[d] Should we get rid of the megathreads?

[Frisbeeteria]

I'm not in favor of getting rid of the megathreads, but this ...

Having to read through multiple threads would make their volunteer work massively harder

... is a bogus argument. Presumably there would be the same number of posts by the same number of players. Given that we request direct links to the offending post, we'd have exactly the same amount of work. If getting rid of megathreads somehow got us more active players, we'd just have to 'hire' some new mods to handle the extra traffic.

sub threads within mega threads/topics so it all stays in one mega area

Not technically possible with the current forum software. Sorry.

[United Republic Empire]

I'm not in favor of getting rid of the megathreads, but this ...

Having to read through multiple threads would make their volunteer work massively harder

... is a bogus argument. Presumably there would be the same number of posts by the same number of players. Given that we request direct links to the offending post, we'd have exactly the same amount of work. If getting rid of megathreads somehow got us more active players, we'd just have to 'hire' some new mods to handle the extra traffic.

sub threads within mega threads/topics so it all stays in one mega area

Not technically possible with the current forum software. Sorry.

You do have a point there,


-insert sad smiley face- ....aw well - one day the tech will be developed

[Great Algerstonia]

Lol no.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

I'm not in favor of getting rid of the megathreads, but this ...

Having to read through multiple threads would make their volunteer work massively harder

... is a bogus argument. Presumably there would be the same number of posts by the same number of players. Given that we request direct links to the offending post, we'd have exactly the same amount of work. If getting rid of megathreads somehow got us more active players, we'd just have to 'hire' some new mods to handle the extra traffic.

sub threads within mega threads/topics so it all stays in one mega area

Not technically possible with the current forum software. Sorry.

I suppose it's possible to do it using subforums, but Max has said 'no more subforums' if my time in moderation/technical has taught me anything.

[Bombadil]

You know.. there was a time before megathreads when not only were things relatively fine but in fact far more varied in topics. For my own part there should only be megathreads for:

1. Trump - because as others have noted too much emanates from this guy on a daily if not hourly basis to have multiple threads
2. Rolling news events - such as mass shootings or the current HK thread, some minor celebrity has died etc.,

I mean what's the point in having an RWDT and an LWDT, they're effectively TET for such adherents and we already have TET (the purpose of which has always escaped me..).

All this emanates out of the original decision to remove the community chat aspect of NSG, roll that into TET and create F7.. F7 has descended into endless, pointless AN threads and, again, I've no real idea of what TET is about though I could, at best, grant TET as a chat thread and remove the blight that is F7.

However as DI has noted, the megathreads are the long term doom of NSG.

[WayNeacTia]

This seems to be nothing more than a solution looking for a problem to fix. Why is this such an intense discussion, when there is zero chance of it being implemented?

[The Free Joy State]

I mean what's the point in having an RWDT and an LWDT, they're effectively TET for such adherents and we already have TET (the purpose of which has always escaped me..).

As someone who uses TET, please don't try to get politics into TET.

I think many of the megathreads serve a useful purpose; especially the political threads (I personally wouldn't want to wade through half a page of "Trump has tweeted" threads).

I think, as long as topics outside the scope of the megathreads and significant events are given room to breathe (which is what I've observed) the megathreads are a good way to contain debates that could go on ad infinitum and dominate NSG.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

I mean what's the point in having an RWDT and an LWDT, they're effectively TET for such adherents and we already have TET (the purpose of which has always escaped me..).

As someone who uses TET, please don't try to get politics into TET.

I think many of the megathreads serve a useful purpose; especially the political threads (I personally wouldn't want to wade through half a page of "Trump has tweeted" threads).

I think, as long as topics outside the scope of the megathreads and significant events are given room to breathe (which is what I've observed) the megathreads are a good way to contain debates that could go on ad infinitum and dominate NSG.

But this problem has literally never happened. The megathreads were a quick fix for something that wasn't a problem.

[The Free Joy State]

As someone who uses TET, please don't try to get politics into TET.

I think many of the megathreads serve a useful purpose; especially the political threads (I personally wouldn't want to wade through half a page of "Trump has tweeted" threads).

I think, as long as topics outside the scope of the megathreads and significant events are given room to breathe (which is what I've observed) the megathreads are a good way to contain debates that could go on ad infinitum and dominate NSG.

But this problem has literally never happened. The megathreads were a quick fix for something that wasn't a problem.

Oh, please...

I've nearly had issue drafts concerning abortion derailed by the abortion debate. I quite like being able to say, "If you want to discuss abortion, we have a megathread in NSG".

NSG discussions that even lightly touch -- just once -- on politics or religion frequently turn into extensive sociopolitical or theological debates. I quite like that there are places for all that to go to.

[WayNeacTia]

As someone who uses TET, please don't try to get politics into TET.

I think many of the megathreads serve a useful purpose; especially the political threads (I personally wouldn't want to wade through half a page of "Trump has tweeted" threads).

I think, as long as topics outside the scope of the megathreads and significant events are given room to breathe (which is what I've observed) the megathreads are a good way to contain debates that could go on ad infinitum and dominate NSG.

But this problem has literally never happened. The megathreads were a quick fix for something that wasn't a problem.

No... You are proposing a quick fix to something that isn't, nor has ever been a problem.

[Araraukar]

The megathreads were a quick fix for something that wasn't a problem.

That's because in Ye Olden Times of NationStates, the vast majority of people didn't carry around devices (smartphones) that they could connect to the Internet wherever, whenever. And the same went for the rest of the population; news weren't something that was shared instantly all over the Internet, or something you could comment on equally instantly. The Internet in general has grown more chatty and more reactionary. I try to stay away from NSG these days, so I'm not sure how much of that development can be seen in NS, but on some other forums I go to, it's fairly obvious.

So it's easy to say "that never happened" because we were never before in this current particular situation. Of course it never happened before because it was in the past. If you deleted the megathreads now, chances are very high it would happen now, because we live in the now.

Keep the megathreads, at least that way gun control/abortion/Trump count as threadjacks elsewhere.

This thread's title made me think you meant the reporting megathreads...

[United Republic Empire]

But this problem has literally never happened. The megathreads were a quick fix for something that wasn't a problem.

Oh, please...

I've nearly had issue drafts concerning abortion derailed by the abortion debate. I quite like being able to say, "If you want to discuss abortion, we have a megathread in NSG".

NSG discussions that even lightly touch -- just once -- on politics or religion frequently turn into extensive sociopolitical or theological debates. I quite like that there are places for all that to go to.

So effectively what you're saying is all the trump supporters, must do is start drafting issues pertaining to his daily hourly tweets.
That sounds rather.....chaotic. In a sense they could end up with thousands of "Issue Drafting Threads", each one modeled after one of trump's tweets.

[The Free Joy State]

Oh, please...

I've nearly had issue drafts concerning abortion derailed by the abortion debate. I quite like being able to say, "If you want to discuss abortion, we have a megathread in NSG".

NSG discussions that even lightly touch -- just once -- on politics or religion frequently turn into extensive sociopolitical or theological debates. I quite like that there are places for all that to go to.

So effectively what you're saying is all the trump supporters, must do is start drafting issues pertaining to his daily hourly tweets.
That sounds rather.....chaotic. In a sense they could end up with thousands of "Issue Drafting Threads", each one modeled after one of trump's tweets.

Issue drafting is separate to NSG.

Also, for the love of whatever you may believe in, don't wish that on the Issue Editors.

[The Blaatschapen]

Oh, please...

I've nearly had issue drafts concerning abortion derailed by the abortion debate. I quite like being able to say, "If you want to discuss abortion, we have a megathread in NSG".

NSG discussions that even lightly touch -- just once -- on politics or religion frequently turn into extensive sociopolitical or theological debates. I quite like that there are places for all that to go to.

So effectively what you're saying is all the trump supporters, must do is start drafting issues pertaining to his daily hourly tweets.
That sounds rather.....chaotic. In a sense they could end up with thousands of "Issue Drafting Threads", each one modeled after one of trump's tweets.

Yes please! But keep in mind that you are the leader of your own country, so it's a bit weird to get issues about stuff that "you yourself" tweeted. So maybe if a Foreign leader does it. Do we already have an issue about a foreign leader asking to buy a chunk of your country? Or to nuclear bomb a hurricane that might deviate into your territory then?

[Greater vakolicci haven]

So effectively what you're saying is all the trump supporters, must do is start drafting issues pertaining to his daily hourly tweets.
That sounds rather.....chaotic. In a sense they could end up with thousands of "Issue Drafting Threads", each one modeled after one of trump's tweets.

Yes please! But keep in mind that you are the leader of your own country, so it's a bit weird to get issues about stuff that "you yourself" tweeted. So maybe if a Foreign leader does it. Do we already have an issue about a foreign leader asking to buy a chunk of your country? Or to nuclear bomb a hurricane that might deviate into your territory then?

I'm not sure we have an issue about a proposal to buy a chunk of your country, it might work.

[The Free Joy State]

So effectively what you're saying is all the trump supporters, must do is start drafting issues pertaining to his daily hourly tweets.
That sounds rather.....chaotic. In a sense they could end up with thousands of "Issue Drafting Threads", each one modeled after one of trump's tweets.

Yes please! But keep in mind that you are the leader of your own country, so it's a bit weird to get issues about stuff that "you yourself" tweeted. So maybe if a Foreign leader does it. Do we already have an issue about a foreign leader asking to buy a chunk of your country? Or to nuclear bomb a hurricane that might deviate into your territory then?

Why, Blaat? Why?

*opens book "Fifty Ways to Serve Lamb*

And, issues inspired by things Trump did would be fine, FYI. But we do have at least one issue about a foreign leader tweeting and we don't like to be samey. So a different delivery would be fine. But probably best not to get too sidetracked, as this is not Got Issues?.

[Bombadil]

I mean what's the point in having an RWDT and an LWDT, they're effectively TET for such adherents and we already have TET (the purpose of which has always escaped me..).

As someone who uses TET, please don't try to get politics into TET.

I think many of the megathreads serve a useful purpose; especially the political threads (I personally wouldn't want to wade through half a page of "Trump has tweeted" threads).

I think, as long as topics outside the scope of the megathreads and significant events are given room to breathe (which is what I've observed) the megathreads are a good way to contain debates that could go on ad infinitum and dominate NSG.

My point is they're essentially variations of TET vaguely revolving around a premise.. and really they should be combined into a 'Political Spectrum Megathread' at best, I mean we have a Libertarian and RWDT thread that could effectively be merged if we're going to make mega topics.

Still.. ultimately the ability to create a mega thread is too easy, they should have clear definitions and criteria for creation, otherwise I can just create 'The Amphibian Megathread' for all things amphibian, that tends to devolve down to a few posters discussing the nature of Kermit and Piggy's relationship.

It's just that creating a mega thread tends to exclude the diversity of people contributing to any one topic in all its variations. That stagnates NSG as a whole into separate, exclusive communities rather than allow for anyone and everyone, newbie or antiquity, to feel as if they can put forward their opinion on any given subject.

[Bears Armed]

Do we already have an issue about a foreign leader asking to buy a chunk of your country?

Somebody recently started drafting one about you trying to buy somewhere else.

[NERVUN]

As someone who uses TET, please don't try to get politics into TET.

I think many of the megathreads serve a useful purpose; especially the political threads (I personally wouldn't want to wade through half a page of "Trump has tweeted" threads).

I think, as long as topics outside the scope of the megathreads and significant events are given room to breathe (which is what I've observed) the megathreads are a good way to contain debates that could go on ad infinitum and dominate NSG.

My point is they're essentially variations of TET vaguely revolving around a premise.. and really they should be combined into a 'Political Spectrum Megathread' at best, I mean we have a Libertarian and RWDT thread that could effectively be merged if we're going to make mega topics.

Still.. ultimately the ability to create a mega thread is too easy, they should have clear definitions and criteria for creation, otherwise I can just create 'The Amphibian Megathread' for all things amphibian, that tends to devolve down to a few posters discussing the nature of Kermit and Piggy's relationship.

It's just that creating a mega thread tends to exclude the diversity of people contributing to any one topic in all its variations. That stagnates NSG as a whole into separate, exclusive communities rather than allow for anyone and everyone, newbie or antiquity, to feel as if they can put forward their opinion on any given subject.

Time was when only Moderators could declare a megathread. Like I said, there's a difference between megathreads and the, hrmm, clique threads that are the RWDT/LWDT. Those were, originally, the bloody ask a whatever threads with a shake of the various language threads.

Personally (NOT Mod statement), I do agree with you that a number of them have slowly devolved from talking about what it means to be X, or explaining X's policy/philosophy into under the radar chat threads.

THAT said, I still feel there's some value in allowing various megathreads as is because they do provide a place for those endless philosophical/policy debates/beating dead horses that NSG so loves and that come to dominate just about any other thread on things that are even slightly related to that topic.

[Caleonia]

My point is they're essentially variations of TET vaguely revolving around a premise.. and really they should be combined into a 'Political Spectrum Megathread' at best, I mean we have a Libertarian and RWDT thread that could effectively be merged if we're going to make mega topics.

Still.. ultimately the ability to create a mega thread is too easy, they should have clear definitions and criteria for creation, otherwise I can just create 'The Amphibian Megathread' for all things amphibian, that tends to devolve down to a few posters discussing the nature of Kermit and Piggy's relationship.

It's just that creating a mega thread tends to exclude the diversity of people contributing to any one topic in all its variations. That stagnates NSG as a whole into separate, exclusive communities rather than allow for anyone and everyone, newbie or antiquity, to feel as if they can put forward their opinion on any given subject.

Time was when only Moderators could declare a megathread. Like I said, there's a difference between megathreads and the, hrmm, clique threads that are the RWDT/LWDT. Those were, originally, the bloody ask a whatever threads with a shake of the various language threads.

Personally (NOT Mod statement), I do agree with you that a number of them have slowly devolved from talking about what it means to be X, or explaining X's policy/philosophy into under the radar chat threads.

THAT said, I still feel there's some value in allowing various megathreads as is because they do provide a place for those endless philosophical/policy debates/beating dead horses that NSG so loves and that come to dominate just about any other thread on things that are even slightly related to that topic.

From my perspective, I would think that it would be a good idea for only moderators to declare megathreads unless a non-mod was granted permission to declare something a megathread from a moderator themselves.

I do agree that some mega threads do need to be cleaned out as many different threads have devolved into chaos that requires a lot of reading to understand the context of said argument. The language threads are important for the people who have difficulty/the inability to speak English.

[Giovenith]

No, we definitely need megathreads, but there is some merit is questioning what should and shouldn't be looped into them. I do also sympathize with the issue of megas tending to get dominated by a handful of players, though that seems like a fundamental issue of human nature rather than something that can be fixed with rule tweaking.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

No, we definitely need megathreads, but there is some merit is questioning what should and shouldn't be looped into them. I do also sympathize with the issue of megas tending to get dominated by a handful of players, though that seems like a fundamental issue of human nature rather than something that can be fixed with rule tweaking.

Megathreads encourage it though. They create rather intimidating huge threads that people are less likely to want to look through.

[Katganistan]

But this problem has literally never happened. The megathreads were a quick fix for something that wasn't a problem.

No. The megathreads were created to contain multiple threads on the same topic because it WAS a problem. No one wanted to see ten threads on the top page of general on abortion, or elections, or, you know, the things that ARE megathreads.

Megathreads encourage it though. They create rather intimidating huge threads that people are less likely to want to look through.

No one is obligated to jump into a thread that does not interest them. I have never been in the thread on cars, since it does not interest me. This is not a flaw in the car discussion thread.

[Jebslund]

THAT said, I still feel there's some value in allowing various megathreads as is because they do provide a place for those endless philosophical/policy debates/beating dead horses that NSG so loves and that come to dominate just about any other thread on things that are even slightly related to that topic.

NSG doesn't so much love beating dead horses as NSG loves mercilessly flaying piles of fossilized bonemeal that has been beaten so fine that its individual particles are subatomic at this point.

[Farnhamia]

THAT said, I still feel there's some value in allowing various megathreads as is because they do provide a place for those endless philosophical/policy debates/beating dead horses that NSG so loves and that come to dominate just about any other thread on things that are even slightly related to that topic.

NSG doesn't so much love beating dead horses as NSG loves mercilessly flaying piles of fossilized bonemeal that has been beaten so fine that its individual particles are subatomic at this point.

"Bone meal is a mixture of finely and coarsely ground animal bones and slaughter-house waste products.[1] It is used as an organic fertilizer for plants and as a nutritional supplement for animals. As a slow-release fertilizer, bone meal is primarily used as a source of phosphorus and protein."