Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/public/Sources/Load.php(225) : runtime-created function on line 3
Only one post.
I Read This
November 21, 2018, 12:39:08 EST *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: If you have any issues at all, visit our support site.
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: Only one post.  (Read 6127 times)
purplecat
Mad Scientist
Campaign Management Staff
Pundit
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3499



« on: May 18, 2007, 12:42:38 EDT »

This is a suggestion that will need no tecnhical backup at all, but I need opinions.

In order to keep us on topic, keep arguing to a minimum, and allow us to cover controversial subjects safely, how about some threads where each poster is only allowed one post to lay out their feelings on the subject. No responding directly to anyone else. This will prevent the usual "have to get the last word in" posts, and let us see what we think on some interesting subjects.

What does everybody think? Decent idea, or stifling? Worth a try?
Logged

Purplecat: Keeper of the political compass thread. Want to be on the graph? post your results here

Me: (No, seriously, this entire forum has the attention span of an..... oooh! shiny!)
Zavion
This is my title.
Talking Head
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 940



WWW
« Reply #1 on: May 18, 2007, 16:21:39 EDT »

I don't personally see a reason to limiting people to one post per topic. Actually, I think the 'arguements' (debate?) that people get into are a lot more meaningful and make people think a lot more than just stating one's opinion on something and leaving it at that. After all, if ideas aren't challenged, bad ideas and good ideas have equal chance of surviving infancy and breeding, and that's just bad for everyone, I think. Of course, you could give me a counter-arguement to why just stating something would be more interesting than discussing it. Oh, wait, you can't. Sorry.

To be honest, I generally 'quit' an arguement long before it's over, mostly when it becomes "No, you're stupid" "No YOU'RE stupid.", but, really, are people's feelings being THAT hurt? Other than a few very volitile people and their very specific subjects, whom I won't name here, because Isreal is a touchy subject matter, I don't think the people here are really that 'against' each other; or maybe I'm just naive and stupid? I can't tell. When people are mad at me, I might just be smiling "Yay, we're all friends" while they're fuming "Burn in Hell Zavion!". But I like to think that most of the people here are more-or-less fine. But I don't really see a point, unless there is some kind of undercurrent of flame wars that is too subtle for me to notice.

I would also note that, on topics that are just "Everybody has an Opinion!" I personally gloss over and don't care much about what is said. It's boring.
« Last Edit: May 18, 2007, 16:23:14 EDT by Zavion » Logged

I don't like signatures, so I'm not making one.
What would you guys think I'd look like?

You're clearly a somewhat sexily thrusting cycloptic mecha with horns.
FireyTiger
Campaign Directors
Talking Head
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 925


Keith Olbermann's Stalker, apparently...


« Reply #2 on: May 18, 2007, 19:49:22 EDT »

I think it's a good idea, honestly. If people were limited to one post, we wouldn't have posts that are two, even three maximum allotted posts in a row. I don't know about the rest of you but I certainly don't have time to read ALL of that. If you have to make two or three posts in a row to get your point across, then you need to figure out how to abridge your thoughts a bit, and get to the point.

But on the same note, I think it would be stifling to say that people aren't allowed to respond directly to someone else. I think that kinda prevents the opportunity for conversation, which isn't what we want. When people get to the point that they're simply attacking each other on the personal level instead of debating their different views, we mods step in, as it's our job to keep that to a minimum. Most of the time people get the hint and stop attacking personally, and if they don't then they get warnings.
Logged


Quote from: azdb7
I'm sorry, you still seem to think your opinion is relevant.  Please re-examine the earlier posts and try again.
rogue-kun
Dog of Lysdexics
Campaign Management Staff
Pundit
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4057


When I grow up I wanna be a kid


WWW
« Reply #3 on: May 18, 2007, 19:53:43 EDT »

I think it's poor idead, and think it problem the quested way to kill the forum, please no will want to post becase the fire the missed a point that might want to cover when some points somthinhg out after them
Logged


 It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the dew of the mountain that thoughts acquire speed; the hands acquire shakes; the shakes become a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
Economic Left/Right: -7.38 | Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.79
This message is encoded with ROT26. Decoding is punishable by law under the DMCA.
Rogue's Weyr Rogue's Rabblings
Lissou
Guest
« Reply #4 on: May 18, 2007, 21:40:21 EDT »

I think it could be a good idea, but not as it is. I'd rather have some threads in which each poster can post only once every other day, or once every so many posts. It would probably prevent having a discussion with only 2 people talking, but would leave room for some debate.

EDIT: Another thing, too: I wouldn't be against a limit in the number of threads you can start. Like, one per day per sub-forum (with no limits with the ones concerning DCS's work, as we want to be able to start a thread with each cartoon/rant). What would you think about it?
« Last Edit: May 18, 2007, 21:43:51 EDT by Lissou » Logged
Gizensha
Campaign Management Staff
Free Speech Advocate
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 10053


Dragon Winged Fox


WWW
« Reply #5 on: May 18, 2007, 22:11:02 EDT »

I am against any restrictions on communication within forums generally, since I view them as implementations of natural conversation into a non-real time, text based, online environment.
Logged

Quote from: Tim Guest
Interactive Fiction is computer gaming's best parallel with poetry: complex, subtle, and these days absolutely unsaleable.

Quote from: Raph Koster
Art and entertainment are not terms of type - they are terms of intensity
Darkeforce
Banned
Political Thinktank
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7509


Forum's Punching Bag


« Reply #6 on: May 18, 2007, 22:28:29 EDT »

What might be more appropriate, if possible, would be allowing only one post in a given thread in a 24 hour period. Barring, that, I don't see restriction of discussion to be a good thing at all. It smacks too much of censorship.
Logged

"Going to War for Peace,
is like Screwing for Virginity."

"Politics. It's like having evil cake, and eating it, too" - Torg - Sluggy Freelance
FireyTiger
Campaign Directors
Talking Head
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 925


Keith Olbermann's Stalker, apparently...


« Reply #7 on: May 18, 2007, 22:36:05 EDT »

I don't like the idea of restricting how many times a person can post in a given thread. For example, I think that the flow should be person A posts, then Person B posts, and then Person A has the option of posting again if they want to. If they are holding a conversation, that would work. But If we had it that person A posts, then person B posts something person A wants to reply to, but there's the restriction of one post every 24 hours in this thread, Person A can't reply to them. Or if person C comes into play and posts something, neither person A nor B can reply to person C. You see the problem.
Logged


Quote from: azdb7
I'm sorry, you still seem to think your opinion is relevant.  Please re-examine the earlier posts and try again.
GhostWay
Political Analyst
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 358


Former Moderator


« Reply #8 on: May 18, 2007, 22:40:38 EDT »

It could certainly be an interesting way of voicing opinions on a particular subject.  Sort of a more in-depth "Where do you stand" sort of thing.  But outside of maybe doing a few planned threads like that - for instance, schedule a week to discuss, say, nuclear energy - I can't see much practicality.

But it sounds too much like televised debates, which are about as effective a discussion method as speaking backwards in Swahili.
Logged

[citation needed]
Zavion
This is my title.
Talking Head
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 940



WWW
« Reply #9 on: May 19, 2007, 17:59:08 EDT »

Also, there are people like me which might have things to add to things said previously that weren't mentioned originally, and if you had one post, or one post per day, it would be impossible (specifically example; this post here).

A limit on TOPICS made a day, would be good; because it would limit a bunch of spasmodic one-liners and it's much easier to scroll past somebody's posts than it is to try to find a topic you were talking about 20 seconds ago that you're not sure the name of, when there are 2 new pages of topics in the meantime by the same person.
 
If you're like "News A! Similar News B! Similar News C! Similar News D!" within like a 5 hour span; chances are they're all similar enough to be in ONE discussion; rather than 4 different discussions on about the same thing.

Also, are people really getting warnings? Man, I thought this was like, the hardest place to get warnings ever. Am I in danger of getting one? I'm a little paranoid. Maybe I AM naive; case it seemed to me that MOST of the people here; even when disagreeing, got a long. I'm used to the very OBVIOUS flame wars like

Person A starts a topic "Person B is a bastard!" where person B is like "No, Person A is a douche!"; I haven't seen that here, even with people that are almost obviously antithetical to each other. Then again, I don't read every topic (..Man, so many hints; it's almost childish to not name names now) posted about certain topics (...it's like a TNT movie; "I'm going to kill that son of a" *new voice* "Bumpkin" *first voice* for what he did.")
I don't really see all these flame wars going on so I must be missing something. Sorry.

But, yeah, to digress, to what I said before "Where do you stand" topics suck. They're boring without discussion. Everybody has an opinion, but good thought or ideas only come out when said ideas are disgussed and beaten bloody in a back alley, and the strongest one emerges with the scalp of its enemy. Otherwise it's like

"I like puppies"
"I like cake"
"I like kittens"
"I ate a sandwhich"

Whoooo cares? Especially if we can't go back and say "What do you like about sandwhiches" "Why do you think that cake is good?" it just stands as testimony to the quote "Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one and they all stink".
Logged

I don't like signatures, so I'm not making one.
What would you guys think I'd look like?

You're clearly a somewhat sexily thrusting cycloptic mecha with horns.
Medivh
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3466


Power-mad elf


« Reply #10 on: May 19, 2007, 22:15:43 EDT »

Also, are people really getting warnings? Man, I thought this was like, the hardest place to get warnings ever. Am I in danger of getting one? I'm a little paranoid. Maybe I AM naive; case it seemed to me that MOST of the people here; even when disagreeing, got a long. I'm used to the very OBVIOUS flame wars like Person A starts a topic "Person B is a bastard!" where person B is like "No, Person A is a douche!";

I've gotten three, and am treading very carefully...
Logged

And if i catch you comin' back my way
I'm gonna serve it to you
And that ain't what you want to hear
But that's what I'll do
-- "Seven Nation Army", The White Stripes

So what you're telling me is that LTV's fudge factor means more than it's independent variable?
Yes...
FireyTiger
Campaign Directors
Talking Head
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 925


Keith Olbermann's Stalker, apparently...


« Reply #11 on: May 19, 2007, 22:22:17 EDT »

People do get warnings, but they are usually kept private between the mods and offending party. But I do agree, this place is WAY too lenient sometimes, compared to some places i've gone. If it were up to me, there would be a few troublemakers who would be long gone, but then i'm a forum nazi, and it really isn't up to me, not entirely. Tongue
Logged


Quote from: azdb7
I'm sorry, you still seem to think your opinion is relevant.  Please re-examine the earlier posts and try again.
Zavion
This is my title.
Talking Head
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 940



WWW
« Reply #12 on: May 20, 2007, 01:13:12 EDT »

People do get warnings, but they are usually kept private between the mods and offending party. But I do agree, this place is WAY too lenient sometimes, compared to some places i've gone. If it were up to me, there would be a few troublemakers who would be long gone, but then i'm a forum nazi, and it really isn't up to me, not entirely. Tongue

Other than the obvious few who's topics I don't view; I don't see anything worthy of a warning. Maybe I'm just a hippy or something.

And what might happen there to stir flames, I don't know about, so I can't judge.
Logged

I don't like signatures, so I'm not making one.
What would you guys think I'd look like?

You're clearly a somewhat sexily thrusting cycloptic mecha with horns.
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!