are not intimidating, new members are not instantly afraid to post in them with the idea that their head might get chewed off. And again, when a circular thread is closed all you have to do is ask a mod if a topic based on it, but more specified, or of a different angle would be ok. For the most part they will probably say yes, and you can then start a new thread that will get new information and posts. Again, it is not as if these threads are being closed after 3 pages. They are letting the threads go until the full 30 allotted for any thread before a new one must be made and then just adding the stipulation that if a new one is made around that topic is has to be more specific and not as general or come at the topic from a different angle that actually helps discussion and gets better, less inane posts.

Again, as was already mentioned. They are not saying all circular threads are closed, but then the front page is full of 28 page long threads with just 3 people posting in them then it scares off new comers (sorry MisterMacPhisto , forgot who was in charge at that time ) this was exactly what was argued by a lot of people both older to the forum and newer shouldn't be the case, they wanted more accessible topics and threads, they wanted to feel like they weren't the small child tugging at the old man's coat hoping he will listen, which is generally what happens in the circular threads when anyone but the two or three posters post, it more often then not just gets ignored and they continue on with their circular debate.
As for the forum dying, that was also argued when Mac and Wo took over too, people also argued that the forum was dying because of the changes they made, but look the forum is still alive and still doing pretty well. I mean, I liked it when there was actually the rule that your post must be substantiated and backed by a link. But I know that that deters many people from posting any of their opinions, I was only able to and felt I could because I already knew a member who posted in the forum. If I had not known Byzantine when I first got on here, I would not have posted because it would have been far far too intimidating. The air of elitism has gone down a great deal since then due to the mods and their new rules and standards and I have seen more usernames then I ever did then. Both of members who were old and had stopped visiting like you and members who are knew and just started.
There is also the reason of people not coming on as much being; their lives have changed. I know I can only really be on here on holiday because when school starts I am too busy with homework and a job to have time to actually make the kinds of posts I like to make. I know Koloth had the same type of thing, his life just didn't allow for as much time on the internet anymore. Byzantine often becomes the same way when school starts because homework and grades come first. Many of the old members you remember have had 3 years for their lives to change. That could be a highschool student who used to have all sorts of free time going to college now and losing a bunch of that free time. Having a child, getting a new job with longer hours, etc. etc. Just because a member does not post quite as often does not mean they hate the way the forum is going. I mean here in 2 1/2 weeks I will probably just seem to disappear because both my job and school will start and I will have no free time. It by no means means that I dislike the forum or how it is being run, it simply means, I do not have time for the internet.

Again though, closing those threads is not saying "you may not have any kind of discussion on this topic or any discussion we deem circular." it is simply saying 'this thread has reached it's limit, if there is a branch of it or a specific part that has the ability to bud and grow then create a thread on that specific part, but this generalized thread is not progressing and people are just repeating themselves and if they were not spending so much time repeating themselves maybe they would visit more of the other threads and make them into good conversation rather than letting them die because they are too busy going "nuh uh" "yes huh".'

Again, all threads are closed when they reach 30 pages. They just asked that the next one be more specific or from a different view point to change it from the same 2 arguments being thrown back and forth between 2-3 people. It is not squashing debate, it is trying to improve it. (In the 16th through 18th century this type of thing was done in person at Salons. A woman would organize a gathering of minds, usually philosophers and doctors and things and they would discuss topics, and the matron would see to it that the discussion progressed and did not become to violent and that physical altercations did not occur. This is what the mods are trying to do, progress discussion and keep a lot of those threads from devolving into ad hominems as so many of the long circular arguments did because after more than one installment of hearing someone just say 'nuh uh my opinion is right' it quickly goes to 'nuh uh your opinion is wrong and stupid', which it is only a matter of time after that point (usually in the ones I saw only about 3-4 posts) before it gets to 'you are just being stupid' 'no your are stupid for not agreeing with me.' and devolve into flames. And that was the job of the salon matron was to keep those type of things from happening.)

For the record, graphics requests wasn't even a discussion forum, nor does it exist anymore anyways. That said, by nature it does not compare to TL.

I was and am all for eliminating the circular discussion topics. The forum isn't any different than it was during those times; all you saw in the activity was an illusion and nothing more. Two or three threads maintaining all discussion between the same core of 5 to 10 members. That is all it was and it gave the illusion that this was actually an active forum, when really it wasn't. The threads were stupid, went nowhere, and just served as a means for people to bicker back and forth endlessly. That is not what the forum was designed for. It is all nice to say that it "expands your mind" to take part in such threads, but honestly that is just a load of bullshit anyways, because none of the participants expanded their perspectives or thought outside of their little boxes at all. After literally years of dealing with it, it made more sense to just shut them down altogether. I dont agree with seeking out threads and destroying them if they dont meet an arbitrary set of rules for opening posts or if they loosely fall into the category, but the fact is that most (if not all) of those threads inevitably fall into a closed loop of mindless repetition and when that happens they deserve to be closed.

I proposed an idea to Wo and Curt in the mod only thread that I meant to implement last week but have not had the time. I will try to do it this weekend or earlier, perhaps at work tomorrow I will be able to do it. I am not going to get into details right now, but it is a little forum experiment I wanted to try and see how it goes. Wo and I talked about it and I think it's worth a shot even if it falls flat on its face lol.

quote Fatal Error

For the record, graphics requests wasn't even a discussion forum, nor does it exist anymore anyways. That said, by nature it does not compare to TL.

I was and am all for eliminating the circular discussion topics. The forum isn't any different than it was during those times; all you saw in the activity was an illusion and nothing more. Two or three threads maintaining all discussion between the same core of 5 to 10 members. That is all it was and it gave the illusion that this was actually an active forum, when really it wasn't. The threads were stupid, went nowhere, and just served as a means for people to bicker back and forth endlessly. That is not what the forum was designed for. It is all nice to say that it "expands your mind" to take part in such threads, but honestly that is just a load of bullshit anyways, because none of the participants expanded their perspectives or thought outside of their little boxes at all. After literally years of dealing with it, it made more sense to just shut them down altogether.

This is one of the things we have been trying to say, to be honest. Tedious and endlessly circular debates push people away OR WORSE they intimidate people into polarizing their opinions to one side or the other, often allowing very little middle-ground.

quote Fatal Error

I dont agree with seeking out threads and destroying them if they dont meet an arbitrary set of rules for opening posts or if they loosely fall into the category, but the fact is that most (if not all) of those threads inevitably fall into a closed loop of mindless repetition and when that happens they deserve to be closed.

Well I think you would be 100% correct if we tanked the threads based on the first post and that was that. What you may be missing, however, is that we are more than willing to re-open the thread once the OP is edited, which I believe is more than fair. So say you create a thread and it is a great potential topic but your entire OP is nothing more than a link with one sentence that basically says, "Discuss!" Then that thread would be temporarily closed and all we would ask is that you edit the first post. Now maybe this seems restrictive to you, but have you considered the fact that if the thread creator has NOTHING to say about their own topic then perhaps the thread deserves to be closed? Hell, there is one thread on the first page that I closed and told The Hobo in PM (when he asked me about it) that if the original thread creator cannot summon the will to write more than a perfunctory thread opener that he (or anyone else, for that matter) can re-create the thread. Look, if you don't agree with this policy, I respect that. BUT the way people are making this sound (or perhaps the way they are interpreting the policy) makes it sound draconian, like once we close this thread with a vacuous first post that's it, the end, soyonara, see ya, and it is never to be opened again! That would suck. All we ask is that people don't create what I like to call Drive-by Loungin' threads, where they swoop into the forum in an attempt to act like an intellectual catalyst and get other people to do their dirty-work for them. Honestly? Take a friggin' minute and write out a lousy paragraph! lol

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Robotbear, <sigh> I don't even know what to tell you and WELCOME TO MY WORLD! lol Not for anything, but I am flat-out amazed that only a very few people actually get what we are trying to say here regarding the circular threads. The most frustrating part is that people are flying in here to argue the policy and not even attempting to address the MAJOR points of the reasons why these policies are in existence. We have a few members here who have this erroneous concept of what they think we are trying to say and now that it's in their teeth, they won't loosen their clenching jaws long enough to even consider the main point.

The real irony is THIS IS PRECISELY WHAT THOSE CIRCULAR THREADS ARE LIKE! or maybe would be a better smiley.

Seriously, it is amazing to me that you and I have reiterated the main points of our arguments, and your last post sums it all up, yet NOT ONE of the detractors has even acknowledged the issues which are the backbone of the position of the mod team in this forum. It is so obvious, I don't even wish to reiterate it, because no matter what we say, the argument from the other side completely IGNORES what we have made so painfully obvious that it makes me realize that some people just want to argue and not even make a small attempt to open their minds. They have this one little tangential piece of the argument in their heads and they are NOT seeing the bigger picture. In truth, I would respect the position of my opponents in this discussion more if they AT LEAST made some attempt to argue against the actual facts of our position and not seem as if they are knee-jerk reacting to what they are misinterpreting our position as.

No Vacancy I am not disrespecting your position at all. I am simply frustrated that you guys are stunningly missing the major points of our position and quoting only the problem with the circular threads. What you described about circular arguments in your last post ONLY elucidates the problem that Wo, Curt, and I are endeavoring to solve. You are COMPLETELY IGNORING the actual solution that we came up with, which already allows you to have your cake and eat it, too.

quote Wo Daddy Wo

Some really great posts over the past couple of pages!!! So refreshing to see the members are still passionate about the forum and its rules. Bottom line is that this place desperately needs a difference of opinion to flourish. Whether it's regarding abortion or it's regarding how we handle opening and closing of threads. We've always promoted debate and this thread is no exception. Please continue to express thoughts on how the forum is being run, both pros and cons. I can assure every post is being reviewed and taken into consideration. This forum has tweaked the rules year after year and we're always on the lookout for ways to improve. We will never be able to please everyone but trust us that we are considering the bigger picture whenever changes are made.

Any time man. Haha. Seriously, thank you for continuing to listen even when we're badgering you. Even if you don't change the rules, it's incredibly gratifying that you guys have taken us seriously and responded thoroughly and with courtesy. I just think all three of you deserve props for that. I can only hope I would be as patient.

ChiroVette, ironically, I feel like you're missing a lot of the important points of my posts. I guess both sides feel a bit of a disconnect. I'm glad you've found a supporter in robotbear. Look, I get the bigger picture you guys have in mind. I'm just not convinced you're going about it effectively. I really don't feel like these threads keep any more people out than they attract. When I was young and innocent and I meandered into the forum six (almost seven) years ago, the threads that dragged me in were the controversial ones. I posted in all of those non-stop. I was new, and my thoughts then looking back were idiotic, but it was fun. Then when I got comfortable posting there, I drifted off into other threads while I waited for replies in the ones that dragged me in. There I discussed more specific topics and got into the other threads. The controversial topics brought me in, the other topics kept me busy. I don't know if others share that story, but having that anecdote makes it tough for me to grasp the feelings of members who come in and are for some strange reason intimidated by these controversial threads they don't even need to look at if they're really that troubled.

I honestly hadn't considered the argument robotbear put forth about feeling like a kid tugging at the skirts of an angry adult. But isn't that intimidation more a problem of the attitude people post with? What bothers me most is when I or someone else posts something and some pompous jerk responds wielding a derisive rhetoric and an arrogant attitude as if to look down on the person. This is often coupled with personal attacks and ad hominems. That really bothers me, and that's what I feel should be punished and prevented. There should be strict punishments for people who respond in that manner. It's that kind of antagonistic behavior that did, I agree, push me away from the forum back in the day. And it is very common to controversial threads because you're quite right, when things get circular people get impatient. One thing that's particularly bothersome to me is when people emphasize certain phrases in caps as if to yell at someone. It's petty, but I really do think that should be against forum rules. It's an intimidation tactic and it's meant to make the person back down by making them insecure. It's like raising your voice in a debate and it's just feather ruffling. You guys have made the mistake of blaming the topic for the people's problem. I think a lot of members want to talk about abortion. I personally don't give a damn about that topic, but if people want to talk about it for 1000 pages, I think they should be allowed. As long as they do it in a civil manner and don't resort to intimidation. People shouldn't chew other members out. If people can't debate calmly, they shouldn't be here. Plain and simple.

But when this kind of thing happens I feel like you guys should step in and make those people who are arguing in such a manner stop. You shouldn't stop the whole discussion. That's asking a lot more effort from you than you already put into this forum, I suppose. I do understand that it might be much simpler to merely cut the threads and prevent angry idiot arguments from developing in the first place. If you're going for the simple solution, I guess I'd have to concede, you've probably found it. I just feel like that leaves a lot of people unsatisfied.

As for the first post issue, I feel pretty convinced. I can accept that the first post thing can be very annoying. So you've got one convert there.

No Vacancy, I'm right here with you man. We may be alone on this front, but we stand together. Haha.