[d] Should we get rid of the megathreads?

by **Old Hope** » Sat Sep 07, 2019 4:10 pm

The problem is obvious:
If the topic is so large that threads that would generate significant posts on their own are merged into it and killed off as a consequence then that's bad.
A possible solution would be to allow people to apply for a split - off thread if they can reasonably argue that it
1. would get overwhelmed in the megathread
2. is a significant subtopic generating lots of attention

by **Forsher** » Sun Sep 08, 2019 12:42 am

Caleonia wrote:
Valentine Z wrote:If you're talking about Hammer, you definitely missed the joke, lol.

For the discussion itself? Well... not the kind of thing I would participate largely in, but I would just let these threads stay.

I meant the whole “being able to check entire megathreads in a day and understand what is going on” part. I just found hammer’s the most convenient to quote

You deny megathreads are dominated by the same few people? that they contain topics that would otherwise be separate threads? that they're echochambers?

Mackjaracotavon wrote:Threads like these exist for the purpose of cutting down on multiple threads about the same topic. Getting rid of them would merely make the Mods' job a whole lot harder.

Never been a problem.

The only person who's tried to prove their perspective on this found it wasn't a problem.

The people who claim it is a problem have just asserted again and again their perspective.

And the nonsense of the abortion topics. What is the difference between having 50 threads that reach 30 or 60 pages one at a time and having one thread that reaches 500 the entire time? None. Except the latter is far less accessible and means there is always an abortion thread. There is never a break from it. It is always present.

But if the threads you're not posting in aren't problems then it's all the more absurd to want a megathread...

by **Juristonia** » Sun Sep 08, 2019 4:50 am

Forsher wrote:Never been a problem.

Except it has. Hence the megathreads.

Forsher wrote:The people who claim it is a problem have just asserted again and again their perspective.

Irony is a strange concept to you, isn't it?

Forsher wrote:What is the difference between having 50 threads that reach 30 or 60 pages one at a time and having one thread that reaches 500 the entire time?

Instead of having to scroll through 50 threads to find the topics I'm interested in, I only have to scroll past one.
I mean, this is pretty simple stuff.

Forsher wrote:But if the threads you're not posting in aren't problems then it's all the more absurd to want a megathread...

Except it is, for the reason I (and many others before, throughout the thread) just gave you.

by **Shazbotdom** » Sun Sep 08, 2019 5:55 am

*comes in with his cane*

I remember a time when one presidential election had roughly 25 threads due to various things that happened during the election process. I would rather that not happen for any other subject. Hence, I would prefer for the mega threads to stay, even if I don't comment in them that often.

BTW, goddamn kids, get off my lawn!

by **Forsher** » Sun Sep 08, 2019 7:00 am

Juristonia wrote:Except it has. Hence the megathreads.

Prove it.

As to the implicit notion of "there was a problem, hence there was a solution"... I could find, like that, so many many authors pointing out how naive such a sentiment is. However their point is simple. Problems are constructed. And often there is a solution and the solution begs a problem... and hence a problem is found for it.

So, of course, you can't prove that you're right. But you can support your position. But you don't. And none of you in this thread have tried to do so. If you're right it'll be easy. If it was easy, you should have done it. If you'd have done it, you'd be right... or you'd be wrong. And that last bit is why I rather suspect you haven't. Because you know it's never been a big issue.

I, on the other hand, did try to support my position. And no matter how much you pretend I didn't, I found what I expected to find. Did I do so because I expected to find it? Maybe. That's why you were given links to where I looked. But I did that, and you haven't. And they haven't. And every time you're prompted to do so, none of you do it. Why?

Maybe I'll make it easier. What you want to find is a collection of threads about the same topic occurring at the same time. Consider this search for "abortion" within the first post of NSG topics. I've jumped to 2013, well before the "Megathread-era" as you can see from my other link. If you're right we should see multiple overlapping threads. Since I'm not here to make your argument for you... I will restrict myself to just the titles in order to determine what the threads are. Which, you know, makes sense... given that's how I'd first examine a thread anyway.

So... if your complaint is that there are two threads about abortion related news events in the same time period, this data probably agrees with you. And likewise if there are two threads which are about the abortion debate... are we really going to say that Aborting past the 20th week and Abortion: Young and Old are substantively different topics? I mean, I didn't look at the OPs and they weren't locked or merged so they probably are. But based on the thread titles alone then they're different.

But it's not a problem for NSG to have multiple "event" threads which engage with the same issues. Time was when people used to say they'd get their news from NSG. Those were better days. A more vibrant and substantially less spammy era. Except in the feminism threads. Those were toxic because the posters involved were toxic... and this toxicity is probably why they only had the same posters (but they were more vibrant than the "feminist" megathreads since in those days there were feminists in the feminist threads). Imagine thinking you could get your news from NSG today! You ought to be laughed at for being wilfully ignorant.

Is it a problem for NSG to have substantively similar OPs at the same time? If those two examples I mentioned were really (I checked, they are not) about trying to restrict the conversation to different maternal and foetal ages, is that level of discernment something NSG is better for having? Is it a problem?

Obviously the results above don't answer the empirical questions. Not my argument. Not my problem.

It is/would be a problem for NSG to consist of the same 20 threads + another 20 short lived ones for a week. Scrolling is a sign of forum health. Not scrolling is a sign of forum death. So this is my argument, therefore my work. How can I measure it? This doesn't look good, but I'm not sure it's a good measure.

Another probably dodgy measure is noting that when displaying by topic the number of posts in NSG that contain the word "the" 2018 took up approximately 75 pages and 2014 approximately 212. Surely we don't have that many megathreads? But maybe we do given how much bigger they tend to be. (Look for around pages 707/497 and 129/57.)

I also tried these searches but the results conflict and don't do exactly what I want either since they conflict with the above. They suggest NSG is not dying, though, but growing.

So what do the user states suggest mods?

Irony is a strange concept to you, isn't it?

I don't say shit I cannot support. Hence, I rarely say things that aren't true. Since you see no particular problem with doing otherwise we'll never agree.

But yeah, sure, "irony".

Instead of having to scroll through 50 threads to find the topics I'm interested in, I only have to scroll past one.
I mean, this is pretty simple stuff.

So... NSG should consist only of the topics you're interested in? What the fuck.

You've misread that. We're talking about bundling 50 threads that would reach 30 or 60 pages into a single continuous thread that stretches through time forever (with resets every 500 pages). Not 50 threads that all exist at once. I mean, why do you think I wrote"Except the latter is far less accessible and means there is always an abortion thread. There is never a break from it. It is always present"?

I'm fascinated to hear your answer, incidentally.

Except it is, for the reason I (and many others before, throughout the thread) just gave you.

The reasons you just gave were, sequentially, assertions based in an incredibly stupid view of the nature of problems and solutions, complete lies and solipsism...

by **Juristonia** » Sun Sep 08, 2019 7:37 am

At this point, you're literally just arguing for the sake of arguing.

The majority of the posters here have told you why there are megathreads, and why they'd like to keep them. Mods have told you why there are megathreads and why they'd like to keep them.
Your stubborn refusal to accept that is as pointless and tiresome as your insistence that using lots of words means you're actually saying a lot.

But I'm just glad you seem to have found a hobby you enjoy, so, knock yourself out.

by **Forsher** » Sun Sep 08, 2019 8:43 am

Juristonia wrote:At this point, you're literally just arguing for the sake of arguing.

The majority of the posters here have told you why there are megathreads, and why they'd like to keep them. Mods have told you why there are megathreads and why they'd like to keep them.
Your stubborn refusal to accept that is as pointless and tiresome as your insistence that using lots of words means you're actually saying a lot.

But I'm just glad you seem to have found a hobby you enjoy, so, knock yourself out.

Argument ad populum...

...married to pointless remarks about (well, I presume) me rather than addressing the substance of the claim.

This is why I am still here. It is because no-one even tries to say anything worth listening to. If they did then maybe my mind would change. For fuck's sake, I'm pretty sure a more thorough examination of that list of threads I found would affirm, rather than contradict, the initial impression. An impression that's amenable to the idea that megathreads are bad... provided you accept certain ideas about what is good for the forum.

by **Twilight Imperium** » Sun Sep 08, 2019 9:03 am

Forsher wrote:
Argument ad populum...

...is an entirely valid measure when we're arguing about measures on behalf of said populum. Don't be a tit

by **Forsher** » Sun Sep 08, 2019 9:32 am

Twilight Imperium wrote:
Forsher wrote:
Argument ad populum...

...is an entirely valid measure when we're arguing about measures on behalf of said populum. Don't be a tit

You'd think so, wouldn't you, except we're not. We're arguing about whether or not something happened and would happen. There is the attendant issue of whether or not whatever might've happened was "good" or "bad" but no-one is actually interested in talking about that either. Instead they come back to the unestablished empirical claim. For example, on the first page:

Caleonia wrote:I second this with more emphasis. If we got rid of megathreads we’d probably have about 100 different threads of people talking about the same thing without even knowing about it. Clumping together similar topics is important because it helps reduce the clogging of the forums and the amount of threads the moderators have to check whenever there’s an issue.

(from someone who's presumably never been around long enough to know this didn't happen)

and on the previous page (emphasis mine):

Luziyca wrote:Personally, no. I remember the days when NSG lacked megathreads. Back in those days, it was not uncommon for the front page to be covered in topics that are basically identical. When they were first introduced, it helped corral many of these topics to one place, allowing for other threads on other topics to get their turn in the limelight. They're not perfect, but it works well enough.

But of course this isn't true either since now threads get crowded out by LWDT, RWDT, TET, MagaThread, Abortion, some variety of US election thread, the religion discussion threads (three of them) and on a bad day all of the various sports and language threads 24/7. How is this different? I don't know. But people are silent. If you weren't interested in those threads last week... you're probably not going to be into them this week since no-one updates the titles to change what they look like.

Back in the day, you'd at least get one day a year where there was no abortion thread because it wasn't in the news and because most people had burnt themselves out on the previous thread. Now it's omnipresent by design.

If people started making arguments of the form "megathreads are good because NSG's purpose is to service the interests of the few over the many" and everyone believed this, then you'd have a point. But since everyone says, "Megathreads are good because they reduce the proliferation of clone threads" you do not. Hell, it's not even sufficient to say, "Megathreads are good because clone threads are bad" since you need to establish that clone threads are a Thing to justify the policy. And that latter thing is just not done.

Not that people who come to a thread in moderation after having survived four years of megathreads are going to be able to validate the statement. By the nature of the argument I make (and what I believe people like the OP and Bombadil to agree with) the majority of people left after four years of megathreads are, by definition, going to be the ones who like them. Especially when this is the attitude of the pro-megathreaders:

Wayneactia wrote:Is there anyone hold a gun to your head forcing you to use the forums. If you don't like it, leave.

Yes, Wayneactia, this is the criticism... that people don't like it (well, the consequences for the forum) and leave.

Which is, again, an empirical claim. And what statistics I can find mostly suggests a declining interest/engagement with NSG. But, as I said, there are big problems with what I can find. So it's a question for the mods to answer... assuming they have decent traffic measures. But don't you find it interesting that the most users online at once was way back in 2013?

by **Twilight Imperium** » Sun Sep 08, 2019 8:41 pm

That guy really wasn't kidding about you confusing "more words" for "saying more", was he? Anyway, let's apply some Chesterton to this:

If a man tells you that you look like a horse, punch him in the nose.
If another man tells you you look like a horse, sock him in the eye.
If a third man does it, consider having hay for lunch.

How is it that after all these people telling you you look like a horse you're not even considering being saddled?

by **Forsher** » Sun Sep 08, 2019 8:52 pm

Twilight Imperium wrote:That guy really wasn't kidding about you confusing "more words" for "saying more", was he? Anyway, let's apply some Chesterton to this:

If a man tells you that you look like a horse, punch him in the nose.
If another man tells you you look like a horse, sock him in the eye.
If a third man does it, consider having hay for lunch.

How is it that after all these people telling you you look like a horse you're not even considering being saddled?

Because they're making an empirical argument that they're not bothering to support.

That you wish to ignore the bits where I establish that they are, in fact, doing this (and not doing what you represent them to be doing) and further think that this is somehow a critique of what I'm saying (of course I'm not saying much... I'm doing precisely enough to validate the single sentence claim I'm making) is rather the problem.

Posts are always going to be short if they consist of nothing but "I'm right, you're wrong" and if you add in pointless commentary about the persons involved they don't get much longer.

Don't ask questions that have already been answered:

You'd think so, wouldn't you, except we're not. We're arguing about whether or not something happened and would happen. There is the attendant issue of whether or not whatever might've happened was "good" or "bad" but no-one is actually interested in talking about that either.

I repeat... when your argument is made of falsehoods, maybe it's time to rethink your conclusions.

Of course, the other way posts are made shorter is to ignore the points being made in them. You get away with this when everyone agrees with you (which again, does not mean you're correct).

by **The Black Forrest** » Sun Sep 08, 2019 8:55 pm

Celticland wrote: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.

I have been around here a tad longer then you. Diversity? Possibly. There have been some interesting thinkers throughout.

The megathreads eliminated “the same few people over and over again” multiple threads with the same arguments.

Diversity of opinion seems to be raised by people who get their arguments thrashed. Not suggesting you because I don’t remember you....

by **Twilight Imperium** » Sun Sep 08, 2019 8:58 pm

Forsher wrote:words

Sure, except we have multiple mods chiming in to say "yes it was a problem, that's why we did an active change to site policy and we are reaping the benefits thereof" and you're coming in with "yeah but I searched NSG so you're wrong about that".

You're advancing an unpopular position with some pretty weak evidence and wondering that you're not being taken seriously. Are you sure you know how this works?

by **Katganistan** » Sun Sep 08, 2019 9:08 pm

United Muscovite Nations wrote:There just seems to be an unwillingness by non right wing people to participate in the RWDT for some reason.

Perhaps that is something that the participants of the RWDT should ponder: what could be preventing non-right wingers from coming to the thread?

by **Forsher** » Sun Sep 08, 2019 9:27 pm

Ghost Land wrote:
Grenartia wrote:...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.

So, basically, the complaint is that topics you're not interested in continue to be discussed. In a contained manner, so there aren't MULTIPLE threads on that same topic you don't want to be discussed.

What happened here?

This post used to contain a breakdown of the front page of NSG? Why doesn't it any more?

by **Forsher** » Sun Sep 08, 2019 9:34 pm

Twilight Imperium wrote:
Forsher wrote:words

Sure, except we have multiple mods chiming in to say "yes it was a problem, that's why we did an active change to site policy and we are reaping the benefits thereof" and you're coming in with "yeah but I searched NSG so you're wrong about that".

You're advancing an unpopular position with some pretty weak evidence and wondering that you're not being taken seriously. Are you sure you know how this works?

You sure about that? You shouldn't be.

And, no, mods are not special... except presumably insofar as they might have better traffic statistics and therefore could see if the theory actually holds out (i.e. more megathreads, less forum activity)... even if you had manage to characterise their stated positions in this thread accurately.

I'm advancing an "unpopular" opinion with several different streams of evidence that support my points of view in face of absolutely no counter evidence... and you think I'm doing it wrong? dafuq

Actually, wait, you've strawmanned the argument:

Are you sure you know how this works?

That's a positive statement akin to where I say: "You get away with this when everyone agrees with you". In other words, I know how it works and I'm calling it stupid.

You're ostensibly disagreeing with a normative sentiment: "when your argument is made of falsehoods, maybe it's time to rethink your conclusions" or "I don't say shit I cannot support. Hence, I rarely say things that aren't true. Since you see no particular problem with doing otherwise we'll never agree."

Look up the is-ought problem.

by **Forsher** » Sun Sep 08, 2019 9:47 pm

The Black Forrest wrote:The megathreads eliminated “the same few people over and over again” multiple threads with the same arguments.

No, they didn't.

They took them and put them in one thread.

What is the difference between being in Abortion Thread Jan, Feb, Mar etc. etc. and having the Abortion Megathread year round?

I'll tell you... it's the demise of forum turnover. It's the end of an NSG where you could plausibly go and get news. It's a place where conversations are made basically completely inaccessible since it's the same few people making the same arguments... but exclusively in threads with hundreds of pages and no-where to start.

What is that for a new poster who's never been here before? It doesn't matter how many times you've seen that discussion on NSG, they've never been on NSG before. If you're not interested in them, quite simply don't post in them until you are. But, for them? Putting the conversation in a megathread is a big barrier to entry.

People in this thread have repeatedly voiced "got mine, screw everyone else" and been praised for it. I, on the other hand, claim this is killing the forum. I have shown evidence consistent with that prediction. It's not great evidence, I admit. But it's there.

I have similarly shown evidence that there was no consistent pattern of duplicated threads based on a sample of two threads a year between 2012 and 2017 (2018 had one available year). I have also shown that since 2015, there has been a greater and greater concentration of megathreads on the front page... reducing diversity (today's threads are going to be about 50% the same as next week's and next month's threads by design). I have suggested that these issues would be alleviated by reducing the number of pinned topics.

How we used to do megathreads wasn't a problem. What we're doing now? Is.

by **The Black Forrest** » Mon Sep 09, 2019 9:11 am

Forsher wrote:
The Black Forrest wrote:The megathreads eliminated “the same few people over and over again” multiple threads with the same arguments.

No, they didn't.

They took them and put them in one thread.

What is the difference between being in Abortion Thread Jan, Feb, Mar etc. etc. and having the Abortion Megathread year round?

I'll tell you... it's the demise of forum turnover. It's the end of an NSG where you could plausibly go and get news. It's a place where conversations are made basically completely inaccessible since it's the same few people making the same arguments... but exclusively in threads with hundreds of pages and no-where to start.

What is that for a new poster who's never been here before? It doesn't matter how many times you've seen that discussion on NSG, they've never been on NSG before. If you're not interested in them, quite simply don't post in them until you are. But, for them? Putting the conversation in a megathread is a big barrier to entry.

People in this thread have repeatedly voiced "got mine, screw everyone else" and been praised for it. I, on the other hand, claim this is killing the forum. I have shown evidence consistent with that prediction. It's not great evidence, I admit. But it's there.

I have similarly shown evidence that there was no consistent pattern of duplicated threads based on a sample of two threads a year between 2012 and 2017 (2018 had one available year). I have also shown that since 2015, there has been a greater and greater concentration of megathreads on the front page... reducing diversity (today's threads are going to be about 50% the same as next week's and next month's threads by design). I have suggested that these issues would be alleviated by reducing the number of pinned topics.

How we used to do megathreads wasn't a problem. What we're doing now? Is.

I disagree. Hot button issues never die out and rarely change. There really isn’t anything “seriously” new over issues like abortion. There was some protest, some new legislation, something that would get posted and it quickly descended into the same old morality, controlling women, sjw vs mra, and there is no god talk....

The amount of pinned topics? Hmmm? Could be a discussion point.

How about a new board “Never be solved” and such discussions can go there....

Now it’s in one place where it can be regurgitated at will.

by **Caleonia** » Mon Sep 09, 2019 10:49 am

Forsher wrote:
Caleonia wrote:
I meant the whole “being able to check entire megathreads in a day and understand what is going on” part. I just found hammer’s the most convenient to quote

You deny megathreads are dominated by the same few people? that they contain topics that would otherwise be separate threads? that they're echochambers?

What? Why are you quoting me if this is your response?

by **Ghost Land** » Mon Sep 09, 2019 2:25 pm

For the record, let me say that I do agree with Forsher's ideas and the vast majority of his reasoning. Topics in NSG these days are too stale for my money too, and newcomers aren't going to be particularly enthralled by a short list of unchanging topics day after day, and when the current crop of megathread posters leaves, next thing you know, half the total daily post volume of NSG vanishes. I'm certain people are still discovering NationStates for the first time in the exact same way as I did seven years ago, and clearly I found stuff interesting enough to stick around. Let's make sure new people have the same thought process I did, instead of the site dying a slow and painful death.

Forsher wrote:
Ghost Land wrote:
So, basically, the complaint is that topics you're not interested in continue to be discussed. In a contained manner, so there aren't MULTIPLE threads on that same topic you don't want to be discussed.

What happened here?

This post used to contain a breakdown of the front page of NSG? Why doesn't it any more?

From the looks of it, Kat edited my post without my permission and without explanation. I know for a fact I didn't edit that post since the day I posted it, and this is the first I'm aware of it saying anything different from what I said. I didn't even write the contents of that post as it stands right now, which seems to indicate that I hold a position I don't actually hold.

by **Katganistan** » Mon Sep 09, 2019 2:55 pm

Grenartia wrote:
...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.

So, basically, the complaint is that topics you're not interested in continue to be discussed. In a contained manner, so there aren't MULTIPLE threads on that same topic you don't want to be discussed.

(Sorry for the mess earlier. It appears I edited, rather than quoted the post. I've restored the original.)

by **Twilight Imperium** » Mon Sep 09, 2019 3:00 pm

Ghost Land wrote:For the record, let me say that I do agree with Forsher's ideas and the vast majority of his reasoning. Topics in NSG these days are too stale for my money too, and newcomers aren't going to be particularly enthralled by a short list of unchanging topics day after day

I mean, we still have Infected Mushroom threads and that guy who wanted to vote on everything with bitcoin or whatever before he ran off.

by **Ghost Land** » Mon Sep 09, 2019 3:11 pm

Katganistan wrote:
Grenartia wrote:
...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.

So, basically, the complaint is that topics you're not interested in continue to be discussed. In a contained manner, so there aren't MULTIPLE threads on that same topic you don't want to be discussed.

(Sorry for the mess earlier. It appears I edited, rather than quoted the post. I've restored the original.)

Thank you for fixing my post.

by **Katganistan** » Mon Sep 09, 2019 4:01 pm

Ghost Land wrote:
Katganistan wrote:

So, basically, the complaint is that topics you're not interested in continue to be discussed. In a contained manner, so there aren't MULTIPLE threads on that same topic you don't want to be discussed.

(Sorry for the mess earlier. It appears I edited, rather than quoted the post. I've restored the original.)

Thank you for fixing my post.

I did it as soon as I became aware -- someone poked me over discord and pointed out the error. I certainly didn't intend to change your post and I'm sorry it happened.

by **Jebslund** » Mon Sep 09, 2019 5:15 pm

Twilight Imperium wrote:
Ghost Land wrote:For the record, let me say that I do agree with Forsher's ideas and the vast majority of his reasoning. Topics in NSG these days are too stale for my money too, and newcomers aren't going to be particularly enthralled by a short list of unchanging topics day after day

I mean, we still have Infected Mushroom threads and that guy who wanted to vote on everything with bitcoin or whatever before he ran off.

Just when I had finally repressed the memories of Mr. People Only REEEEEEEEEALLY Mean It When They Spend Money On It. Never did get to see his reaction to his idol disagreeing with him...

Topic	Subject
Fake Crisis Pregnancy Centers slut shame women	event
Abortion map of Europe.	blog
Judge Orders Messiah's Parents to Change His Name	event
United States Republican Party Thread	related issue
Irish Abortion Non Reform	event
Abortion debate	abortion thread
Regarding Rape Culture: Its Presence and Method of Attack	related issue
Joe Biden's position on abortion	event
IPhones against abortion!	event
Yet Another Baby-killing Thread	abortion thread
Texas Finally Passes Abortion Bill!	event
Should anti-abortion advocacy be illegal?	related issue
Indiana Makes Same-Sex Marriage A Felony	related issue
North Carolina is being Stupid Again.	event
Irish politician in "Lap-gate"	event
A sisters plea for justice for the death of her sibling	event
Aborting past the 20th week	abortion thread
A Reprieve For Texas?	event
Abortion: Young vs Old	abortion thread
Wendy Davis Is Going for a 13 Hour Filibuster	related issue
2013 NSG Ideological Survey!	related issue
BARACK OBAMA, IGNORE OTHER	related issue
Circumcision	related issue
Woman forced to get an abortion. Held as a sex slave.	event
Making General More General?	related issue

[d] Should we get rid of the megathreads?

Who is online