EPT
just a thought
| Blogs > zulu_nation8 |
|
zulu_nation8
China26351 Posts
| ||
vGl-CoW
Belgium8305 Posts
| ||
|
nA.Inky
United States794 Posts
I find 95% of the threads on TL annoying. Solution? I do not read them. There is something for everyone here, but that also means a lot of stuff won't please you or I. But that doesn't mean we should start shutting people or threads down. Variety makes the world, and this website, better. | ||
|
3 Lions
United States3705 Posts
im christian tho... | ||
|
fanatacist
10319 Posts
On December 11 2007 06:01 nA.Inky wrote: I completely disagree. I enjoy more intense conversation. I find 95% of the threads on TL annoying. Solution? I do not read them. There is something for everyone here, but that also means a lot of stuff won't please you or I. But that doesn't mean we should start shutting people or threads down. Variety makes the world, and this website, better. This really isn't a place for spiritual trolling and arguments that digress into insults or the typical religion vs. atheism shit. It's been done hundreds of times and it seems to never have an end, despite many bans, closed threads, etc. If you find 95% if TL annoying, and enjoy religious "intense conversation," this isn't the place for you - go find some other serious forums. I think it's reasonable to moderate the quality/quantity of religious debates, including blogs. | ||
|
Diggity
United States806 Posts
| ||
|
ilovezil
United States4143 Posts
| ||
|
fanatacist
10319 Posts
On December 11 2007 06:07 Diggity wrote: lets not make this a long drawn out argument as well, as the irony would make my head explode This is worth arguing about in my opinion, because if a good argument is made against religious bullshit threads, then perhaps moderators would do something about them from now on, thus resolving many future inane arguments. | ||
|
zulu_nation8
China26351 Posts
| ||
|
ilovezil
United States4143 Posts
On December 11 2007 06:07 fanatacist wrote: This really isn't a place for spiritual trolling and arguments that digress into insults or the typical religion vs. atheism shit. It's been done hundreds of times and it seems to never have an end, despite many bans, closed threads, etc. If you find 95% if TL annoying, and enjoy religious "intense conversation," this isn't the place for you - go find some other serious forums. I think it's reasonable to moderate the quality/quantity of religious debates, including blogs. Same suggestion: ignore thread. You can't discount religion as something that belongs to these forums as much as, for example, a tech thread can. | ||
|
zulu_nation8
China26351 Posts
| ||
|
Payt
Canada582 Posts
On December 11 2007 06:22 zulu_nation8 wrote: Yeah, but if they're kept to a blog, I don't think it's really fair to tell people what they can/can't post, as long as it's not gruesomely innapropriateI'm not cool enough to just ignore them I think those threads are annoying and need to stop all of you guys who get caught up in them suck | ||
|
zulu_nation8
China26351 Posts
| ||
|
lugggy
450 Posts
| ||
|
zulu_nation8
China26351 Posts
| ||
|
lugggy
450 Posts
| ||
Chill
Calgary25987 Posts
| ||
|
zulu_nation8
China26351 Posts
| ||
|
lugggy
450 Posts
On December 11 2007 06:41 Chill wrote: I don't understand why you can't keep it to one thread / blog, like the MBS thread in the SC2 forum. Why is there a blog "I'm an antheist" when he could have made that point in any of the 90000 other religious blogs? It spams the blog sections, and essentially burries the non-philosphical-debate blogs. Because those blogs are old, filled with other stuff, framed differently, and most of the points in them are made by people who are no longer active. It's like saying, why write your own book, when you can just pencil it into the margins of a Harry Potter book. New conversations are an important option for a forum, and the previous ones are hardly definitive. If you require us to make a comprehensive study of every thread and blog made on the topic and sum it up and respond to each one before we can strike up an internet conversation of our own, you would utterly kill the site, because none of us has time to write our own Summa Theologica for each topic we want to chat about. At least let us have conversations in the blogs. My new blog didn't bury any active blogs related to my content. And if there were two religious blogs going on at the same time, that would be a good thing, because we would have deeper conversations running parallel to one another (as these two topics have done). You should see that what happened between these two topics would not be possible were they both forced to go on within the same thread. Take that point, and expand it, and you can see how having multiple threads is a good thing for all those involved. And as for the MBS threads, for instance, you can see the harm they have done. When you force all MBS discussion into the same thread, you make the thread unreadable, meaning all participation will either require an insurmountable amount of work, or ignore most of what it is "responding to." It is better to allow multiple discussions on the same topic. Otherwise we do not have the option of re-framing a topic, or dissecting it into smaller and smaller questions to discuss. | ||
|
Chill
Calgary25987 Posts
Edit: I actually think the MBS thread model is ideal. It starts with a group of people talking about a subject. Slowly, people lose interest as the thread grows, and now there is a core group talking amongst themselves. The barrier to enter that thread gets higher, so someone wanting to bring up a new topic can either a) not post it, or b) glance over the background in the thread and then post. The current system allows option c) ignore all previous content and post your thread. I suppose that's fine, but I do think there are consequences of operating like that. Do the positives outweight the negatives? I don't know. As I said before, I simply ignore all these philosophical debate threads. | ||
|
zulu_nation8
China26351 Posts
| ||
|
lugggy
450 Posts
| ||
|
Chill
Calgary25987 Posts
Freedom of conscience entails more dangers than zombies and ninjas. | ||
|
zulu_nation8
China26351 Posts
| ||
|
Folca
2235 Posts
| ||
|
lugggy
450 Posts
On December 11 2007 06:50 Chill wrote: Edit: I actually think the MBS thread model is ideal. It starts with a group of people talking about a subject. Slowly, people lose interest as the thread grows, and now there is a core group talking amongst themselves. The barrier to enter that thread gets higher, so someone wanting to bring up a new topic can either a) not post it, or b) glance over the background in the thread and then post. The current system allows option c) ignore all previous content and post your thread. I suppose that's fine, but I do think there are consequences of operating like that. Do the positives outweight the negatives? I don't know. As I said before, I simply ignore all these philosophical debate threads. Ideal for a research think tank, maybe. But at TL we have threads about 5 favorite bands, clown walkers, current events, etc. Maybe to a reader two topics on the same thing might seem repetitive. But why not let those different people have those discussions? The point is to let people meet eachother and talk, not create ultimate truth in document form on every possible topic. It's a community, not a job. While I think it's important for people to contribute to a thread in the way expected or get out, I think TLnet should have enough room for them to not only get out of that thread, but to go make their own one if they like, at least as a blog post, and let the different types of threads compete. Say you want to make a topic to get to the bottom of the moral questions of Vick's case. Someone else might have a completely different take and not want to spend hours fighting yours. Why not let him? Does that really harm the site as a community-builder? I think what happens more of the time is an option d): ignore some of the content in the current thread, but post your comments to it. In fact the majority of all participation on this site follows this formula out of necessity. It would be better if we demanded people admit what they actually read, and to start a sub-thread if they did not want to read it all. But if you want to try to have it both ways, I think we get neither. Instead we get people pretending to have read more than they did. | ||
|
lugggy
450 Posts
| ||
|
zulu_nation8
China26351 Posts
| ||
|
lugggy
450 Posts
| ||
|
zulu_nation8
China26351 Posts
| ||
|
lugggy
450 Posts
| ||
|
zulu_nation8
China26351 Posts
| ||
|
lugggy
450 Posts
| ||
|
fanatacist
10319 Posts
| ||
| ||
