Mega-Threads!

[bob_barron 0]

No one has ever adequately explained to me why we too many threads is a bad thing. I'd like to see each folder turn over once a week. That would mean 2-3 new threads per folder, per day.

 

As for stupid and unnecessary threads, yeah I get it. Mods close them now... why wouldn't they close them if mega-threads were gone?

 

I think moderators just don't like seeing a folder clogged with too many needless threads, so it's an attempt to streamline discussion.

 

It might be a bandwith issue too, though I'm not sure about that.

[Cheech Tremendous 0]

I kind of see what you're saying, I think maybe Campaign 2008 could've been broken up a bit.

 

As TSM Ombudsman, I like what Dr. Venkman does. If there starts to be a discussion in a megathread or something in a megathread should be a topic, he spins it off into its own topic.

 

Yes, that's the right idea. I was diligent about doing that as well when I was a mod. It's need to be done in a lot of other folders as well (credit to Czech for doing it in Music... even if the thread titles leave something to be desired).

[Perfxion 0]

Three problems:

 

1: Some comments that don't warrant a thread, don't really warrant being posted. That might solve like half the problem.

 

2: Mega threads kill folders because there are no more real topics. Everything gets dumped into a landfill of posts. Prime example is the music folder. Which used to have tons of threads then got down to a dozen or so and the entire year of music gets 1 thread it seems. Its better now, but it got pretty naked of threads when all discussions were done in 6 threads.

 

3: Some topics might need a large thread to keep all the crap together, like "Chris Benoit dead". But when its refreshed like "This week in Baseball" or "Observer/News for XX/XX" it isn't so bad. But when a topic gets "Football(English League)" thread that is going like 6 years its getting really retarded. Hell, any thread hosting 8 or more topics within should get the boot. They can not have discussion when everyone is trying to keep up 5 or 6 conversations at once.

[bob_barron 0]

The football thread is like the hockey thread, in that it's generally the same few posters posting, so everyone kind of leaves them alone.

 

Stuff like coaches getting fired, or big trades or signings deserve their own thread.

[Guest]

For offseason threads, especially football and baseball, we could chop them into two or three week portions. Just an idea.

 

Our English football thread is continual, and to be frank, I don't think I should kill anything that's lasted that long. If you asked everyone else that posted in that thread how they thought, they'd answer the same.

[The Ghost of bps21 0]

It wasn't that long ago that we discussed in the Lost thread how f'n cool it was that the thread was going to run from before the first episode until after the finale. The first post in the thread actually says "So there's this new show called Lost" and it's its own community. If we were to start a Lost season 5 thread...I'd hate that.

 

One of the positives of mega-threads is being able to go back to a certain date (let's say for example...the day Obama announced he was running for President) and see exactly what people were saying then...without having to search through every thread that said Obama in it and narrowing down the time frame based on when you think the last post in the thread would have been made.

[Slayer 0]

Just so long as you don't go fuckin' sticking that TV megathread in the Classics folder...

[Guest Smues]

I don't see the need to split off-season threads up into weeks, maybe halves like we've done with the baseball one before, but otherwise they're fine. Maybe news in the off season still gets posted in its own thread usually.

[Scroby 0]

I don't mind Mega-Threads, I mind the people who have no freaking clue how to use them. I'll use the CWDWAT or whatever it's called now thread in the WWE folder as an example. I'm using it as an example because to me at least, that's where people have no idea how to use it correctly.

 

People would post a topic in the CWDWAT thread that would cause a page or two of discussion about the topic but somehow in someone's eyes it wasn't a good enough topic to start a thread just about that topic. Then there was also the case where someone posted something they thought was a good enough topic to give it it's own thread then someone would come crashing in with "OMG! This soooo doesn't deserve it's own thread" and that argument would start up.

 

Then there's also the posters who won't read the threads current page before posting and would just post the same information that someone just posted a few posts ahead of theirs. This recently happen in the WWE's DVD thread with the Mr. Perfect DVD's easter eggs.

 

So yeah, I don't think it's the Mega-threads that are causeing issues. I think it's the people who just don't know how to use them correctly that's causeing issues. You know there's a problem with a poster when they post in a thread "We're already discussing in the CWDWAT thread.".

[Guest C*Z*E*C*H]

Just short of an Official Staff Opinion here, but this is sort of my main job on the staff (if only we had someone dedicated to keeping an eye on the validation queues), so let's consider the book 99% shut here:

 

Mega-threads are bad for the board. If you're at The Pit, the secret prick board, or you've just been here forfuckingever, you don't care so much about organization, but to approach this from the perspective of a less established poster or an outright neophyte, it's puzzling, daunting, and kind of excluding to have a 156-page thread in a folder and little else, as opposed to clearly delineating all the discussions being had in a given folder. It's easier to jump in with a Tom Waits thought in the Tom Waits thread rather than putting it in one directionless thread, at least in my opinion. I've tried to figure out pbone's whole "no, having no organization actually encourages discussion" stance and I gave up. Look, I love you too, Dave, you're everything I wish I could've been if I didn't have such an overbearing family structure, but we have a difference of opinion on topic organization, I guess.

 

I'm not saying that every single thought that crosses your mind needs its own new thread. Quite the opposite: some of the thoughts that cross our mind don't even need posts. I'm as guilty as anyone, admittedly, but there are threads that don't really engender any sort of discussion, like the one where we post covers of albums we played. No thoughts are shared, just the pictures, which don't carry their normal thousand-word value here, and so we're not expected to build on anything, just nod our heads and say "hm, Public Enemy and Jeff Buckley, there you have it" and move on. These threads don't really hurt the board, they just sort of sit there and don't really further any discussion, which is why we're here, not to look at artifacted 200x200 jpegs of Loveless. Going back to that little "boarding hard" rant I wrote a month ago, I'd argue that part of this "boarding hard" ideal is to make your posts count, be more thoughtful in what you contribute, rather than just little chatty quips and half-assed image links. An exercise I tried a few times is to give myself, say, a strict three-post allocation for a day, so that whatever I had to share was worth spending a post. I ended up only using two of three, as I recall. I've lapsed since then, sure, but I blame baseball for that, as well as many other aspects of what I allowed to become an unsustainably toxic board personality, but that's a personal mea culpa that doesn't have anything to do with the topic at hand here and may be revisited upon request in the coming days.

 

Unless Danny Williams or CWM pulls rank on me, mega-threads will be tolerated and moderated but not encouraged. If substantial discussions arise from CTDWATs, it's expected that they'll be spun off and allowed to grow from there, or be merged into pre-existing threads on that topic, e.g. a hypothetical recent 17-post string about The Band could be united with an older thread about The Band, or if our 2005 opinions on Music From Big Pink are too humiliating to be dredged up, then we'll start anew. I expect this monitoring to be done in Music, General, LSD, basically everywhere but Current Events and Sports. Sports doesn't appear to have the problem (there's a CTDWAT there but it pales in comparison to some of the other katamari damacies around here), and Campaign 2008 is so sprawling that it can't even be approached for slicing-and-dicing. Like a recent TIME article said, it's always easier to fight the system than to beat it. So they'll stay, but they'll be managed. I think this is a fair compromise, though I may have to deputize Cheech again to give these spinoff threads new titles, since I'm no damn good at it.

 

I have nothing left to add on the topic, but I'm not closing it immediately, so if you have any thoughts or suggestions, I'll be happy to read them.

[The Ghost of bps21 0]

If the Lost thread goes...we riot.

[Slayer 0]

Public Enemy and Jeff Buckley

Together at last

[Guest C*Z*E*C*H]

I don't give a flying fuck about that show.

[bob_barron 0]

Czech was trying too hard with his post

[Cheech Tremendous 0]

Czech effectively summed up my feelings on this issue, and since he resides in management I'll let this thing drop. I do hope that there might be a little pressure placed on the mods to you know, moderate, and carry out some of these Official Staff Opinions. I personally like all of the current moderators but I get the sneaking suspicion that some of them aren't really doing much. But that's neither here nor there, so for the day let's just say thumbs up for a positive response from the staff.

 

Oh and...

[The Ghost of bps21 0]

I wonder if the response would have been negative if the nays had actually won the vote

[Guest C*Z*E*C*H]

Cheech accidentally configured it to allow multiple responses, so it's an invalid referendum anyway. He's right, too: we don't do enough sometimes. In all fairness, CWM and I have been busy beyond the board for the last week, and things evidently slowed down a little staff-wise in our absence, since David scolded us for having like ten accounts waiting for validation, some for over a week. Whoops. I'll try to be a little more hands-on, but you can always count on me to keep a watchful eye on Music and Food.

[alfdogg 0]

OK Cheech, let me ask you a question, then. In the future, how would you prefer the offseasons in sports to be handled, as opposed to an offseason thread? For instance, where would you draw the line as far as free agent signings that do and don't warrant a thread? (honestly, this should be common sense to most people here but I figured I'd ask anyway.)

[The Ghost of bps21 0]

Without the offseason threads you're gonna get Marvin posting a new thread everytime an Oriole sneezes.

[bob_barron 0]

I'm not Cheech, but I don't have a problem with offseason threads.

 

I do think that if there is something big that happens in the offseason (ie a big trade, FA signing, retirement or coaching change) then that deserves its own thread. Also, if a lot of discussion of one topic starts occuring in an offseason thread then that deserves its own thread.

 

since David scolded us for having like ten accounts waiting for validation

 

Who is Dave? It gets confusing when people refer to each other as their given names, rather than usernames.

[alfdogg 0]

Well, that's kind of what I'm asking, what we're defining as "big." For instance, when Larry Hughes signed with Cleveland a few years back, that got its own thread. I don't think we'd give a comparable signing its own thread today, but how would we work it into discussion?

[bob_barron 0]

Posters should just use their own judgement. If you think a transaction will result in meaningful discussion, own topic.

[Cheech Tremendous 0]

OK Cheech, let me ask you a question, then. In the future, how would you prefer the offseasons in sports to be handled, as opposed to an offseason thread? For instance, where would you draw the line as far as free agent signings that do and don't warrant a thread? (honestly, this should be common sense to most people here but I figured I'd ask anyway.)

 

I don't think that there's a hard and fast rule to this stuff. Like I said, it's the threads that meander on without any discernible point or end in site that are bad. At least in the case of an Offseason Thread it's only going to go a couple of months. Even then, there are natural break points when new threads can be created. In baseball you have the Winter Meetings, then pitchers and catchers reporting... there are points when new thoughts start and threads can begin anew.

 

As to what actually warrants a thread? I'm no authority. Posters won't figure that out on there own and there's no TSM Guidebook (that I know of) that tells us when something is warranting a thread. If a moderator is reading a thread and a new topic gets more than a handful of responses, just split it out. Moderators shouldn't tell us how to drive, but they can help direct the traffic.

[The Ghost of bps21 0]

bob...I like you.

 

But that is the worst idea I have ever heard.

 

It's predicated on the idea that all posters are of at least average intelligence and that they won't post nonsense. Well...those mega threads keep getting activity for a reason...people like to post nonsense.

 

This place will get lit up like a fucking christmas tree of ridiculous posts if everyone is left to their "judgment"

[bob_barron 0]

bob...I like you.

 

But that is the worst idea I have ever heard.

 

It's predicated on the idea that all posters are of at least average intelligence and that they won't post nonsense. Well...those mega threads keep getting activity for a reason...people like to post nonsense.

 

This place will get lit up like a fucking christmas tree of ridiculous posts if everyone is left to their "judgment"

 

I guess have more faith in our fellow posters than you do.

[Cheech Tremendous 0]

bob...I like you.

 

But that is the worst idea I have ever heard.

 

It's predicated on the idea that all posters are of at least average intelligence and that they won't post nonsense. Well...those mega threads keep getting activity for a reason...people like to post nonsense.

 

This place will get lit up like a fucking christmas tree of ridiculous posts if everyone is left to their "judgment"

 

This board is 90% nonsense and it always will be. Doesn't really matter how it's organized.

 

Also, bad thread gets started, bad thread get closed, poster gets warned, the end. Why do people believe that we will end up with mass chaos unless we have our precious CWDWAT?

[The Ghost of bps21 0]

The problem is that people (myself included) actually like those threads wher you can just pop in and say something without it being a big conversation. The alternative leads to everyone having to make sure they think that the thread there about to start is worth a thread (cause there's no place to put a thought that doesn't) or it'll get closed and they'll have their wrists slapped. If anything I think it cuts out conversation in the long run.

[Guest C*Z*E*C*H]

Did bps sustain brain damage at some point between 2002 and today? I remember him being so esteemed that he was voted to the staff, but now I read his posts and he's, I don't know, out of sorts. Not totally with it. Maybe TSM just passed him by.

 

I don't even have that much faith in the board at large, and I'm still a laissez-faire enough guy to say that new threads are judgment calls. Besides, there's no punishment for starting a thread that desn't take off. I tried to call attention to one of our better new usernames, "Shelton Benjamin Outta F'in Nowhere!", and got no responses, not one. Oh well. I moved on. I didn't self-flagellate, I didn't feel guilty about it and feel like my ability to start a thread was in jeopardy. Just whatever. We'll moderate if we have to, but I think most people can handle this sort of thing. We did for years, geez.

 

As for wrist-slapping, I don't plan to do much of it. I go for the kneecap.

[The Ghost of bps21 0]

I'm sober now.

[Cheech Tremendous 0]

The problem is that people (myself included) actually like those threads wher you can just pop in and say something without it being a big conversation. The alternative leads to everyone having to make sure they think that the thread there about to start is worth a thread (cause there's no place to put a thought that doesn't) or it'll get closed and they'll have their wrists slapped. If anything I think it cuts out conversation in the long run.

 

Then let's make the whole board one big fucking thread. We can just drop in whenever we want and post about anything. It will be awesome.

 

Look, let's define what we are talking about here. If you sit down on your computer, log in to TSM, write out a post and click Add Reply, aren't you at least thinking that the thought will initiate discussion or provoke thought? If not, then what the fuck are we here for? To just post something as catharsis and hope it disappears into the ether?

 

I am just of the opinion that most comments can fit somewhere, thereby "warranting" a thread. And if we need to have the TSM binky around (CWDWAT) to make sure people still post, well then that's fine too, as long as it is moderated and relevant discussion is directed elsewhere.

 

Is this so crazy?