Let's limit the thread-starting on this board again

[PurityOfEssence]

What do you say, everybody?

A certain few people BLIZZARD this board with countless threads started per day and it has many bad side effects.

First: it's akin to shouting or posting in all caps, and as such is effectively telling the rest of us that we're idiots and need to submit to the perspicacity of the wronged and ranting few.

Second: it totally screws "good" threads, which I'd characterize as ones that are often a bit subtle and tend to stimulate ongoing discourse. Such threads are trampled and bulldozed off the board, never getting a chance to simmer and grow.

Third: it increases the shrillness of the board, thus revulsing the casual viewer or potential board-shopper looking for a home. This has been a home for me since the summer of '01, and although it goes through predictable periods of ickiness, it's gotten very depressing of late and many of the old guard are sorely missed.

Fourth: it's JUST GOOD MANNERS. The sanctimony of the downtrodden is tiresome enough without endorsing the concept that the outraged need not have any respect for others.

Fifth: there's no real need for it; most topics and concepts are adequately represented by other threads and there's no reason for the echo chamber to throb to this degree.

Sixth: it's the equivalent of cutting in line, and is hence anti-social.

This is not the first time I've advocated this, the first time was in the late summer of
'02 leading up to the mid-terms. There's something plainly sociopathic about starting more than a couple of threads in a day in most cases, unless someone TRULY finds DIFFERENT issues that aren't being addressed. This annoyance on my part is SPECIFICALLY when people start thread after thread after thread after thread on effectively the same subject, and this is usually done when plenty of other threads are extant. People do this to jump to the front of the line, shout down others and bully us with their supposed "right" for primacy. I'm not talking about valuable gleanings in "Latest Breaking News"; some people provide a valuable service by finding more than a few nuggets at a time.

We were limited to 3 per day in this forum recently, and I'd say that's a bit charitable; I propose 2.

Personally, I'm not here to hammer inferiors into submission and make them yell uncle or yelp away in humiliation; I have my opinions, but I'd also like to hear those of others and argue with them instead of walking against the wind of those who need us to bend to their shrill, ill will.

The very best threads TAKE TIME, and the interplay of sub-threads often get very interesting and sway people or help us all hone common rhetoric or focus our ideas.

Life is scatterbrained and MTVish enough as it is; must we embrace it here, too?

[Forkboy]

1. I liked the limit myself, but I bet we're in a small minority.

[madeline_con]

2. I vote NO. eom

[Top Cat]

3. My vote is no

[PurityOfEssence]

9. Can't think why...

The indisputable leader of the gang.
He's the boss, he's a pip, he's the championship.
He's the most tip top,
Top Cat.

[BeatleBoot]

4. Lol!

"Life is scatterbrained and MTVish enough as it is; must we embrace it here, too?"

:spray:


Ya think?


:rofl:

[PurityOfEssence]

10. Uh-yup

What a insipid and tiresome year.

[sandnsea]

5. Yes Yes Yes

I have never understood the need to start a thread when there are already 15 on the same subject.

[PurityOfEssence]

14. Me! Me! Ya gotta listen to ME!

Don't listen to THEM, I'm the one with the bon mots. I've got mots justes more juste that Beau Geste's!

There's a huge difference between discourse and noise, just as there's a difference between arguing and obliterating or between pontificating and interacting.

I suck, but at least I'm a communal sort...

[TahitiNut]

17. I think it might have something to do with toilet training.

:shrug:

[PurityOfEssence]

21. Must be.

Hell, I've used a whip and everything; can't get the damned thing to do anything more than flush, and it's positively FILTHY, doesn't have a lick of self-respect.

That guy with the boatload of lemons doesn't do jack, either.

[marylanddem]

6. No. Lots of threads is/are a good thing.

[musicblind]

7. I think the limit was good as well n/t

[QC]

8. Yes! n/t

[Spazito]

11. Bad idea, use hide thread instead, it is a wonderful feature, imo n/t

[PurityOfEssence]

15. You're missing the point

It's not just about my personal comfort and desire to not be annoyed, it's about not having a torrent of duplicates shove other threads off of the first couple pages and into the cyber nether reaches without having had a moment for reflection.

The effect of this is that certain individuals who continually need to jump themselves to the front of the line drown out discourse on other subjects just because they aren't getting the attention they feel is their due. The rest of us can be hanged, and selectively hiding threads doesn't lessen the effect of rolling the older threads off into oblivion.

It's not the end of the world, but it'd be nice if people would just be a tad more neighborly.

[Spazito]

16. As in most cases, it depends on whose "ox is being gored"...

If DUers weren't interested in those threads you find threatening to "good discourse", the threads would die of their own accord while truly good threads do seem to find their way back to the first page time and time again, imo.

During the Primaries flamefests, limiting the number of threads allowed per day was a very wise decision on the part of the administration, imo, but the Primaries are over and such restrictions don't seem necessary to me.

As for the hide thread, it works well for me and for those threads I feel merit more "attention", I bookmark them and when they drop low on the first page or onto the second, I simply post/kick them back to the forefront again.

It takes a little work but good threads are worth it, imo.

[PurityOfEssence]

18. It's not merely partisan, if that's what you mean

I'm not quite sure of what you mean by the "ox" comment, but if you mean that it's an outcry against things that I don't like getting a toehold in the bandwidth, that's not it.

If you were for this during the primaries, was this because of the partisanship and rancor during them? If so, the dynamic doesn't change here during the general election; it morphs into policy disagreements on what is ostensibly the same side, instead of across a divide. The result is the same: an attempt to drown out others.

I don't like repeated thread-spamming when it is done by people who agree with me either. It's just a lot more hay and less needles.

A few manners go a long way, and it's not such a damned hardship to be reasonable citizens.

[Spazito]

20. I was here through the Primaries, this year and in 2004...

It was due to partisanship and rancor the changes were made. I would disagree with your perspective that policy disagreements are negative, I would contend they are healthy and bring a better understanding of all sides of the issues contained within them.

I don't see multiple threads as a deliberate attempt to drown out others but rather, more often than not, exuberance over an issue and acting upon that by posting a thread without looking to see if one had been started already.

Could we all be more restrained, undoubtedly, but having such restrains forced upon this forum is not necessary, imo.

[tyedyeto]

12. When an event happens, such as today's 'forum'...

we are bound to see many threads discussing what exactly took place.

Tomorrow is another day and many of the posts you are cutting down will have disappeared on their own.

So, I say, let the posts happen and be patient.

[TreasonousBastard]

13. Absolutely-- anything to reduce thread spamming.

[SwampG8r]

19. ok with me

[QC]

22. kick

:kick:

[Muttocracy]

23. part of it is that threads are sorted by last reply by default rather than start time

so it's easy for people to miss a thread that was posted 10 minutes ago on the same topic.

[Joe the Revelator]

24. NO NO NO

This is such school yard bullshit. After the convention, when things REALLY heat back up, people need to be able to post threads as news happens.