+- Southperry.net (https://www.southperry.net)
+-- Forum: Main (https://www.southperry.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=11)
+--- Forum: Site Announcements (https://www.southperry.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=18)
+--- Thread: Speakeasy Split (/showthread.php?tid=36291)
Pages:
1
2
Speakeasy Split - Eos - 2011-01-16
Russt Wrote:What I'm wondering is why is this necessary?
Because there were two distinct forms of posts being made in the speakeasy and people who cared about one don't necessary care about the other.
It could just as validly be asked what is it hurting by separating them? What it's gaining is that people who don't care about whatever article you found interesting enough to post but not actually talk about can exclude those posts if they prefer to while still being able to see actual discussions around topics that are brought up.
FrozNlite Wrote:My only question is where to place topics centered around a thesis of "event inspired discussion."
I was pretty clear on that. When the OP has nothing to contribute beyond the article itself it goes in the Current Events because it's not really a discussion item it's a free for all. A discussion requires at least one actual perspective, not the untended seed of one.
Myles Wrote:No point in trying to argue your point, guys. As if Eos would listen, hah.
Because clearly there's a whole history of me completely ignoring user input. Don't let let silly little facts like this change itself being due to user input inconvenience you though, go right ahead extolling how horribly ignored you are and inflexible I am because everyone can't have their way simultaneously.
Speakeasy Split - TaliaNCo - 2011-01-16
Myles Wrote:No point in trying to argue your point, guys. As if Eos would listen, hah.
Actually, Eos "does" listen. Eos was originally against the idea of having an art contest. We ended up having an art contest. Why? Because I pointed out several good reasons why we "should" have one. He works on logic, period. Posts based on emotion will probably be ignored. Posts based on logic will make him think about it.
Speakeasy Split - Russt - 2011-01-16
Eosian Wrote:Because there were two distinct forms of posts being made in the speakeasy and people who cared about one don't necessary care about the other.
It could just as validly be asked what is it hurting by separating them? What it's gaining is that people who don't care about whatever article you found interesting enough to post but not actually talk about can exclude those posts if they prefer to while still being able to see actual discussions around topics that are brought up.
But an "actual" discussion could just as easily arise from a thread whose opening post does not explicitly output a perspective. Why would I, as end user, feel the need to distinguish those that do and don't?
One could just as easily post a one-sentence crap thread asking "what do you guys think about [topic]" and omit the link, and it would still be a crap thread if no one responds meaningfully. It takes one mouse hover to tell the difference between these kinds of threads.
However, now that it's done, I will concede that it doesn't hurt, except that I think it's not a very useful division and too many of these would bloat the vertical space of the forum index as well as confuse users as to where something belongs.
Speakeasy Split - Eos - 2011-01-16
Because the former are an actual conversation with the OP and the latter is not.
Those news dumps are essentially the OP saying they have no vested interest in the event but want to see other people talk about it.
Speakeasy Split - ShadyPriest - 2011-01-16
I was against this at first, partly based on my belief that redundant sections discourage activity, but I changed my mind. I like it, especially how you worded "Because there were two distinct forms of posts being made in the speakeasy and people who cared about one don't necessary care about the other", and how it encourages actual discussion.