Speakeasy Split

Speakeasy - Actual topics & Conversations
Current Events - Random News articles you felt were interesting yet can't be bothered to actually discuss and somehow think someone else would want to discuss them even though you apparently don't.

Could've at least made it a subsection in the Speakeasy...

Sounds like a good idea.

I can't begin to count how many times I've seen an article and think "So what?". The real good news conversations comes when something bizarre happens and triggers responses.

No real point since they're not related. Making it a subsection implies it was ever legitimately a topic in the speakeasy to begin with.
Just as easy to exclude either way.

I think it's fine the way it is.

I think there's a mis-tense in there somewhere.

I GUESS

anyway to give my input on this article it is quite boring and uninteresting; there are "family member killed son, daughter, spouse, and cat" stories every month, they're depressing for about five minutes and then you get over it and accept that it will happen again in a few weeks

Plus the other option was adding tags to the speakeasy for 'discussion' and 'news' or some such. Would you really want that?

I like this split. It makes sense.

I think there's a mis-tense in there somewhere.

On mine?
If it bugs you I guess I'll reword it.
I think we shouldn't split the Speakeasy because I feel like all it'll do is probably more topic misplacement and less activity on one more than the other, etc.


Ah now I get why mine was confusing.

Not really...

But you don't think an entire board just for news disscussion is overkill?

When it was that easy to peel 20% of the threads here and shove them there as clearly different? no?

OMG WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIEEEEEE

hehe

Soon enough the Social section will outnumber the MapleStory section.

So I suppose if you're willing to actually discuss the news topics, they could go in the Speakeasy?

If you have a perspective on something you wish to discuss and are going to open your post with your discussion points instread of expecting everyone else to just read the article and give their thoughts, yes.

What I'm wondering is why is this necessary?

Speakeasy thread: Introduce a topic -> topic prompts discussion -> respond to discussion
Current Event thread: Share an event -> event prompts discussion -> respond to discussion

If it's worthy of discussion, then it would've been a legitimate Speakeasy thread. If it isn't worthy of discussion, then it's a crap thread and I see no point in a section for crap threads.

While I agree with Russt's last contention, and therefore disagree with Eos' condescending description of the new Current Events section in his OP, I like the split and think it helps identify the vast difference in topics posted in the Speakeasy. There's definitely discussion that occurs with both types of topics, but again, the distinction is clear, and thus a split, useful.

My only question is where to place topics centered around a thesis of "event inspired discussion." Ex. threads in which a groundbreaking event that redefines human thought (or something of the like) prompts the TC to ask not "what do you think of this discovery?" but "what do you think of this idea?"

Why change what isn't broken just because it's paint job has faded?

No point in trying to argue your point, guys. As if Eos would listen, hah.