[d] Should we get rid of the megathreads?

[Aeritai]

As long as we dump the TET/Eternal Thread into Forum Seven, I'm down with that. Also, I am glad we have a Trump Bashing Mega-Thread, so I don't have to see the echo chamber on the few occasions I stop in NSG-blr.

Why do we need to dump TET into F7 for? F7 is meant for random game threads like AN threads.

[Jebslund]

Wow.

This is classic bad faith posting. I should know. I've been warned for bad faith posting. I know it when I see it. I have experience.

If you think I'm breaking rules, report me. Otherwise shut the fuck up about me and focus on the arguments.

You're one to talk. You of all people should know the mods consider reporting anything from moderation to be spam. Considering the fact that there seems to be a lack of a report from you on said "bad faith posting", we can also add hypocrisy to that list.

As long as we dump the TET/Eternal Thread into Forum Seven, I'm down with that. Also, I am glad we have a Trump Bashing Mega-Thread, so I don't have to see the echo chamber on the few occasions I stop in NSG-blr.

Why do we need to dump TET into F7 for? F7 is meant for random game threads like AN threads.

This. TET is basically the Ram's Head Saloon of NSG.

Would be funny if THIS ONE became a megathread though.... :D

I like this idea. It's So Meta, Even The Acronym

"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."

Thou knowest what I meant.

[Bombadil]

As long as we dump the TET/Eternal Thread into Forum Seven, I'm down with that. Also, I am glad we have a Trump Bashing Mega-Thread, so I don't have to see the echo chamber on the few occasions I stop in NSG-blr.

Why do we need to dump TET into F7 for? F7 is meant for random game threads like AN threads.

Originally no, it wasn't. It was set up to remove the more chatty and community threads from NSG, alas it has devolved through sheer lack of imagination into endless AN threads.

[Grenartia]

Why do we need to dump TET into F7 for? F7 is meant for random game threads like AN threads.

Originally no, it wasn't. It was set up to remove the more chatty and community threads from NSG, alas it has devolved through sheer lack of imagination into endless AN threads.

Well, the other part of it is that back in the day, before P2TM was established, and the ban on location threads, and chill/chat threads, non-NS RPs and location threads were the primary content on F7, and that was its heyday. After P2TM came along, and after the establishment of What Have You Learned Today (which was the direct precursor to TET, and the foundational reason why NSG has a chat thread), F7 went off and on between having The Flaming Wombat/The Freezing Roo, and various user-created chat threads.

But now that F7 has no location threads, no chill/chat threads, the debate niche is filled by NSG, and the non-NS RP niche is filled by P2TM, there's nothing else for F7 to have other than "X or Y, first to reach [arbitrary number] wins" and AN threads. I mean, I got my start here on F7, even had my own F7 location thread back in the day, and I can't think of any other kind of thread would fit in F7 without violating the bans on certain types of threads. If you can think of a novel kind of F7 thread, I fully encourage you to make it there.

None of this, however, is to say F7 has outlived its usefulness, there definitely seems to be a market on the forums for "endless AN threads" and "X or Y, first to reach N wins" threads. And without F7, those kinds of threads will start clogging up all the other forums.

[Hirota]

Would be funny if THIS ONE became a megathread though....

I joked about it before, but honestly given the number of times the same argument comes up with nothing new or compelling to support it, there probably should be one.

[Forsher]

Would be funny if THIS ONE became a megathread though....

I joked about it before, but honestly given the number of times the same argument comes up with nothing new or compelling to support it, there probably should be one.

This is every thread ever. Why is this now a "problem" rather than "the reality"? What changed between 2012 and 2019 where it became a bad thing to revisit ideas in new times and spaces? Why must we use the conceit... and as the feminist megathread demonstrates it really is a conceit... that we're having one constant discussion when that quite simply isn't the case?

To use a simple example... gun control before Sandy Hook was a different discussion to gun control afterwards. And now that there's been Parkland and whatever the discussion's changed. Similarly it's different when there's a contemporaneous non-American Anglosphere example (i.e. Christchurch). To pretend that these are the same conversation... instead of distinct realisations that create a new paradigm for next time... is just to ignore reality. What's more it's a way of rejecting reality that's ultimately rooted in the base arrogance that humans are special and think independently of the contexts of the conversation. We don't. We're iterative and contextual.

NSG is being slowly taken over by megathreads. It's coming at the cost of the vitality of the forum and it's led to this perverse situation where people are defending megathreads as good ideas based on the enjoyability of their threadjacks. Megathreads concentrate the discussion in the hands of the few at the cost of the many. Either participate in the megathreads or enjoy a substandard forum. And why would you want to participate in a megathread? You've got to deal with an extreme amount of clutter... obscuring what you're actually interested in (whereas "back in the day" OPs competed in a market place of ideas for survival)... distinct thread cultures and the problem of waking up when the thread's grown by 30 pages overnight or whatever (not a problem exclusive to megathreads, I admit).

There have always been compelling arguments against megathreads... and the arguments for them have always been complete fictions. It's got to the point where a megathread that has proven time and time again that there's just no demand for its existence is kept on life support. I mean, Christ, the feminist megathread was resurrected at the behest of people who don't only not use it but actively reject the notion that they do so. The thread functions no differently to the old system... except instead of a new OP with each new article that Ostro or whoever's stumbled across that invites new contributors, there's a new post that is going to be read by basically no-one.* The other megathreads are the same, it's just that they're less obviously dysfunctional because they stay active.

* Let's see... yourself, Costa, Ostro, Gallo, maybe Chessmistress, maybe Jello, Des-Bal, maybe TJ, maybe myself, Proctopeo, Mattopilos (if he's still around), maybe Gravlen, Ors Might and a handful of others (Xeno? Gormwood?). In what world is this a good thing? In a good week, that's thirteen, fifteen tops, people and what's even worse is basically none of us are feminists!

[Katganistan]

Well, the other part of it is that back in the day, before P2TM was established, and the ban on location threads, and chill/chat threads, non-NS RPs and location threads were the primary content on F7, and that was its heyday. After P2TM came along, and after the establishment of What Have You Learned Today (which was the direct precursor to TET, and the foundational reason why NSG has a chat thread), F7 went off and on between having The Flaming Wombat/The Freezing Roo, and various user-created chat threads.

But now that F7 has no location threads, no chill/chat threads, the debate niche is filled by NSG, and the non-NS RP niche is filled by P2TM, there's nothing else for F7 to have other than "X or Y, first to reach [arbitrary number] wins" and AN threads. I mean, I got my start here on F7, even had my own F7 location thread back in the day, and I can't think of any other kind of thread would fit in F7 without violating the bans on certain types of threads. If you can think of a novel kind of F7 thread, I fully encourage you to make it there.

None of this, however, is to say F7 has outlived its usefulness, there definitely seems to be a market on the forums for "endless AN threads" and "X or Y, first to reach N wins" threads. And without F7, those kinds of threads will start clogging up all the other forums.

I would extend F7's heyday through that of the Flaming Wombat (2011), but I agree with you otherwise 100%. F7 barely serves as a chill-out sort of place anymore, and while the Alternate Presidents Game was pretty cool this past winter, that was about it.

I also agree with Forsher about megathreads. Having a couple of megathreads, such as for the Olympics or for the USA presidential elections, is fine, but as it stands there's little interesting variety of discussion in NSG, and it's the same few posters spamming up the megathreads with the same kind of back-and-forth just to increase their post counts rather than the variety we had on the NSG of 2012, let alone 2007.

Vegan Perth Woman Sues Neighbours Over Noise and BBQ's
UK Politics Thread X: Boris' Big Bonkers Brexit Bash
Right-Wing Discussion Thread XVII: The Snark Enlightenment
The Ride(share)'s Almost Over in California
Atheism Discussion Thread:Tipping the Fedora
Gun Control III - The Gunnening
Evidence Based Policy
Hurricane Dorian
Is consumerism ruining us?
Hong Kong
Ave Satanas! Satanism Discussion Thread
Harry Potter Books Banned for "Real Spells and Curses"
TET: Habemus Papam!
Communism Will Save the World
On Abolition of Law Enforcement
Mentally-ill indie dev passes away amid allegations
[Abortion Thread] (YET ANOTHER POLL!) Taking measure.
What Do You Look Like? Season V
LWDT 8: Hitting the Marx
Battle for the Pink House(An Argentine Election Thread)
Trans Discussion Thread 4
Italian PM Resigns, New Coalition Formed

By my count, excluding TET, that's eight mega or discussion threads on the front page. Most posters in these threads have made the majority of their posts since the introduction of their chosen thread, despite many of them having been NS users for up to a decade, and much of the content in many of them, such as the abortion thread, is just the same few arguments thrown around back and forth among largely the same few users, and because that megathread is always option, the same arguments are constantly rehashed and there's no true opportunity for the conversation to die out.

[Grenartia]

Well, the other part of it is that back in the day, before P2TM was established, and the ban on location threads, and chill/chat threads, non-NS RPs and location threads were the primary content on F7, and that was its heyday. After P2TM came along, and after the establishment of What Have You Learned Today (which was the direct precursor to TET, and the foundational reason why NSG has a chat thread), F7 went off and on between having The Flaming Wombat/The Freezing Roo, and various user-created chat threads.

But now that F7 has no location threads, no chill/chat threads, the debate niche is filled by NSG, and the non-NS RP niche is filled by P2TM, there's nothing else for F7 to have other than "X or Y, first to reach [arbitrary number] wins" and AN threads. I mean, I got my start here on F7, even had my own F7 location thread back in the day, and I can't think of any other kind of thread would fit in F7 without violating the bans on certain types of threads. If you can think of a novel kind of F7 thread, I fully encourage you to make it there.

None of this, however, is to say F7 has outlived its usefulness, there definitely seems to be a market on the forums for "endless AN threads" and "X or Y, first to reach N wins" threads. And without F7, those kinds of threads will start clogging up all the other forums.

I would extend F7's heyday through that of the Flaming Wombat (2011), but I agree with you otherwise 100%. F7 barely serves as a chill-out sort of place anymore, and while the Alternate Presidents Game was pretty cool this past winter, that was about it.

I also agree with Forsher about megathreads. Having a couple of megathreads, such as for the Olympics or for the USA presidential elections, is fine, but as it stands there's little interesting variety of discussion in NSG, and it's the same few posters spamming up the megathreads with the same kind of back-and-forth just to increase their post counts rather than the variety we had on the NSG of 2012, let alone 2007.

Vegan Perth Woman Sues Neighbours Over Noise and BBQ's
UK Politics Thread X: Boris' Big Bonkers Brexit Bash
Right-Wing Discussion Thread XVII: The Snark Enlightenment
The Ride(share)'s Almost Over in California
Atheism Discussion Thread:Tipping the Fedora
Gun Control III - The Gunnening
Evidence Based Policy
Hurricane Dorian
Is consumerism ruining us?
Hong Kong
Ave Satanas! Satanism Discussion Thread
Harry Potter Books Banned for "Real Spells and Curses"
TET: Habemus Papam!
Communism Will Save the World
On Abolition of Law Enforcement
Mentally-ill indie dev passes away amid allegations
[Abortion Thread] (YET ANOTHER POLL!) Taking measure.
What Do You Look Like? Season V
LWDT 8: Hitting the Marx
Battle for the Pink House(An Argentine Election Thread)
Trans Discussion Thread 4
Italian PM Resigns, New Coalition Formed

By my count, excluding TET, that's eight mega or discussion threads on the front page. Most posters in these threads have made the majority of their posts since the introduction of their chosen thread, despite many of them having been NS users for up to a decade, and much of the content in many of them, such as the abortion thread, is just the same few arguments thrown around back and forth among largely the same few users, and because that megathread is always option, the same arguments are constantly rehashed and there's no true opportunity for the conversation to die out.

On the other hand, however, I remember when we'd have 7 or 8 different threads on the same subject. At least now, there's topic diversity on the front page. I remember back in 2012 when there were 4 different threads each about same-sex marriage, feminism, abortion, the latest mass shooting, [republicans getting pissy about Obama], and whether or not atheism is good. And that's just about all you'd ever see on the front page.

Occasionally you'd see a few threads pop up at the same time about the merits of capitalism or communism or socialism. But they were all separate threads, each different case being debated couldn't be tied in with some other related thread, at least not without being considered a threadjack. You couldn't make a point about the cake bakery in Florida refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding in the thread dedicated to the cake bakery in Colorado doing the same thing, especially when there was already a thread about the Florida bakery.

[Forsher]

On the other hand, however, I remember when we'd have 7 or 8 different threads on the same subject. At least now, there's topic diversity on the front page. I remember back in 2012 when there were 4 different threads each about same-sex marriage, feminism, abortion, the latest mass shooting, [republicans getting pissy about Obama], and whether or not atheism is good. And that's just about all you'd ever see on the front page.

Why are we using anecdotes when we can be so much more systematic? This is exactly why I created that Evidence Based Policy thread! People, by and large, do not have empirical mindsets. Not that I want to claim I do. I mean, I only thought of doing this because I was dissatisfied with Gren's methodology.

Let's look at as close as possible* to 1 Feb and 1 August from 2012 to now via the wayback machine. Similar Topics/Threads excludes Megathreads in the table even though I'm sure you'll agree that Ron Paul and the Republican Primaries are similar. I do not count different sports/tournaments (e.g. OIympics vs American Football) as similar. (Megathreads are excluded since by implication of Gren's point they define diversity.)

The Strict Count consists of topics that have no particular reason to exist for ages and ages. The Loose Counts includes the sports leagues threads, TET and the various "Non-English Language Threads" as well.

* Meaning, ideally in Feb/Aug and if no options there I'll look at Jan/Mar or Jul/Sep.

Date	Total Threads	Pinned	Strict Count	Loose Count	Similar Topics	Similar Threads
17 Feb 2012	23	3	3	6	0	0
3 Aug 2012	24	1	1	5	0	0
1 Feb 2013	24	0	0	4	1	2
3 Aug 2013	22	0	1	3	1	3
12 Feb 2013	23	0	2	3	2	4
26 Jul 2014	22	0	3	5	0	0
7 Feb 2015	22	0	3	5	1	2
18 Aug 2015	21	0	8	10	0	0
17 Feb 2016	22	0	6	10	0	0
12 Aug 2016	22	0	8	11	0	0
12 May 2017	22	0	6	10	0	0
3 Aug 2017	22	0	8	9	2	5
1 Mar 2018	22	0	7	8	0	0
17 Apr 2019	22	0	7	9	0	0

If you ignore that we have a Islamic, Christian and Jewish thread... if you ignore that we have a RWDT and a Libertarian Thread... if you ignore that there are still threads with titles like Syndicalism coexisting with the LWDT... if if you ignore that there are often LGBT and/or Transgender mega and normal threads at the same time... and the table above does... then you can claim the following:

• megathreads have exploded in number since 2015
• however, megathreads might be less of a problem in quantitative terms now than they were two years ago
• part of the problem with megathreads might be that they're no longer pinned and hence there are fewer other threads around
• it seems unlikely that "too many of basically the same thread" was a real problem
• insofar as it was a problem we've just replaced it with more megathreads... which is where you remember that I've ignored how much duplication the megathreads themselves create

Another way to look at megathreads is to note the explosion in the number of threads with "discussion thread" in the title. This is a good way of measuring what Cekoviu called "intended" megathreads... so we've got 21 pages here, which I believe is 20 full pages. Notice that:

• page 20 has threads from 2011/12
• page 15 2013/14
• page 10 2015/16
• page 5 2017/18
• page 1 only 2019

The conclusion I'd draw from this is that people use "discussion thread" differently now. After four years of megathreads people are now more interested in these than other kinds of threads.

Note also the Traditionalist Discussion Thread... which was locked because it was too similar to the RWDT concept with the additional comment that greater depth might come to the RWDT were the stuff in the TDT folded in. That is, good threads are being locked in part to try and make the megathreads better. That's a perverse outcome.

Conclusions?

• the RDWT and LWDTs to go... on the basis they are nothing more than chat threads (you know it, I know it, everybody knows it)... note the concomitant decrease in TET activity since the RDWTs ballooning
• the Abrahamic threads combined... they're discussions, not arguments so it's fine
• the MAGAthread's parameters narrowed so that it is more specifically about Trump and doesn't end up with more general topics like the possibility of recession in it
• a purge of the current pinned threads to allow the pinning of the US elections megathread
• the gun control thread wound up... there wasn't really a problem with letting the gun incident threads become gun control after page 20 or whatever... there's only so many times you can go "this is so upsetting" or "did they catch them yet?"
• renaming discussion threads that are about various issues within big umbrellas (e.g. the Christian Discussion Thread) to "General [Umbrella] Thread" and leaving discussion to mean "discussion of" (because it encourages chatty behaviour)
• a requirement for megathread titles to be more actively updated to reflect where the conversation in a megathread is likely to be going... active management

[United Muscovite Nations]

On the other hand, however, I remember when we'd have 7 or 8 different threads on the same subject. At least now, there's topic diversity on the front page. I remember back in 2012 when there were 4 different threads each about same-sex marriage, feminism, abortion, the latest mass shooting, [republicans getting pissy about Obama], and whether or not atheism is good. And that's just about all you'd ever see on the front page.

Why are we using anecdotes when we can be so much more systematic? This is exactly why I created that Evidence Based Policy thread! People, by and large, do not have empirical mindsets. Not that I want to claim I do. I mean, I only thought of doing this because I was dissatisfied with Gren's methodology.

Let's look at as close as possible* to 1 Feb and 1 August from 2012 to now via the wayback machine. Similar Topics/Threads excludes Megathreads in the table even though I'm sure you'll agree that Ron Paul and the Republican Primaries are similar. I do not count different sports/tournaments (e.g. OIympics vs American Football) as similar. (Megathreads are excluded since by implication of Gren's point they define diversity.)

The Strict Count consists of topics that have no particular reason to exist for ages and ages. The Loose Counts includes the sports leagues threads, TET and the various "Non-English Language Threads" as well.

* Meaning, ideally in Feb/Aug and if no options there I'll look at Jan/Mar or Jul/Sep.

Date	Total Threads	Pinned	Strict Count	Loose Count	Similar Topics	Similar Threads
17 Feb 2012	23	3	3	6	0	0
3 Aug 2012	24	1	1	5	0	0
1 Feb 2013	24	0	0	4	1	2
3 Aug 2013	22	0	1	3	1	3
12 Feb 2013	23	0	2	3	2	4
26 Jul 2014	22	0	3	5	0	0
7 Feb 2015	22	0	3	5	1	2
18 Aug 2015	21	0	8	10	0	0
17 Feb 2016	22	0	6	10	0	0
12 Aug 2016	22	0	8	11	0	0
12 May 2017	22	0	6	10	0	0
3 Aug 2017	22	0	8	9	2	5
1 Mar 2018	22	0	7	8	0	0
17 Apr 2019	22	0	7	9	0	0

If you ignore that we have a Islamic, Christian and Jewish thread... if you ignore that we have a RWDT and a Libertarian Thread... if you ignore that there are still threads with titles like Syndicalism coexisting with the LWDT... if if you ignore that there are often LGBT and/or Transgender mega and normal threads at the same time... and the table above does... then you can claim the following:

• megathreads have exploded in number since 2015
• however, megathreads might be less of a problem in quantitative terms now than they were two years ago
• part of the problem with megathreads might be that they're no longer pinned and hence there are fewer other threads around
• it seems unlikely that "too many of basically the same thread" was a real problem
• insofar as it was a problem we've just replaced it with more megathreads... which is where you remember that I've ignored how much duplication the megathreads themselves create

Another way to look at megathreads is to note the explosion in the number of threads with "discussion thread" in the title. This is a good way of measuring what Cekoviu called "intended" megathreads... so we've got 21 pages here, which I believe is 20 full pages. Notice that:

• page 20 has threads from 2011/12
• page 15 2013/14
• page 10 2015/16
• page 5 2017/18
• page 1 only 2019

The conclusion I'd draw from this is that people use "discussion thread" differently now. After four years of megathreads people are now more interested in these than other kinds of threads.

Note also the Traditionalist Discussion Thread... which was locked because it was too similar to the RWDT concept with the additional comment that greater depth might come to the RWDT were the stuff in the TDT folded in. That is, good threads are being locked in part to try and make the megathreads better. That's a perverse outcome.

Conclusions?

• the RDWT and LWDTs to go... on the basis they are nothing more than chat threads (you know it, I know it, everybody knows it)... note the concomitant decrease in TET activity since the RDWTs ballooning
• the Abrahamic threads combined... they're discussions, not arguments so it's fine
• the MAGAthread's parameters narrowed so that it is more specifically about Trump and doesn't end up with more general topics like the possibility of recession in it
• a purge of the current pinned threads to allow the pinning of the US elections megathread
• the gun control thread wound up... there wasn't really a problem with letting the gun incident threads become gun control after page 20 or whatever... there's only so many times you can go "this is so upsetting" or "did they catch them yet?"
• renaming discussion threads that are about various issues within big umbrellas (e.g. the Christian Discussion Thread) to "General [Umbrella] Thread" and leaving discussion to mean "discussion of" (because it encourages chatty behaviour)
• a requirement for megathread titles to be more actively updated to reflect where the conversation in a megathread is likely to be going... active management

The RWDT and LWDT have plenty of actual discussion.

[Grenartia]

Megathreads are excluded since by implication of Gren's point they define diversity.

For all of your annoying pedantics, and pretense at intellectual honesty, this is an incredibly obvious intentional misunderstanding of my point. I expected better from you, Forsh.

The Strict Count consists of topics that have no particular reason to exist for ages and ages.

Who made that determination, and which threads in particular were put in that category, and on what basis were they put there?

The Loose Counts includes the sports leagues threads, TET and the various "Non-English Language Threads" as well.

Why?

* Meaning, ideally in Feb/Aug and if no options there I'll look at Jan/Mar or Jul/Sep.

Based on the dates in your table, your data set is not particularly smooth. You only have 2 out of 19 captures from 2012, for instance.

part of the problem with megathreads might be that they're no longer pinned and hence there are fewer other threads around

Lolwat? If anything, that's an IMPROVEMENT from your argument's point of view (and, coincidentally, mine as well), since there's no longer artificial inflation of the number of megathreads on the front page.

it seems unlikely that "too many of basically the same thread" was a real problem

I contend this is an artifact of the limited dataset. A more thorough analysis would be to use the forum itself to compile all the topics since 2011 or so, and record the time they were posted, and the time of the last post in them, and compare topic similarities based on that.

insofar as it was a problem we've just replaced it with more megathreads

I literally just now checked the front page of General. There are 11 megathreads there right now, including TET. Out of 22 total, not counting pins. There's plenty of non-megathread topics to choose from on the front page, and as you pointed out, there has been a decrease in total megathreads since 2015.

I've ignored how much duplication the megathreads themselves create

What "duplication"? Duplicate topic megathreads aren't allowed.

The conclusion I'd draw from this is that people use "discussion thread" differently now.

Yes, and based on actually looking at the thread titles from that page, that difference is arguably for the better, unless threads like "Scorpion Discussion Thread", "Alcohol Discussion Thread", and "The Cricket Discussion Thread" are all exceptions to your "discussion thread bad" rule. Those are just a small selection from just page 20 alone.

Note also the Traditionalist Discussion Thread... which was locked because it was too similar to the RWDT concept with the additional comment that greater depth might come to the RWDT were the stuff in the TDT folded in. That is, good threads are being locked in part to try and make the megathreads better. That's a perverse outcome.

I honestly don't even fucking understand your point anymore. First, its "TOO MANY MEGATHREAD". Now, based on that statement, its "NOT ENOUGH MEGATHREAD".

Make up your mind, Forsh.

the RDWT and LWDTs to go... on the basis they are nothing more than chat threads (you know it, I know it, everybody knows it)... note the concomitant decrease in TET activity since the RDWTs ballooning

More often than not, there is actual discussion on the merits of various right wing and left wing ideas in those threads. You would know this if you actually participated in either one, but you obviously don't. I believe the term for this is "complaining about shows you don't watch". Poor form.

the Abrahamic threads combined... they're discussions, not arguments so it's fine

That's just a fucking braindead idea if I've ever heard one. We don't merge the Christian/Jewish/Muslim threads together for the same reason we don't merge their houses of worship together IRL.

the MAGAthread's parameters narrowed so that it is more specifically about Trump and doesn't end up with more general topics like the possibility of recession in it

Which is just only going to increase Moderation's burdens in moderating that thread, since they'll have to take action every time someone talks about the effects something Trump does would have. In short, it would rapidly devolve into "TRUMP GOOD" and "TRUMP BAD", with no actual discussion of WHY.

a purge of the current pinned threads to allow the pinning of the US elections megathread

That doesn't require a purge, and even if it did, those pins are generally useful. Besides, isn't one of your biggest complaints here about too many megathreads on the first page? Pinning a megathread is the antithesis of that.

a requirement for megathread titles to be more actively updated to reflect where the conversation in a megathread is likely to be going... active management

You do realize that there's a limited number of characters allowed in a thread title, right? You can't make that suggestion happen.

All in all, when it comes to the tale of "TOO MUCH MEGATHREAD", I conclude: myth busted.

This is much ado about nothing.

[Forsher]

Megathreads are excluded since by implication of Gren's point they define diversity.

For all of your annoying pedantics, and pretense at intellectual honesty, this is an incredibly obvious intentional misunderstanding of my point. I expected better from you, Forsh.

Your point is stupid.

The Strict Count consists of topics that have no particular reason to exist for ages and ages.

Who made that determination, and which threads in particular were put in that category, and on what basis were they put there?

The links are there. And also I did explain this definition.

The Loose Counts includes the sports leagues threads, TET and the various "Non-English Language Threads" as well.

Why?

Because they're concepts which inherently rely on existing across long periods of time? Because they're defined across long... or indeterminate... periods of time by nature?

But mostly because they are megathreads but Ghost Land didn't include TET as a megathread.

* Meaning, ideally in Feb/Aug and if no options there I'll look at Jan/Mar or Jul/Sep.

Based on the dates in your table, your data set is not particularly smooth. You only have 2 out of 19 captures from 2012, for instance.

The Wayback Machine has literally one save from 2018.

Obviously it would be better to include more observations but it takes quite a fair amount of time to go through even 15 different first pages.

part of the problem with megathreads might be that they're no longer pinned and hence there are fewer other threads around

Lolwat? If anything, that's an IMPROVEMENT from your argument's point of view (and, coincidentally, mine as well), since there's no longer artificial inflation of the number of megathreads on the front page.

Actually what's happened is that there are potentially 25 different topics on NSG. At the moment 3 of those are wasted with basically useless announcements. Consequently, we could have 7/25 megathreads or we can have 7/22. Which of these is worse? The latter.

it seems unlikely that "too many of basically the same thread" was a real problem

I contend this is an artifact of the limited dataset. A more thorough analysis would be to use the forum itself to compile all the topics since 2011 or so, and record the time they were posted, and the time of the last post in them, and compare topic similarities based on that.

You're welcome to run a pilot. No-one's stopping you.

insofar as it was a problem we've just replaced it with more megathreads

I literally just now checked the front page of General. There are 11 megathreads there right now, including TET. Out of 22 total, not counting pins. There's plenty of non-megathread topics to choose from on the front page, and as you pointed out, there has been a decrease in total megathreads since 2015.

11 is literally the highest "loose" count I obtained in the peak period.

Although I only counted nine myself.. I guess you count Hong Kong and the Polish Election as megathreads???

I've ignored how much duplication the megathreads themselves create

What "duplication"? Duplicate topic megathreads aren't allowed.

Again explained: if you ignore that there are still threads with titles like Syndicalism coexisting with the LWDT

The conclusion I'd draw from this is that people use "discussion thread" differently now.

Yes, and based on actually looking at the thread titles from that page, that difference is arguably for the better, unless threads like "Scorpion Discussion Thread", "Alcohol Discussion Thread", and "The Cricket Discussion Thread" are all exceptions to your "discussion thread bad" rule. Those are just a small selection from just page 20 alone.

I didn't say "Discussion Thread" bad. In fact, I am disagreeing with the notion that discussion threads indicate megathread-ness.

Note also the Traditionalist Discussion Thread... which was locked because it was too similar to the RWDT concept with the additional comment that greater depth might come to the RWDT were the stuff in the TDT folded in. That is, good threads are being locked in part to try and make the megathreads better. That's a perverse outcome.

I honestly don't even fucking understand your point anymore. First, its "TOO MANY MEGATHREAD". Now, based on that statement, its "NOT ENOUGH MEGATHREAD".

Make up your mind, Forsh.

This is because you think I think "discussion thread" = "megathread".

Maybe if you started from the position that I'm not an idiot and don't think I'm writing contradictory ideas you'd find fewer things to which I have to reply "that's not a contradiction"?

the RDWT and LWDTs to go... on the basis they are nothing more than chat threads (you know it, I know it, everybody knows it)... note the concomitant decrease in TET activity since the RDWTs ballooning

More often than not, there is actual discussion on the merits of various right wing and left wing ideas in those threads. You would know this if you actually participated in either one, but you obviously don't. I believe the term for this is "complaining about shows you don't watch". Poor form.

Bombadil has already explained in great detail why this is an idiotic position.

In particular notice the bit where Kowani was psycho-analysing posts. And I am hardly the only one with this perspective. Maybe, you know, we remember what the threads actually are like rather than what people think the threads are like? Or, maybe, we remember their failures whereas others exaggerate, in their memories, their successes. But given that TET is a shadow of itself I rather think the chat has just migrated rather than disappeared from the board so...

the Abrahamic threads combined... they're discussions, not arguments so it's fine

That's just a fucking braindead idea if I've ever heard one. We don't merge the Christian/Jewish/Muslim threads together for the same reason we don't merge their houses of worship together IRL.

Yes, because we also separate out Anglicans and Presbyterians from Methodists... and they're all Protestants.

If people are holding sermons in those threads, they should be more splintered than they are. If they're not holding sermons and are instead discussing their theologies, then adding in more similar but still distinct theologies isn't going to change much is it?

the MAGAthread's parameters narrowed so that it is more specifically about Trump and doesn't end up with more general topics like the possibility of recession in it

Which is just only going to increase Moderation's burdens in moderating that thread, since they'll have to take action every time someone talks about the effects something Trump does would have. In short, it would rapidly devolve into "TRUMP GOOD" and "TRUMP BAD", with no actual discussion of WHY.

Because megathreads are somehow different to other threads? They're not. They're just more and because of this act to suppress discussion elsewhere.

If all that can be said about Trump is Good and Bad, then why does that merit a megathread? Why is it better to have those takes prioritised instead of having people go "Here are my views on X and incidentally this is why I dislike Trump"?

a purge of the current pinned threads to allow the pinning of the US elections megathread

That doesn't require a purge, and even if it did, those pins are generally useful. Besides, isn't one of your biggest complaints here about too many megathreads on the first page? Pinning a megathread is the antithesis of that.

Again, see above.

a requirement for megathread titles to be more actively updated to reflect where the conversation in a megathread is likely to be going... active management

You do realize that there's a limited number of characters allowed in a thread title, right? You can't make that suggestion happen.

And yet some megathread OPs do quite well at this.

All in all, when it comes to the tale of "TOO MUCH MEGATHREAD", I conclude: myth busted.

This is much ado about nothing.

Yes, but on the other hand your analysis consists of ideas you haven't bothered to demonstrate (let alone implement), an inconsistency that just isn't (and, which, furthermore is very obviously not an inconsistency) and completely circuitous reasoning... we have to have a megathread and if we treated the megathread like any other thread then it would have no reason to exist, therefore we have to have the megathread.

Play up and play the game.

[Grenartia]

For all of your annoying pedantics, and pretense at intellectual honesty, this is an incredibly obvious intentional misunderstanding of my point. I expected better from you, Forsh.

Your point is stupid.

No more than yours.

Who made that determination, and which threads in particular were put in that category, and on what basis were they put there?

The links are there. And also I did explain this definition.

No, you didn't.

Why?

Because they're concepts which inherently rely on existing across long periods of time? Because they're defined across long... or indeterminate... periods of time by nature?

But mostly because they are megathreads but Ghost Land didn't include TET as a megathread.

I should have clarified. Why is there a "Loose Counts" category? And how are you defining it?

Based on the dates in your table, your data set is not particularly smooth. You only have 2 out of 19 captures from 2012, for instance.

The Wayback Machine has literally one save from 2018.

Obviously it would be better to include more observations but it takes quite a fair amount of time to go through even 15 different first pages.

I'll grant you that.

Lolwat? If anything, that's an IMPROVEMENT from your argument's point of view (and, coincidentally, mine as well), since there's no longer artificial inflation of the number of megathreads on the front page.

Actually what's happened is that there are potentially 25 different topics on NSG. At the moment 3 of those are wasted with basically useless announcements. Consequently, we could have 7/25 megathreads or we can have 7/22. Which of these is worse? The latter.

Which still doesn't explain why not having pinned megathreads is a bad thing. By your own logic, each pin reduces the number of 'moveable' threads by one.

If 7/22 megathreads is bad, then 7/21 is worse still. Unpinning them can ONLY be a good thing, and allows every thread the chance to stay on the front page on their own 'merits' (if you can consider controversy a merit).

I contend this is an artifact of the limited dataset. A more thorough analysis would be to use the forum itself to compile all the topics since 2011 or so, and record the time they were posted, and the time of the last post in them, and compare topic similarities based on that.

You're welcome to run a pilot. No-one's stopping you.

You're the one contending the status quo is a problem, not me. Therefore, the burden of proof for that claim falls on you, not me. Do your own homework.

I literally just now checked the front page of General. There are 11 megathreads there right now, including TET. Out of 22 total, not counting pins. There's plenty of non-megathread topics to choose from on the front page, and as you pointed out, there has been a decrease in total megathreads since 2015.

11 is literally the highest "loose" count I obtained in the peak period.

Although I only counted nine myself.. I guess you count Hong Kong and the Polish Election as megathreads???

No. However, since we looked at the front page at different times, that would explain it. Especially since 0300 CDT is when the forum is the most dead, and therefore, the front page megathread count is likely to be inflated compared to more active times of the day.

I've ignored how much duplication the megathreads themselves create

What "duplication"? Duplicate topic megathreads aren't allowed.

Again explained: if you ignore that there are still threads with titles like Syndicalism coexisting with the LWDT[/quote]

Not sufficiently explained: the existence of LWDT didn't create the Syndicalism thread.

Yes, and based on actually looking at the thread titles from that page, that difference is arguably for the better, unless threads like "Scorpion Discussion Thread", "Alcohol Discussion Thread", and "The Cricket Discussion Thread" are all exceptions to your "discussion thread bad" rule. Those are just a small selection from just page 20 alone.

I didn't say "Discussion Thread" bad. In fact, I am disagreeing with the notion that discussion threads indicate megathread-ness.

You didn't do a very good job of doing so, then.

I honestly don't even fucking understand your point anymore. First, its "TOO MANY MEGATHREAD". Now, based on that statement, its "NOT ENOUGH MEGATHREAD".

Make up your mind, Forsh.

This is because you think I think "discussion thread" = "megathread".

Maybe if you started from the position that I'm not an idiot and don't think I'm writing contradictory ideas you'd find fewer things to which I have to reply "that's not a contradiction"?

Maybe if you did a better job of explaining yourself, I wouldn't be suffering so many misconceptions about what you're saying?

More often than not, there is actual discussion on the merits of various right wing and left wing ideas in those threads. You would know this if you actually participated in either one, but you obviously don't. I believe the term for this is "complaining about shows you don't watch". Poor form.

Bombadil has already explained in great detail why this is an idiotic position.

He doesn't actually address any point I made.

In particular notice the bit where Kowani was psycho-analysing posts.

Who prefuted my posts, Kowani or Bombadil?

And I am hardly the only one with this perspective. Maybe, you know, we remember what the threads actually are like rather than what people think the threads are like?

Maybe UMN and I remember what the threads are actually like, rather than what you think the threads are like?

Or, maybe, we remember their failures whereas others exaggerate, in their memories, their successes.

Or perhaps you're exaggerating their failures and minimizing their successes. You like to pretend that you're above having biases, but you're not. If anything, you're more biased than you make me out to be.

But given that TET is a shadow of itself I rather think the chat has just migrated rather than disappeared from the board so...

"Do not cite the Deep Magic to me, Witch. I was there when it was written."

That's just a fucking braindead idea if I've ever heard one. We don't merge the Christian/Jewish/Muslim threads together for the same reason we don't merge their houses of worship together IRL.

Yes, because we also separate out Anglicans and Presbyterians from Methodists... and they're all Protestants.

If people are holding sermons in those threads, they should be more splintered than they are. If they're not holding sermons and are instead discussing their theologies, then adding in more similar but still distinct theologies isn't going to change much is it?

The point ->.




Your head ->.

As usual.

Which is just only going to increase Moderation's burdens in moderating that thread, since they'll have to take action every time someone talks about the effects something Trump does would have. In short, it would rapidly devolve into "TRUMP GOOD" and "TRUMP BAD", with no actual discussion of WHY.

Because megathreads are somehow different to other threads?

No. Because limiting the definition of "on-topic" discussion as severely as you suggest it should be limits the ability to meaningfully discuss the topic. If there were a thread about 2+2=4, what you're suggesting is effectively marking any discussion of the mathematical proofs that 2+2=4 as "off-topic".

They're not. They're just more and because of this act to suppress discussion elsewhere.

If all that can be said about Trump is Good and Bad, then why does that merit a megathread? Why is it better to have those takes prioritised instead of having people go "Here are my views on X and incidentally this is why I dislike Trump"?

The underlined is precisely what will be marked as off-topic by your idea. My opposition to your idea is precisely to allow people to say that.

That doesn't require a purge, and even if it did, those pins are generally useful. Besides, isn't one of your biggest complaints here about too many megathreads on the first page? Pinning a megathread is the antithesis of that.

Again, see above.

Are you even paying attention? Because your last point has nothing to do with this one.

You do realize that there's a limited number of characters allowed in a thread title, right? You can't make that suggestion happen.

And yet some megathread OPs do quite well at this.

[Citation needed]. And don't just give examples of titles that do it well, give examples of titles that don't do it well, and explain your reasoning.

All in all, when it comes to the tale of "TOO MUCH MEGATHREAD", I conclude: myth busted.

This is much ado about nothing.

Yes, but on the other hand your analysis consists of ideas you haven't bothered to demonstrate (let alone implement),

Pot, meet kettle.

an inconsistency that just isn't (and, which, furthermore is very obviously not an inconsistency) and completely circuitous reasoning...
we have to have a megathread and if we treated the megathread like any other thread then it would have no reason to exist, therefore we have to have the megathread.

I see you're just jumbling words together at this point, and praying they make sense.

Play up and play the game.

What the fuck does that even mean?

[Forsher]

Your point is stupid.

No more than yours.

If you find the necessary implication of your points to be stupid then you either do not see those implications or are wasting peoples' time by making cases you know to be stupid.

The links are there. And also I did explain this definition.

No, you didn't.

You're right. What I thought was an explanation clearly doesn't cut it:

Because they're concepts which inherently rely on existing across long periods of time? Because they're defined across long... or indeterminate... periods of time by nature?

But mostly because they are megathreads but Ghost Land didn't include TET as a megathread.

I should have clarified. Why is there a "Loose Counts" category? And how are you defining it?

Because Ghost Land didn't count threads I do call megathreads (such as TET) as megathreads I found it necessary to have at least two counts of how many megathreads there are.

As I said, threads which the single thing they're about has a necessarily have a long time scale... which in practice means either they are chat/language threads which are tied to nothing or are sports threads that follow the pattern of the sports event (usually a league that takes place over several months)... formed the loose count. The strict definition includes only all other megathreads... which are a form of thread infrastructure that doesn't reflect the nature of the subject conversation (see the gun control example). In effect, these are threads that are intended to aggregate discussion of several different OPs into one thread.

We can contrast, for example, the Cricket Discussion Thread or the Traditionalism Discussion Thread since they're ultimately no different to the Bread Thread. Just because some of them have discussion inserted in the middle and others do not, that does not mean they are otherwise multiple OPs.

This gets blurry when you consider the Hong Kong thread, for example. I think that's just a big thread. But maybe its best comparison is the Olympics thread, in which case it is probably more a megathread.

The various election threads... in principle the various "small country" election threads ought to be called megathreads if the US ones are megathreads. In practice, though, the US threads would otherwise consist of several OPs whereas Estonian, NZ or even Australian election events have never motivated multiple OPs (to my recollection).

What you have to remember... to this day... is that most of my posts are in what would today be thought of as a megathread and, what's more, one which I was instrumental in the creation of. At least, I remember encouraging Forster to make it. That could be a false memory, though.

Which still doesn't explain why not having pinned megathreads is a bad thing. By your own logic, each pin reduces the number of 'moveable' threads by one.

If 7/22 megathreads is bad, then 7/21 is worse still. Unpinning them can ONLY be a good thing, and allows every thread the chance to stay on the front page on their own 'merits' (if you can consider controversy a merit).

I'm not sure if you're misreading my posts or misreading the table.

If we were to replace the pinned threads (all of the current ones are really just one subject... wellbeing, of the self and the forum) with one pinned megathread then we'd have:

Forum Wellbeing: Writing OPs to Staying Healthy
MAGAthread MMCXVII
23 other threads

not

First Stop
Mental Health
Rules to Notice
TET

Notice how you go from 22 to 21 non-mega and non-pinned threads whereas I say pinning megathread will increase the number of those threads? Notice where I had 7/22 versus 7/25? Why do you think I'm increasing the denominator? I want the denominator to go up and I'm suggesting a policy where the denominator would increase.

You're welcome to run a pilot. No-one's stopping you.

You're the one contending the status quo is a problem, not me. Therefore, the burden of proof for that claim falls on you, not me. Do your own homework.

No... if you think an alternative methodology will change the conclusions, you need to demonstrate that.

I'm perfectly happy with the method I've chosen and you're neither showing that it's logically flawed (because it is not) nor that its conclusions are contradicted by your preferred approach. Either way, it's your problem, not mine. I repeat myself though... play up and play the game.

11 is literally the highest "loose" count I obtained in the peak period.

Although I only counted nine myself.. I guess you count Hong Kong and the Polish Election as megathreads???

No. However, since we looked at the front page at different times, that would explain it. Especially since 0300 CDT is when the forum is the most dead, and therefore, the front page megathread count is likely to be inflated compared to more active times of the day.

Oh is that what it is? All these American time-zone defenders of megathreads and everyone else criticising the fuck out of them?

Not sufficiently explained: the existence of LWDT didn't create the Syndicalism thread.

Quite... this is pedantry.

The point is that having the LWDT means that the syndicalism thread, which would exist anyway, is overlapping in content with another existing thread. The megathread creates duplication.

You didn't do a very good job of doing so, then.

Nor did I say discussion thread = bad so clearly what I write doesn't have so much bearing on what you take away from my posts, no?

Ask yourself.. why go to the trouble of putting "intended" in quote marks if I don't take an issue with the term? I agree it's an opaque way of making my point now that I look at it some hours later but there you are...

Maybe if you did a better job of explaining yourself, I wouldn't be suffering so many misconceptions about what you're saying?

This would still fail to explain why you're perceiving contradictions where I don't think there are any...

He doesn't actually address any point I made.

Your point ("complaining about shows you don't watch") and Kat's are one and the same.

In particular notice the bit where Kowani was psycho-analysing posts.

Who prefuted my posts, Kowani or Bombadil?

How on Earth is this a point to be confused about?

I can understand wondering why I'm talking about Kowani all of a sudden but given you were linked to a post by Bombadil and that link included the term Bombadil in it.

For clarity, "the bit" refers to a conversation within the RWDT that I found when engaged in what soon became that nasty business with UMN.

And I am hardly the only one with this perspective. Maybe, you know, we remember what the threads actually are like rather than what people think the threads are like?

Maybe UMN and I remember what the threads are actually like, rather than what you think the threads are like?

Or, maybe, we remember their failures whereas others exaggerate, in their memories, their successes.

Or perhaps you're exaggerating their failures and minimizing their successes. You like to pretend that you're above having biases, but you're not. If anything, you're more biased than you make me out to be.

Your point would be more convincing if I hadn't literally just made it myself...

Or, maybe, we remember their failures whereas others exaggerate, in their memories, their successes.

Literally what you just said in response to it. Really not sure what you think you're adding here.

I don't like to pretend I'm above having biases. I like to present myself as acknowledging what everyone else doesn't want to pretend applies to humanity in general or their own person in particular. It's literally the opposite to pretending to be above having biases. Whether or not you think I succeed in these presentations is another question. (I believe the term is self-demonstrating.)

In this case, I offer a second line of evidence much more consistent with my recollection than yours or UMN's... to which your response was to reference the Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe Observe:

But given that TET is a shadow of itself I rather think the chat has just migrated rather than disappeared from the board so...

"Do not cite the Deep Magic to me, Witch. I was there when it was written."

Which makes it all the odder you think the one has nothing to say about the other...

...and if you're wondering, of course I checked to see if my memory of the quote was correct.

The point ->.




Your head ->.

As usual.

And, yet, if we should keep the Islam and Christian threads separate, we should definitely keep the Protestants and Catholics in different threads...

What's good for the goose, is good for the gander. Unless it's a megathread. In that case it's special.

No. Because limiting the definition of "on-topic" discussion as severely as you suggest it should be limits the ability to meaningfully discuss the topic. If there were a thread about 2+2=4, what you're suggesting is effectively marking any discussion of the mathematical proofs that 2+2=4 as "off-topic".

Your reasoning is completely circular, as I already explained.

If there is nothing more to the topic, then it should not exist. That's the standard we apply everywhere else and it's a standard that should apply to megathreads too.

What you're suggesting is that a conversation that's ostensibly about Trump instead takes the form of a conversation about recessions or whatever. Trump is a context to inform the recession conversation, not the recession a context to inform a "he's good" "nuh-uh" conversation about Trump.

I am the last person to make this charge against. For example. I would tell you a potential argument that I see following from this... and maybe one you've made that I've misread... but it would be particularly unwise for me to state it.

Wait, what... they only reversed Happy Land's warning? Dafuq... nvm... no-one went back to strike out the original warnings, many of the appeals were successful. But note this highly relevant gem:

If you want to construe topics that narrowly, that's fine. But I do hope you'll be consistent in that everyone who didn't mention Trump and the nuclear button/nuclear arsenal in the Trump MAGAThread XI: Button, Button, Who's Got The Button? will be warned for threadjacking, including me.

And bear in mind they originally warned me for the equivalent of writing a post containing both Trump and nuclear button.

They're not. They're just more and because of this act to suppress discussion elsewhere.

If all that can be said about Trump is Good and Bad, then why does that merit a megathread? Why is it better to have those takes prioritised instead of having people go "Here are my views on X and incidentally this is why I dislike Trump"?

The underlined is precisely what will be marked as off-topic by your idea. My opposition to your idea is precisely to allow people to say that.

Well... screw it... look as the example above notes I don't think the mods should be doing that. I particularly don't think they used to (recall a large part of my arguments about megathreads are "go back to how it used to be") and there are some mods which I doubt would. But maybe you're right that the current moderation enforcement around threadjacking would be prohibitive. But that's a problem too. Except, of course, we look at Gallo's point and see that megathreads get extra leniency... or did in one case. Why are they special?

And if I get dinged for bad faith posting for saying that, I don't care. It's true.

Again, see above.

Maybe look further up to where we were talking about pinned threads?

And again... why am I saying purge if it has nothing to do with what I mean? Remember where I wrote: I'm not sure if you're misreading my posts or misreading the table. It's my posts. You're actively ignoring words I write.

Or, as I used to say in more naive times, see above.

[Citation needed]. And don't just give examples of titles that do it well, give examples of titles that don't do it well, and explain your reasoning.

Kinda hard to show that OPs are changing thread titles... I mean, how are you meant to know that I edited the title of this thread? I didn't even write "Old OP in spoiler". But if you notice that our current government was announced on a Thursday NZT and that my post was written in the wee hours of the next day, you can see when the single edit was made. So you can see that the thread title was changed to reflect the discussion shifting to the result of the election (well, the post-election).

On the other hand, that still can't prove that the old title was more accurate when the OP was initially created (i.e. prior to the election).

On the other other hand, Jesus Christ Gren, you literally edit your titles in the Trans DIscussion Thread. Didn't that use to be called something referencing the Attack Helicopter meme?

Yes, but on the other hand your analysis consists of ideas you haven't bothered to demonstrate (let alone implement),

Pot, meet kettle.

You see that table? That's called implementation. Or, at least, demonstration.

an inconsistency that just isn't (and, which, furthermore is very obviously not an inconsistency) and completely circuitous reasoning...
we have to have a megathread and if we treated the megathread like any other thread then it would have no reason to exist, therefore we have to have the megathread.

I see you're just jumbling words together at this point, and praying they make sense.

Given the above... see where I say circular reasoning... I shouldn't be surprised at this response...

Play up and play the game.

What the fuck does that even mean?

Participate fully in the activity in which you're engaged (or don't bother at all).

EDIT: I knew I said the OP was new... just not in the OP. This is obviously fairly extreme but it's not that different to OPs changing polls.

[Bears Armed]

Are you two having a 'longest post' contest?

[Grenartia]

:eyebrow:
Are you two having a 'longest post' contest?

For my part, no, I'm not, but Forsh seems to take especially perverse pleasure in drawing things out, muddling his points, being excessively pedantic, etc.

[Frisbeeteria]

Forsh seems to take especially perverse pleasure in drawing things out, muddling his points, being excessively pedantic, etc.

You both do. I'm thinking about re-titling this thread, "How to get Site Staff to ignore your possibly legitimate concerns". But that's too many characters for a title.

[Juristonia]

You could shorten it to "For the love of God, shut up"

[Hammer Britannia]

I mean, do we really need a thread every time politician X says something stupid? Or a thread every time someone wants a thread about a very general and unspecific subject like gun control, religion, abortion, or the fact the Right-Wing exists?

All it would do would create a flood of useless threads that could easily be combined into one big thread. Like... a megathread?

EDIT: I mean, for god's sake, if we had a thread every time Trump did something even mildly questionable we'd double the number of threads in NSG. And that's with Trump alone

[Jebslund]

Forsh seems to take especially perverse pleasure in drawing things out, muddling his points, being excessively pedantic, etc.

You both do. I'm thinking about re-titling this thread, "How to get Site Staff to ignore your possibly legitimate concerns". But that's too many characters for a title.

I mean, what did you expect when two players known for being condescending, arrogant, and long-winded started arguing?

[Nilrahrarfan]

Forsh seems to take especially perverse pleasure in drawing things out, muddling his points, being excessively pedantic, etc.

You both do. I'm thinking about re-titling this thread, "How to get Site Staff to ignore your possibly legitimate concerns". But that's too many characters for a title.

This is quite funny, especially with all this drama in one place.

[Celticland]

Yes. It has been years since I have been on this site and one the first things I noticed coming back today was that the forums seem to have really declined in quality and diversity of topics and ideas. The mods just tow stuff into the megathreads where the marginally-related topics which should have their own threads get lost and die in these massive echochambers. Most of the posts in these megathreads are just the same few people over and over again and they dominate these megathreads. Such dominance only further deters people with different opinions from contributing. There is hardly real conversation or debate anymore.

Bottom line, the megathreads are pointless and only serve to contain somewhat controversial topics at the expense of diversity of opinion and quality of NSG through the creation of these echochambers.

[Cekoviu]

Yes. It has been years since I have been on this site and one the first things I noticed coming back today was that the forums seem to have really declined in quality and diversity of topics and ideas. The mods just tow stuff into the megathreads where the marginally-related topics which should have their own threads get lost and die in these massive echochambers. Most of the posts in these megathreads are just the same few people over and over again and they dominate these megathreads. Such dominance only further deters people with different opinions from contributing. There is hardly real conversation or debate anymore.

Bottom line, the megathreads are pointless and only serve to contain somewhat controversial topics at the expense of diversity of opinion and quality of NSG through the creation of these echochambers.

How exactly are you aware of the extent of this problem if you just came back today? Have you been searching through months and months of NSG archives?

[Celticland]

Yes. It has been years since I have been on this site and one the first things I noticed coming back today was that the forums seem to have really declined in quality and diversity of topics and ideas. The mods just tow stuff into the megathreads where the marginally-related topics which should have their own threads get lost and die in these massive echochambers. Most of the posts in these megathreads are just the same few people over and over again and they dominate these megathreads. Such dominance only further deters people with different opinions from contributing. There is hardly real conversation or debate anymore.

Bottom line, the megathreads are pointless and only serve to contain somewhat controversial topics at the expense of diversity of opinion and quality of NSG through the creation of these echochambers.

How exactly are you aware of the extent of this problem if you just came back today? Have you been searching through months and months of NSG archives?

Yes.

[Cekoviu]

How exactly are you aware of the extent of this problem if you just came back today? Have you been searching through months and months of NSG archives?

Yes.

You must have a lot of time on your hands, wew.