I was enjoying reading this...

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
4 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

I was enjoying reading this...

<(o(\/\/\/\/\/)o)>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: I was enjoying reading this...

STIMEY D OKGM FISH
Administrator
One alternative viewpoint is that things "already discussed" don't need to be shut down, mainly due to pomo type concerns, i.e. the second time a discussion happens is different and unique than the first, each person involved is different and still the different experiences are valuable to happen on the site, the site doesnt exist to have every topic discussed one time and the final answer/solution is never reached so shutting down further attempts to redo or rephrase the discussion assumes things that aren't really established (nor will they be).  etc.

Thank you for your contribution.  Feel free to use this forum to track thread closings you personally wish didn't happen.  Having your preference heard somewhere is a good thing, right?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: I was enjoying reading this...

baskerville
This post was updated on .
CONTENTS DELETED
The author has deleted this message.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: I was enjoying reading this...

STIMEY D OKGM FISH
Administrator
I think you've said a lot of good things there.  Perhaps discussion-worthy subjects never really get finished, and having new threads started on them is actually a good thing.  Often good discussions break off into many multiple discussions, and all of them going on in the same thread may not be ideal.  Being able to refocus or reframe the topic in light of a prior thread may be a good option to have, whereas shutting down something in the name of it being potentially redundant seems like an over reaction to something that is not so dangerous to begin with.

I look at it like this.  Sure, it's possible that a new thread will be redundant, or that two threads on the same topic may create some confusion and waste as the travel between the concurrent threads may not be optimal.  But at the end of the day, threads live or die based on whether people wanna discuss there.  If two homes have occupants, where's the complaint?  You know?  If each thread can live and thrive on its own, who cares.  There's people discussing there, so let 'em.

Another strange attitude is that people seem to be aggressive about stamping out threads they wish didn't exist.  Putting this attitude next to the conclusions of the above paragraph, a strange picture emerges.  It's like some people are sitting around, playing baseball (doing something they want to do together, i.e. participating in a thread of a certain variety), and some guy comes along and says BAHHH I HATE BASEBALL NOBODY SHOULD PLAY IT.  And doesn't that make you just wanna say, "well then leave us alone."  So you have to really wonder what the existence of these non-preferred threads really costs those who dislike them.

i.e.
- server resources?  no, that's negligible for a discussion thread.  text is such a small amount of data, really.
- moderation resources?  maybe.  stopping a thread might minimize what could turn into something that demands a lot of moderation attention.  but this opens up a really long and complicated discussion, doesn't it?  i.e. what are moderators trying to do?  clearly they could minimize their work by just shutting down the whole site.  or they could just shut down all the work-generating parts of the site that they don't feel are worth their time.  something like that.  you then have to wonder to what extent moderators define what the site can and can't be vs. the participation of the "guests."  if thousands of people want to talk about something on their site, but they say "our site isn't that," then that's that.  and this makes sense to some degree.  clearly the site has drawn up some boundaries, i.e. no porn--with good reason.  but it seems like they had, at least in the past, kept piling on more and more boundaries to the point where the site is only interesting to far fewer people than before.  when they started saying things like, meh politics threads, meh religion threads, meh china threads, meh sexuality threads... well it seems like everything discussion worthy is gone, and the site is reduced to content sharing (check out these vids/songs/sites) of the non-X rated variety, and gaming.  of course a site can do that but i think what makes a great community is when you have people engaging in cool discussions all the time, not just vapid content sharing and game drooling, which you can find everywhere and do anonymously witihout any real exchange of personality.
- i guess other ways to phrase it are covered in that above out of place rant
- Visual space, i.e. users don't wanna have to see these threads, click on them, skim them, then say "damn it, this again?"  Some of their time may be wasted.  I think topics being labeled clearly and put in the appropriate sub forum would prevent this, and this is a service that makes the site better without killing content, thus really justified that volunteers do it.  Site design and/or volunteer effort is a better approach than amputation, if this is the concern.
- Ego.  You touched on this.  If people feel like they have to win when it comes to threads on a certain issue, and they can't help themselves, can't help but feel the need to jump in again, then repeated threads on the same issue can be an irritation.  I think this may be it.  I never thought of it this way before but I think you are right.  If you see some guys clearly wrong talking on some point that you already showed them, and now the topic died or is closed, it gets old, and you wanna just say, "arrrr stop."  But really, a wise and mature person could sit back and realize that there's always going to be inferiors out there, in the kiddie pool, learning from each other.  Why does a site need to shut down all the kiddie pools?  It would be like a gaming server where all games between newbies that got detected were shut down.  "God why are you playing this way?  Just cancel the game."  The difference of course is that "games" in this case are forum threads where everyone sees them happening in a somehwat public space and feels the option, if not need, to be a part of them too.  Just by knowing they exist, you already feel like you're in the game, and are somewhat offended to be put into what you see as a pointless and trivial situation.  But again, maturity... have the insight to realize that the world is full of such situations that you would feel like you were in, only you aren't looking at them.  Learn to choose not to look at every set of toddlers having a mundane discussion, unless you really want to come down tot heir level and give them the small +1 nudge that is appropriate.  Coming from above like a god and slamming them with +10,000 is not even going to be comprehensible to them, and will just come across as arrogant abuse of power (which it might be--another point is that sometimes people both are convinced each other are wrong, in which case shutting down topics just boils down to who has the power to stifle and shut down whom).

Whatever the justification for shutting down topics, I think creative solutions could keep the ability to have those discussions entact while minimizing or eliminating whatever the cost is to others.  And such a solution would be valuable because content could be salvaged rather than destroyed.  And actually a lot of work is created in the policing of content like this--solutions could make this work lessened as well, plus more content means a healthier community, less pissed off people asking questions, etc.