The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
Please vote in the Forum Structure Poll. Polling will close at 2PM EST on January 21, 2025.
1. If we try the restructure and it works, hurray we win!
2. If we try the restructure and it doesn't work, I am supremely confident that there will be a lot of push to revert the structure back to what we have now. People who are upset with the new forums might just stick around to see if the old forum structure fixes what's wrong.
3. If we keep things the same as right now and it works, hurray we win!
4. If we keep things the same as right now and it doesn't work, we're right back to square one. People are going to go on and on about preserving forum culture. I am less confident that people will be willing to try a restructure. It will feel like we're trying to change too much too quickly. Instead, anyone who wanted to give the new forums a shot and doesn't like it will simply leave. We'll be stuck with what we have now.
So, why not try to shake things up. It's always easier to return to the familiar than to try something new.
I don't think that's necessarily a foregone conclusion. It very much depends on how and why it doesn't work. If, for example, some of the D&Ders fears about the entire forum just turning into SE are realized, you're probably going to see a big chunk of D&Ders upset about it while all the SEers think it's a huge improvement. If less than half of the forum wants change while the rest want it to stay the same, I imagine this would be used as justification to just leave it as-is.
I feel the hybrid version allows for the most opportunity for adjustments just based on the philosophical underpinnings - it's, by definition, halfway between two extremes, and so any movement towards one of those extremes is less of a shift. (I also just think that there are many categories of discussion where it makes sense to just mush everything together - the oft-mentioned Lego thread(s), the sports threads, anything game-related, etc.)
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I think that the tone issue in non-political threads is largely exaggerated. I also think the new forums (for example the media forum) can allow for more specific threads that can more easily set the tone desired, rather than each major subforum just having “Movies” for example. Much like how G&T can easily support more threads for specific games.
Honestly, I think this is a decent argument for keeping around two separate areas in at least some capacity. I accept that some people walk into SE and into D&D and don't see much, if any, difference at all. I don't think they're lying, I think they honestly feel they're pretty much the same. But a lot of people (me included) find there to be pretty distinct differences - but, importantly, differences that are less about being on-topic or posting non-context images or whatever. Differences, in fact, that are somewhat difficult to really define using something like tags.
So if people can't agree on what makes them different, or even if they're different, how are we going to have two different threads on the same topic in the same space that adequately define and preserve two unique styles in any effective manner? You could explicitly call it out - this is the D&D version of the thread, this is the SE version of the thread - but if you're doing that, it makes sense to just have explicit SE and D&D subforums.
Otherwise, the idea of a complete merge seems premised on telling those who find stylistic differences between the two subforums that they're just imagining any difference and they should get over themselves.
I think you’re not understanding my point.
Not every thread is going to require a spinoff.
Not every spun off thread is trying to match D&D or SE.
Just by having a bunch of different types of threads, the threads are going to set their own tones. A watch party thread would be different from a horror movies thread would be different from a film crit thread would be different from a trailer thread. These do not have to be “se style” or “d&d style”. They could be their own thing.
I think there’s too much insistence from some folks that SE and D&D both follow two rigid posting styles in all their threads and that is very much not the case. I feel the number one thing keeping people from posting with folks from the other boards is largely decades of inertia and misunderstandings plus a small handful of bad actors across the entire user base (which is more a product of rules and enforcement than structure). I feel that this restructure is the best way to clear up those misconceptions, lest we will continue to essentially be three dwindling communities sharing one url.
I think that the tone issue in non-political threads is largely exaggerated. I also think the new forums (for example the media forum) can allow for more specific threads that can more easily set the tone desired, rather than each major subforum just having “Movies” for example. Much like how G&T can easily support more threads for specific games.
Honestly, I think this is a decent argument for keeping around two separate areas in at least some capacity. I accept that some people walk into SE and into D&D and don't see much, if any, difference at all. I don't think they're lying, I think they honestly feel they're pretty much the same. But a lot of people (me included) find there to be pretty distinct differences - but, importantly, differences that are less about being on-topic or posting non-context images or whatever. Differences, in fact, that are somewhat difficult to really define using something like tags.
So if people can't agree on what makes them different, or even if they're different, how are we going to have two different threads on the same topic in the same space that adequately define and preserve two unique styles in any effective manner? You could explicitly call it out - this is the D&D version of the thread, this is the SE version of the thread - but if you're doing that, it makes sense to just have explicit SE and D&D subforums.
Otherwise, the idea of a complete merge seems premised on telling those who find stylistic differences between the two subforums that they're just imagining any difference and they should get over themselves.
I think you’re not understanding my point.
Not every thread is going to require a spinoff.
Not every spun off thread is trying to match D&D or SE.
Just by having a bunch of different types of threads, the threads are going to set their own tones. A watch party thread would be different from a horror movies thread would be different from a film crit thread would be different from a trailer thread. These do not have to be “se style” or “d&d style”. They could be their own thing.
I think there’s too much insistence from some folks that SE and D&D both follow two rigid posting styles in all their threads and that is very much not the case. I feel the number one thing keeping people from posting with folks from the other boards is largely decades of inertia and misunderstandings plus a small handful of bad actors across the entire user base (which is more a product of rules and enforcement than structure). I feel that this restructure is the best way to clear up those misconceptions, lest we will continue to essentially be three dwindling communities sharing one url.
I agree with the bolded. I don't necessarily agree entirely with the rest, but that's okay, we're allowed to have different opinions.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I think that the tone issue in non-political threads is largely exaggerated. I also think the new forums (for example the media forum) can allow for more specific threads that can more easily set the tone desired, rather than each major subforum just having “Movies” for example. Much like how G&T can easily support more threads for specific games.
Honestly, I think this is a decent argument for keeping around two separate areas in at least some capacity. I accept that some people walk into SE and into D&D and don't see much, if any, difference at all. I don't think they're lying, I think they honestly feel they're pretty much the same. But a lot of people (me included) find there to be pretty distinct differences - but, importantly, differences that are less about being on-topic or posting non-context images or whatever. Differences, in fact, that are somewhat difficult to really define using something like tags.
So if people can't agree on what makes them different, or even if they're different, how are we going to have two different threads on the same topic in the same space that adequately define and preserve two unique styles in any effective manner? You could explicitly call it out - this is the D&D version of the thread, this is the SE version of the thread - but if you're doing that, it makes sense to just have explicit SE and D&D subforums.
Otherwise, the idea of a complete merge seems premised on telling those who find stylistic differences between the two subforums that they're just imagining any difference and they should get over themselves.
Is it a majority or minority of people though? I am not in favor of chasing anyone off. I am also not in favor of a forum structure that only makes sense if you have been here for 20 years. I would wager the vast majority of the board does not see a ton of difference between most of the threads one way or another. They simply post in the threads where they see them. Maintaining the past that does cause some disruption for the sake of a vocal minority is not a path to success.
The polling will tell us what is what in the end. I just reject the argument that keeping it as is would be some sort of neutral endeavor. The problems it has caused can still deepen more and we should be working to prevent that if we want to keep this place around.
To be clear, I'm in favor of a hybrid plan, not just keeping everything as-is.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
My general take is that the very nature of splitting forums by culture and not topic leads to conflict and misunderstandings. That culture is in many ways defined by the boundaries of the space. When you redraw the lines, you create a new culture, just as a result of the new selection of people participating. If the D&D movies thread and SE++ movies thread were to merge in the Media forum, it would be a different vibe from either of the previous threads, and I don't think either of them could be perceived as "winning." I suspect the very large majority of the community have no issue with meeting each other half way when it comes to overall vibe and tone of these topical threads. And I have confidence in the new moderation team to set rules that both sides would find agreeable.
I’m sorry but what really are the problems caused by the current layout? If there’s a duplicate game thread in SE and G&T is that… bad? Are we in danger of depleting our reserve of spare threads or something? If SE and D&D have similar threads with different standards vis a vis topicality does this really cause confusion?
I’m not even opposed to revision necessarily (splitting games and technology seems smart) but there seem to be lots of solutions searching for problems here
hold your head high soldier, it ain't over yet
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
I read several of those "duplicated" media threads, and would personally like to see them consolidated. I do not feel that the division/redundancy serves a useful purpose.
I’m sorry but what really are the problems caused by the current layout? If there’s a duplicate game thread in SE and G&T is that… bad? Are we in danger of depleting our reserve of spare threads or something? If SE and D&D have similar threads with different standards vis a vis topicality does this really cause confusion?
I’m not even opposed to revision necessarily (splitting games and technology seems smart) but there seem to be lots of solutions searching for problems here
It makes the threads feel more empty and stymies conversation in the forum. It is the exact same reason we don't allow duplicate threads in the same subforum currently.
I’m sorry but what really are the problems caused by the current layout? If there’s a duplicate game thread in SE and G&T is that… bad? Are we in danger of depleting our reserve of spare threads or something? If SE and D&D have similar threads with different standards vis a vis topicality does this really cause confusion?
I’m not even opposed to revision necessarily (splitting games and technology seems smart) but there seem to be lots of solutions searching for problems here
Some small number may cross between threads, but most stay in the subforums they've posted in for 20 years, and given the amount of forumers lost in the last year alone those numbers are reducing. That's a trend that may continue on the new forum, particularly if the format is unchanged.
Having one singular thread for say, Steam games, means you'd have posters from the three main subforums coming together in one space to have that discussion rather than most of them being in one of three places.
It boosts engagement in that thread, makes conversation more lively, and also makes the forum *feel* more alive which is more likely to result in retention or growth. You're more likely to check a thread regularly if there's more activity, or to find a point of conversation you want to hop in on.
I’m sorry but what really are the problems caused by the current layout? If there’s a duplicate game thread in SE and G&T is that… bad? Are we in danger of depleting our reserve of spare threads or something? If SE and D&D have similar threads with different standards vis a vis topicality does this really cause confusion?
I’m not even opposed to revision necessarily (splitting games and technology seems smart) but there seem to be lots of solutions searching for problems here
I mean, what's good about it? I don't see much benefit in doing the same thread in different places. The problem is that it reduces activity and creates artificial divisions between people that probably have a lot in common.
I’m sorry but what really are the problems caused by the current layout? If there’s a duplicate game thread in SE and G&T is that… bad? Are we in danger of depleting our reserve of spare threads or something? If SE and D&D have similar threads with different standards vis a vis topicality does this really cause confusion?
I’m not even opposed to revision necessarily (splitting games and technology seems smart) but there seem to be lots of solutions searching for problems here
Some small number may cross between threads, but most stay in the subforums they've posted in for 20 years, and given the amount of forumers lost in the last year alone those numbers are reducing. That's a trend that may continue on the new forum, particularly if the format is unchanged.
Having one singular thread for say, Steam games, means you'd have posters from the three main subforums coming together in one space to have that discussion rather than most of them being in one of three places.
It boosts engagement in that thread, makes conversation more lively, and also makes the forum *feel* more alive which is more likely to result in retention or growth. You're more likely to check a thread regularly if there's more activity, or to find a point of conversation you want to hop in on.
Or, the people who participated in one version of the thread now feel like their posts are drowned out by the other version and stop posting in it and overall participation declines
I’m sorry but what really are the problems caused by the current layout? If there’s a duplicate game thread in SE and G&T is that… bad? Are we in danger of depleting our reserve of spare threads or something? If SE and D&D have similar threads with different standards vis a vis topicality does this really cause confusion?
I’m not even opposed to revision necessarily (splitting games and technology seems smart) but there seem to be lots of solutions searching for problems here
Some small number may cross between threads, but most stay in the subforums they've posted in for 20 years, and given the amount of forumers lost in the last year alone those numbers are reducing. That's a trend that may continue on the new forum, particularly if the format is unchanged.
Having one singular thread for say, Steam games, means you'd have posters from the three main subforums coming together in one space to have that discussion rather than most of them being in one of three places.
It boosts engagement in that thread, makes conversation more lively, and also makes the forum *feel* more alive which is more likely to result in retention or growth. You're more likely to check a thread regularly if there's more activity, or to find a point of conversation you want to hop in on.
Or, the people who participated in one version of the thread now feel like their posts are drowned out by the other version and stop posting in it and overall participation declines
I don't think discussion about how Darnold got extremely sacked is going to get drowned out by discussion about how the Bears need a new head coach or vice versa. But maybe some of the people having one half of those conversations would have something to say about the other topic if they knew it existed.
I’m sorry but what really are the problems caused by the current layout? If there’s a duplicate game thread in SE and G&T is that… bad? Are we in danger of depleting our reserve of spare threads or something? If SE and D&D have similar threads with different standards vis a vis topicality does this really cause confusion?
I’m not even opposed to revision necessarily (splitting games and technology seems smart) but there seem to be lots of solutions searching for problems here
I mean, what's good about it? I don't see much benefit in doing the same thread in different places. The problem is that it reduces activity and creates artificial divisions between people that probably have a lot in common.
I think whatever its flaws the current setup has been good enough to inspire all this effort that it might continue, and it seems very strange that the discussion has turned toward ‘given this opportunity, in what ways might we mess with a good thing?’
Taking for example the steam thread(s): I assume most people in both are probably vaguely aware the other boards exist, and for whatever reason have chosen to post in the one they prefer. There seems to be no impetus that I can recall in the SE or GT thread to say hey you know, let’s close this one up to get everybody in one place. They’re talking to the people they wanna talk with about what they wanna talk about, and if that’s not the goal of the forum what the fuck are we doing here?
I think that shuffling around existing groups is more likely to drive people away than anything else
hold your head high soldier, it ain't over yet
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
Honestly I stayed out of D&D for all these years mostly because I didn't want to debate things on the internet anymore. So why would I ever go look in there for a Lego or PC Build thread when those topics would seem to belong elsewhere? Makes no sense. Nothing to do with style, everything to do with the described contents of the title and description of the forum.
Whereas I want to participate in All The Discussion about (Movies, TV, etc) and would rather not see it continue to be IMO pointlessly split between two separate places. I think the potential gains to be made from cross-pollination exceed the potential risks.
I’m sorry but what really are the problems caused by the current layout? If there’s a duplicate game thread in SE and G&T is that… bad? Are we in danger of depleting our reserve of spare threads or something? If SE and D&D have similar threads with different standards vis a vis topicality does this really cause confusion?
I’m not even opposed to revision necessarily (splitting games and technology seems smart) but there seem to be lots of solutions searching for problems here
I mean, what's good about it? I don't see much benefit in doing the same thread in different places. The problem is that it reduces activity and creates artificial divisions between people that probably have a lot in common.
I think whatever its flaws the current setup has been good enough to inspire all this effort that it might continue, and it seems very strange that the discussion has turned toward ‘given this opportunity, in what ways might we mess with a good thing?’
Taking for example the steam thread(s): I assume most people in both are probably vaguely aware the other boards exist, and for whatever reason have chosen to post in the one they prefer. There seems to be no impetus that I can recall in the SE or GT thread to say hey you know, let’s close this one up to get everybody in one place. They’re talking to the people they wanna talk with about what they wanna talk about, and if that’s not the goal of the forum what the fuck are we doing here?
I think that shuffling around existing groups is more likely to drive people away than anything else
It’s very much other people are doing the forums wrong thus we must fix on their behalf IMHO
Anzekay on
+1
minor incidentyou can't swim whenyou've been dead a hundred yearsRegistered User, Transition Teamregular
Taking for example the steam thread(s): I assume most people in both are probably vaguely aware the other boards exist, and for whatever reason have chosen to post in the one they prefer. There seems to be no impetus that I can recall in the SE or GT thread to say hey you know, let’s close this one up to get everybody in one place. They’re talking to the people they wanna talk with about what they wanna talk about, and if that’s not the goal of the forum what the fuck are we doing here?
I think that shuffling around existing groups is more likely to drive people away than anything else
For my part -- as someone with thousands of posts in the G&T steam thread, and probably just as many in the SE one (although with very little overlap in time frame) -- I just find it taxing to keep up with discussions on the same topic in two places, to remember which thread Discussion A was happening, or where Thing B was mentioned by someone, or where someone linked to Game Trailer C.
It's not some earthshaking problem, but in my mind both threads would be improved by being consolidated, or at least re-appraised.
BUT if that doesn't feel like a single consolidated thread is working there's also no reason they couldn't split off, but just both live in the same forum. With one being for Brolo's meticulous new release updates and discussion about new and upcoming game releases, and the other as more of a general Steam/gaming catch-all chat thread. I don't think consolidating threads to topical subforums means that the idiosyncrasies and personalities of each thread need to be lost.
But anyway, that's just my take. And that's why we're voting as a community to see how we proceed, because my personal take isn't worth any more than yours, and vice versa, but the community's overall leaning is important.
minor incident on
the tune you'll be humming forever, all the words are replaced and wrong
Whereas I want to participate in All The Discussion about (Movies, TV, etc) and would rather not see it continue to be IMO pointlessly split between two separate places. I think the potential gains to be made from cross-pollination exceed the potential risks.
Yes. I meant to say this too. I didn't settle into posting in the SE++ TV or Job thread because of posting style or treehouse stuff or whatever, I did it because it made sense to me to look there outside of G&T and Moe's for those things, found them, and then later when finding out there were duplicate threads elsewhere decided that duplicate effort on my part wasn't a worthwhile thing for my leisure time. Cutting down on duplicates sounds like a great thing.
I’m sorry but what really are the problems caused by the current layout? If there’s a duplicate game thread in SE and G&T is that… bad? Are we in danger of depleting our reserve of spare threads or something? If SE and D&D have similar threads with different standards vis a vis topicality does this really cause confusion?
I’m not even opposed to revision necessarily (splitting games and technology seems smart) but there seem to be lots of solutions searching for problems here
I mean, what's good about it? I don't see much benefit in doing the same thread in different places. The problem is that it reduces activity and creates artificial divisions between people that probably have a lot in common.
I think whatever its flaws the current setup has been good enough to inspire all this effort that it might continue, and it seems very strange that the discussion has turned toward ‘given this opportunity, in what ways might we mess with a good thing?’
Taking for example the steam thread(s): I assume most people in both are probably vaguely aware the other boards exist, and for whatever reason have chosen to post in the one they prefer. There seems to be no impetus that I can recall in the SE or GT thread to say hey you know, let’s close this one up to get everybody in one place. They’re talking to the people they wanna talk with about what they wanna talk about, and if that’s not the goal of the forum what the fuck are we doing here?
I think that shuffling around existing groups is more likely to drive people away than anything else
I don't agree with this reasoning that because we generally feel like these forums are good, that we should treat everything about them as good and preserve it all precisely as-is. There are decades of cruft that I think have lots of room for improvements without sacrificing the character of the forums.
I’m sorry but what really are the problems caused by the current layout? If there’s a duplicate game thread in SE and G&T is that… bad? Are we in danger of depleting our reserve of spare threads or something? If SE and D&D have similar threads with different standards vis a vis topicality does this really cause confusion?
I’m not even opposed to revision necessarily (splitting games and technology seems smart) but there seem to be lots of solutions searching for problems here
I mean, what's good about it? I don't see much benefit in doing the same thread in different places. The problem is that it reduces activity and creates artificial divisions between people that probably have a lot in common.
I think whatever its flaws the current setup has been good enough to inspire all this effort that it might continue, and it seems very strange that the discussion has turned toward ‘given this opportunity, in what ways might we mess with a good thing?’
Taking for example the steam thread(s): I assume most people in both are probably vaguely aware the other boards exist, and for whatever reason have chosen to post in the one they prefer. There seems to be no impetus that I can recall in the SE or GT thread to say hey you know, let’s close this one up to get everybody in one place. They’re talking to the people they wanna talk with about what they wanna talk about, and if that’s not the goal of the forum what the fuck are we doing here?
I think that shuffling around existing groups is more likely to drive people away than anything else
It’s very much other people are doing the forums wrong thus we must fix on their behalf IMHO
Those who prefer a merge or restructure are treating the arguments of those who don't in good faith, for the most part. It would be appreciated if those who want to keep the divisions would do the same. Assuming that we all just want to be the overlords of your posting style despite pages and pages of reasoning given for what we want is just ascribing malicious motives with no evidence.
Today, for example, I have seen many nearly or completely identical posts about the passing of Bob Uecker and David Lynch. The posts themselves are fine, IMO, but why have them in two places rather than just one?
Whereas I want to participate in All The Discussion about (Movies, TV, etc) and would rather not see it continue to be IMO pointlessly split between two separate places. I think the potential gains to be made from cross-pollination exceed the potential risks.
the existence of my favorite social space on the internet is not pointless. sorry, but, I don't think it should be dissolved because you find duplicate threads inconvenient.
I also understand that a lot of people believe that the structure needs to change, or the forums will die. I remain unconvinced. However, I am willing to try and experiment some. And, I think that trying everything (complete restructure, new governance, new rules, new moderators) all at once, under a tight deadline isn't going to give us great data as to why people leave. Makes it more difficult to course-correct if you don't really know what worked (or didn't).
Whereas I want to participate in All The Discussion about (Movies, TV, etc) and would rather not see it continue to be IMO pointlessly split between two separate places. I think the potential gains to be made from cross-pollination exceed the potential risks.
the existence of my favorite social space on the internet is not pointless. sorry, but, I don't think it should be dissolved because you find duplicate threads inconvenient.
I also understand that a lot of people believe that the structure needs to change, or the forums will die. I remain unconvinced. However, I am willing to try and experiment some. And, I think that trying everything (complete restructure, new governance, new rules, new moderators) all at once, under a tight deadline isn't going to give us great data as to why people leave. Makes it more difficult to course-correct if you don't really know what worked (or didn't).
I'm not in favor of anything that sounds like a social space is getting dissolved. If that is your impression than its either a problem with the messaging or the plan itself regarding a merge.
What social space does it sound like people are trying to dissolve?
Today, for example, I have seen many nearly or completely identical posts about the passing of Bob Uecker and David Lynch. The posts themselves are fine, IMO, but why have them in two places rather than just one?
What happens if you really don't like someone in the movie thread but want to discuss movies? That's one.
Also sometimes the threads just have different vibes. I won't post in the queer thread in se but will talk about that stuff in chat for example.
You're assuming the result will be just as much or more discussion when it could just as easily be less as people are driven off.
Today, for example, I have seen many nearly or completely identical posts about the passing of Bob Uecker and David Lynch. The posts themselves are fine, IMO, but why have them in two places rather than just one?
What happens if you really don't like someone in the movie thread but want to discuss movies? That's one.
Can you not just put them on ignore? I'm not trying to be a dick, but why isn't that an acceptable option?
Today, for example, I have seen many nearly or completely identical posts about the passing of Bob Uecker and David Lynch. The posts themselves are fine, IMO, but why have them in two places rather than just one?
What happens if you really don't like someone in the movie thread but want to discuss movies? That's one.
Can you not just put them on ignore? I'm not trying to be a dick, but why isn't that an acceptable option?
Sometimes yes! But sometimes they're the ones shaping the entire conversation, so that doesn't really help much.
Today, for example, I have seen many nearly or completely identical posts about the passing of Bob Uecker and David Lynch. The posts themselves are fine, IMO, but why have them in two places rather than just one?
Two places? There's at least four
- D&D chat
- D&D movies
- SE movies
- SE "David lynch has passed" thread
Today, for example, I have seen many nearly or completely identical posts about the passing of Bob Uecker and David Lynch. The posts themselves are fine, IMO, but why have them in two places rather than just one?
What happens if you really don't like someone in the movie thread but want to discuss movies? That's one.
Can you not just put them on ignore? I'm not trying to be a dick, but why isn't that an acceptable option?
Sometimes yes! But sometimes they're the ones shaping the entire conversation, so that doesn't really help much.
What happens if the one leading the conversation in one subforum is someone you don't like, and the one leading the conversation in the other subforum is someone you don't like? How many subforums do we need to keep all the people who don't like each other from bumping into each other?
0
QuetziHere we may reign secure, and in my choice,To reign is worth ambition though in HellRegistered User, Moderatormod
Today, for example, I have seen many nearly or completely identical posts about the passing of Bob Uecker and David Lynch. The posts themselves are fine, IMO, but why have them in two places rather than just one?
What happens if you really don't like someone in the movie thread but want to discuss movies? That's one.
Can you not just put them on ignore? I'm not trying to be a dick, but why isn't that an acceptable option?
Sometimes yes! But sometimes they're the ones shaping the entire conversation, so that doesn't really help much.
Does the current system help alleviate this?
Like, there are plenty of times that conversations in threads that I follow are about a topic I don't care about, or being led by a poster that I don't particularly like. That's a part of existing on a forum as far as I'm concerned. You just step away from the thread for a bit, or maybe you post about something different in the thread and see if you can steer the conversation towards what you want to talk about.
The only hiccup being it hides threads created by the person so could create some confusion there. Still manageable I think. I am still of the belief that a lot less would change than people fear under a full restructure. I think this is especially true once we iron out the rules (when it comes time for that). We can create a very inclusive space for the people here.
This is a pretty big hiccup.
To attempt to tread this minefield carefully, there are some… vocal and strong personalities who also happen to be prolific posters and thread creators.
I appreciate the ignore functionality here because, even if I can’t fully ignore a person, it does act as something of a filter, especially if they’re prone to posting multi-page screeds (which I’m sure I’m on a few ignore lists for myself), but given that said prolific posters are also likely to be regularly quoted, its kind of a half measure anyways.
Actual threads being hidden, however, means either choosing between getting to use that filter for them in the threads that stand, or having access to all of the threads, even if they’re created by people I find to be annoying enough to try to keep at a distance, however minor.
I haven’t done a recent count, but there were times in the past where one ignored user would have locked out a good half dozen+ conversations I participate in, let alone if this applied to all 3 or 4 I’ve current got on my list.
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
+2
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
Thinking about the Holiday Forums a bit has made me less...worried? Anxious? About a forum merge/restructure than I was, and thinking about THAT made me think about what several posters have brought up regarding the culture of the two forums here.
In the Holiday Forums, there's a lot of continuation of conversations and whatnot that existed in D&D and SE++ before, and they mix a bit in the threads where people from both are chatting. I realized that the culture thing is about context, at least for me. That is, when a bunch of people from SE++ dominate the thread, there's lots of little things that are references, memes if you will, that are just assumed. It's almost like a dialect. And so the conversation is really hard to participate in, because there are some things that I just don't understand. I'm sure the reverse is also true of the conversations dominated by D&D chatters.
Realizing that sort of brought me out of me 'fear of rejection' so to speak, with a merge. That the cultural touchstones that each forum had established would persist, or not, as time passes, and a new culture would emerge. There will be some growing pains as that happens, of course, and one side may see more of their culture subsumed than the other. I suppose this is where both time and good management will make the difference.
Today, for example, I have seen many nearly or completely identical posts about the passing of Bob Uecker and David Lynch. The posts themselves are fine, IMO, but why have them in two places rather than just one?
What happens if you really don't like someone in the movie thread but want to discuss movies? That's one.
Also sometimes the threads just have different vibes. I won't post in the queer thread in se but will talk about that stuff in chat for example.
You're assuming the result will be just as much or more discussion when it could just as easily be less as people are driven off.
I mean, posting with people you don't like is just part of the fabric of forums, you're not gonna love everyone?
There are people I am not a fan of in threads I post in regularly already, I just either put them on ignore or skim past their posts
Also the chat thread is still gonna be there, so if that's your preferred space you're not losing it even with the combined version
The only hiccup being it hides threads created by the person so could create some confusion there. Still manageable I think. I am still of the belief that a lot less would change than people fear under a full restructure. I think this is especially true once we iron out the rules (when it comes time for that). We can create a very inclusive space for the people here.
This is a pretty big hiccup.
To attempt to tread this minefield carefully, there are some… vocal and strong personalities who also happen to be prolific posters and thread creators.
I appreciate the ignore functionality here because, even if I can’t fully ignore a person, it does act as something of a filter, especially if they’re prone to posting multi-page screeds (which I’m sure I’m on a few ignore lists for myself), but given that said prolific posters are also likely to be regularly quoted, its kind of a half measure anyways.
Actual threads being hidden, however, means either choosing between getting to use that filter for them in the threads that stand, or having access to all of the threads, even if they’re created by people I find to be annoying enough to try to keep at a distance, however minor.
I haven’t done a recent count, but there were times in the past where one ignored user would have locked out a good half dozen+ conversations I participate in, let alone if this applied to all 3 or 4 I’ve current got on my list.
This is mainly an oversight on my part, I'll look into it. I think this is an area where vanilla gets it right and xenforo gets it wrong. I'm sure it's fixable.
I mentioned it in the voting form, but I think my biggest issue with the proposed layouts is splitting off the media threads from the 'secret' spaces that allow for politics or more controversial topics, because the media and especially the public's reaction to it is certainly not segregated in the same way.
Is 'All Authors are Dead' going to be the official subforum policy or merely limited to specific threads, or are threads dedicated to things like the Sandman and Harry Potter franchises going to be on a list of banned topics?
How much leeway should people assume there is when there comes to things like satire, or critiques of a work through a feminist or classist lens - is that top forum type of discussion or is that something more specific to Down Below? I suppose you would also have similar cases when you start talking money in sport, stuff like the European Superleague, oligarch team owners and everything that comes up with hosting the World Cup.
Especially as one of the stated goals is to bring in new people, there will potentially be a bunch of new people coming in who might not initially be quite so aligned in worldview as PA forum vets generally are, so things that might just be accepted as fact in D&D or SE++ may well be something entirely new to them. Or to go back to the same silly example, say in eight years time, when say WB finally gets their US remake of Potter released, having previously brought and silenced Rowling's twitter account to allow her to sink away from the Class of 2033's public consciousness.
Do we have an idea of how a thread or topic will work when it gets sent Down Below? Is it a brand new GDST type approach with a very narrow focus being made in the new version of (presumably) D&D, or would a portion of the thread get split off and sent down? How heavily policed would those threads then be to prevent them turning into more general topic threads? Because if the answer is not that much, then why not just allow Movies [politics and 'controversial' topics] Thread in D&D as well as the lighter, mostly personal reviews style one in the public forum?
I mean other than it would just be splitting the topic between one that's likely private, more interesting and faster paced and the other one (for a whole host of topics).
Entirely unrelated, but I do also prefer a minimal subforums, maximum range of topics approach - a chance to look up and down a menu and occasionally pick something a little different or unusual, rather than going in and out of a bunch of places which are all much more focused.
Two different places, each with varied menus ("Heads" and "Butts'n'stuff Tails" for the coin theme being the two bar hang outs for discussion of things that aren't video games or physical games) is still the ideal for me.
I think the cross-pollination between the politics/draw a horse stuff and the more general chats is what gives a place it's culture, and their cultures are what keeps them going. I think trying to prune as much as you can out from those two places to put together in a third place kind of misses the point, and all three bits will eventually wither away.
The only hiccup being it hides threads created by the person so could create some confusion there. Still manageable I think. I am still of the belief that a lot less would change than people fear under a full restructure. I think this is especially true once we iron out the rules (when it comes time for that). We can create a very inclusive space for the people here.
This is a pretty big hiccup.
To attempt to tread this minefield carefully, there are some… vocal and strong personalities who also happen to be prolific posters and thread creators.
I appreciate the ignore functionality here because, even if I can’t fully ignore a person, it does act as something of a filter, especially if they’re prone to posting multi-page screeds (which I’m sure I’m on a few ignore lists for myself), but given that said prolific posters are also likely to be regularly quoted, its kind of a half measure anyways.
Actual threads being hidden, however, means either choosing between getting to use that filter for them in the threads that stand, or having access to all of the threads, even if they’re created by people I find to be annoying enough to try to keep at a distance, however minor.
I haven’t done a recent count, but there were times in the past where one ignored user would have locked out a good half dozen+ conversations I participate in, let alone if this applied to all 3 or 4 I’ve current got on my list.
There is a button on the bottom right that lets you pop them back in. That is a large hassle I agree. Ideally we could fix that. I am not the one working the code though so I won't make any promises there. So yeah you wouldn't be locked out is the good news since you can reverse it while keeping the block in place. Very much a getting a quarter after losing a dollar kind of good news admittedly.
I am not the one working the code though so I won't make any promises there.
I am, so I will. I think it's an MVP feature that ignoring a user doesn't make assumptions about hiding other people's content because an ignored person started the thread.
So with all that said in defence of the status quo, I'm not blind to the feelings that people have that things are broken right now.
However rather than messing with the vibes of people's preferred online hangouts, I wonder if the key is to encourage more cross-pollination as you might then find that whilst you prefer discussing one topic one way, something else might fit the other place more for you - you just didn't check it out before because it wasn't your place and there seemed a bunch of private jokes and things that went over your head the one time you looked.
Whether some inter subforum games would work. There's the classic Phallas but also perhaps some others that can include more lurker based users. Something like a scavenger hunt or hide and seek trying to find a phrase or image hidden somewhere across the forums. Probably need to have some threads marked Out of Bounds if they cover sensitive or contentious issues, but they could be specific to a few cross forum threads - something like a bit of dialogue given to a bunch of posters to hide across the two movie threads that need to be marked with a 'Found you' reaction or something.
Perhaps some more in person or virtual meetups as well, some perhaps again themed with some subforum team element to get others invested and involved who aren't the extroverts who love interacting with actual people.
Posts
I don't think that's necessarily a foregone conclusion. It very much depends on how and why it doesn't work. If, for example, some of the D&Ders fears about the entire forum just turning into SE are realized, you're probably going to see a big chunk of D&Ders upset about it while all the SEers think it's a huge improvement. If less than half of the forum wants change while the rest want it to stay the same, I imagine this would be used as justification to just leave it as-is.
I feel the hybrid version allows for the most opportunity for adjustments just based on the philosophical underpinnings - it's, by definition, halfway between two extremes, and so any movement towards one of those extremes is less of a shift. (I also just think that there are many categories of discussion where it makes sense to just mush everything together - the oft-mentioned Lego thread(s), the sports threads, anything game-related, etc.)
I think you’re not understanding my point.
Not every thread is going to require a spinoff.
Not every spun off thread is trying to match D&D or SE.
Just by having a bunch of different types of threads, the threads are going to set their own tones. A watch party thread would be different from a horror movies thread would be different from a film crit thread would be different from a trailer thread. These do not have to be “se style” or “d&d style”. They could be their own thing.
I think there’s too much insistence from some folks that SE and D&D both follow two rigid posting styles in all their threads and that is very much not the case. I feel the number one thing keeping people from posting with folks from the other boards is largely decades of inertia and misunderstandings plus a small handful of bad actors across the entire user base (which is more a product of rules and enforcement than structure). I feel that this restructure is the best way to clear up those misconceptions, lest we will continue to essentially be three dwindling communities sharing one url.
I agree with the bolded. I don't necessarily agree entirely with the rest, but that's okay, we're allowed to have different opinions.
Is it a majority or minority of people though? I am not in favor of chasing anyone off. I am also not in favor of a forum structure that only makes sense if you have been here for 20 years. I would wager the vast majority of the board does not see a ton of difference between most of the threads one way or another. They simply post in the threads where they see them. Maintaining the past that does cause some disruption for the sake of a vocal minority is not a path to success.
The polling will tell us what is what in the end. I just reject the argument that keeping it as is would be some sort of neutral endeavor. The problems it has caused can still deepen more and we should be working to prevent that if we want to keep this place around.
I’m not even opposed to revision necessarily (splitting games and technology seems smart) but there seem to be lots of solutions searching for problems here
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
It makes the threads feel more empty and stymies conversation in the forum. It is the exact same reason we don't allow duplicate threads in the same subforum currently.
Some small number may cross between threads, but most stay in the subforums they've posted in for 20 years, and given the amount of forumers lost in the last year alone those numbers are reducing. That's a trend that may continue on the new forum, particularly if the format is unchanged.
Having one singular thread for say, Steam games, means you'd have posters from the three main subforums coming together in one space to have that discussion rather than most of them being in one of three places.
It boosts engagement in that thread, makes conversation more lively, and also makes the forum *feel* more alive which is more likely to result in retention or growth. You're more likely to check a thread regularly if there's more activity, or to find a point of conversation you want to hop in on.
3DS Friend Code: 0216-0898-6512
Switch Friend Code: SW-7437-1538-7786
I mean, what's good about it? I don't see much benefit in doing the same thread in different places. The problem is that it reduces activity and creates artificial divisions between people that probably have a lot in common.
we love to see it
Or, the people who participated in one version of the thread now feel like their posts are drowned out by the other version and stop posting in it and overall participation declines
I don't think discussion about how Darnold got extremely sacked is going to get drowned out by discussion about how the Bears need a new head coach or vice versa. But maybe some of the people having one half of those conversations would have something to say about the other topic if they knew it existed.
I think whatever its flaws the current setup has been good enough to inspire all this effort that it might continue, and it seems very strange that the discussion has turned toward ‘given this opportunity, in what ways might we mess with a good thing?’
Taking for example the steam thread(s): I assume most people in both are probably vaguely aware the other boards exist, and for whatever reason have chosen to post in the one they prefer. There seems to be no impetus that I can recall in the SE or GT thread to say hey you know, let’s close this one up to get everybody in one place. They’re talking to the people they wanna talk with about what they wanna talk about, and if that’s not the goal of the forum what the fuck are we doing here?
I think that shuffling around existing groups is more likely to drive people away than anything else
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
It’s very much other people are doing the forums wrong thus we must fix on their behalf IMHO
For my part -- as someone with thousands of posts in the G&T steam thread, and probably just as many in the SE one (although with very little overlap in time frame) -- I just find it taxing to keep up with discussions on the same topic in two places, to remember which thread Discussion A was happening, or where Thing B was mentioned by someone, or where someone linked to Game Trailer C.
It's not some earthshaking problem, but in my mind both threads would be improved by being consolidated, or at least re-appraised.
BUT if that doesn't feel like a single consolidated thread is working there's also no reason they couldn't split off, but just both live in the same forum. With one being for Brolo's meticulous new release updates and discussion about new and upcoming game releases, and the other as more of a general Steam/gaming catch-all chat thread. I don't think consolidating threads to topical subforums means that the idiosyncrasies and personalities of each thread need to be lost.
But anyway, that's just my take. And that's why we're voting as a community to see how we proceed, because my personal take isn't worth any more than yours, and vice versa, but the community's overall leaning is important.
Yes. I meant to say this too. I didn't settle into posting in the SE++ TV or Job thread because of posting style or treehouse stuff or whatever, I did it because it made sense to me to look there outside of G&T and Moe's for those things, found them, and then later when finding out there were duplicate threads elsewhere decided that duplicate effort on my part wasn't a worthwhile thing for my leisure time. Cutting down on duplicates sounds like a great thing.
I don't agree with this reasoning that because we generally feel like these forums are good, that we should treat everything about them as good and preserve it all precisely as-is. There are decades of cruft that I think have lots of room for improvements without sacrificing the character of the forums.
Those who prefer a merge or restructure are treating the arguments of those who don't in good faith, for the most part. It would be appreciated if those who want to keep the divisions would do the same. Assuming that we all just want to be the overlords of your posting style despite pages and pages of reasoning given for what we want is just ascribing malicious motives with no evidence.
I'd just appreciate if we didn't get all circular again
the existence of my favorite social space on the internet is not pointless. sorry, but, I don't think it should be dissolved because you find duplicate threads inconvenient.
I also understand that a lot of people believe that the structure needs to change, or the forums will die. I remain unconvinced. However, I am willing to try and experiment some. And, I think that trying everything (complete restructure, new governance, new rules, new moderators) all at once, under a tight deadline isn't going to give us great data as to why people leave. Makes it more difficult to course-correct if you don't really know what worked (or didn't).
I'm not in favor of anything that sounds like a social space is getting dissolved. If that is your impression than its either a problem with the messaging or the plan itself regarding a merge.
What social space does it sound like people are trying to dissolve?
What happens if you really don't like someone in the movie thread but want to discuss movies? That's one.
Also sometimes the threads just have different vibes. I won't post in the queer thread in se but will talk about that stuff in chat for example.
You're assuming the result will be just as much or more discussion when it could just as easily be less as people are driven off.
Can you not just put them on ignore? I'm not trying to be a dick, but why isn't that an acceptable option?
Sometimes yes! But sometimes they're the ones shaping the entire conversation, so that doesn't really help much.
Two places? There's at least four
- D&D chat
- D&D movies
- SE movies
- SE "David lynch has passed" thread
What happens if the one leading the conversation in one subforum is someone you don't like, and the one leading the conversation in the other subforum is someone you don't like? How many subforums do we need to keep all the people who don't like each other from bumping into each other?
Does the current system help alleviate this?
Like, there are plenty of times that conversations in threads that I follow are about a topic I don't care about, or being led by a poster that I don't particularly like. That's a part of existing on a forum as far as I'm concerned. You just step away from the thread for a bit, or maybe you post about something different in the thread and see if you can steer the conversation towards what you want to talk about.
This is a pretty big hiccup.
To attempt to tread this minefield carefully, there are some… vocal and strong personalities who also happen to be prolific posters and thread creators.
I appreciate the ignore functionality here because, even if I can’t fully ignore a person, it does act as something of a filter, especially if they’re prone to posting multi-page screeds (which I’m sure I’m on a few ignore lists for myself), but given that said prolific posters are also likely to be regularly quoted, its kind of a half measure anyways.
Actual threads being hidden, however, means either choosing between getting to use that filter for them in the threads that stand, or having access to all of the threads, even if they’re created by people I find to be annoying enough to try to keep at a distance, however minor.
I haven’t done a recent count, but there were times in the past where one ignored user would have locked out a good half dozen+ conversations I participate in, let alone if this applied to all 3 or 4 I’ve current got on my list.
In the Holiday Forums, there's a lot of continuation of conversations and whatnot that existed in D&D and SE++ before, and they mix a bit in the threads where people from both are chatting. I realized that the culture thing is about context, at least for me. That is, when a bunch of people from SE++ dominate the thread, there's lots of little things that are references, memes if you will, that are just assumed. It's almost like a dialect. And so the conversation is really hard to participate in, because there are some things that I just don't understand. I'm sure the reverse is also true of the conversations dominated by D&D chatters.
Realizing that sort of brought me out of me 'fear of rejection' so to speak, with a merge. That the cultural touchstones that each forum had established would persist, or not, as time passes, and a new culture would emerge. There will be some growing pains as that happens, of course, and one side may see more of their culture subsumed than the other. I suppose this is where both time and good management will make the difference.
I mean, posting with people you don't like is just part of the fabric of forums, you're not gonna love everyone?
There are people I am not a fan of in threads I post in regularly already, I just either put them on ignore or skim past their posts
Also the chat thread is still gonna be there, so if that's your preferred space you're not losing it even with the combined version
3DS Friend Code: 0216-0898-6512
Switch Friend Code: SW-7437-1538-7786
This is mainly an oversight on my part, I'll look into it. I think this is an area where vanilla gets it right and xenforo gets it wrong. I'm sure it's fixable.
Edit: added to the task list
Is 'All Authors are Dead' going to be the official subforum policy or merely limited to specific threads, or are threads dedicated to things like the Sandman and Harry Potter franchises going to be on a list of banned topics?
How much leeway should people assume there is when there comes to things like satire, or critiques of a work through a feminist or classist lens - is that top forum type of discussion or is that something more specific to Down Below? I suppose you would also have similar cases when you start talking money in sport, stuff like the European Superleague, oligarch team owners and everything that comes up with hosting the World Cup.
Especially as one of the stated goals is to bring in new people, there will potentially be a bunch of new people coming in who might not initially be quite so aligned in worldview as PA forum vets generally are, so things that might just be accepted as fact in D&D or SE++ may well be something entirely new to them. Or to go back to the same silly example, say in eight years time, when say WB finally gets their US remake of Potter released, having previously brought and silenced Rowling's twitter account to allow her to sink away from the Class of 2033's public consciousness.
Do we have an idea of how a thread or topic will work when it gets sent Down Below? Is it a brand new GDST type approach with a very narrow focus being made in the new version of (presumably) D&D, or would a portion of the thread get split off and sent down? How heavily policed would those threads then be to prevent them turning into more general topic threads? Because if the answer is not that much, then why not just allow Movies [politics and 'controversial' topics] Thread in D&D as well as the lighter, mostly personal reviews style one in the public forum?
I mean other than it would just be splitting the topic between one that's likely private, more interesting and faster paced and the other one (for a whole host of topics).
Entirely unrelated, but I do also prefer a minimal subforums, maximum range of topics approach - a chance to look up and down a menu and occasionally pick something a little different or unusual, rather than going in and out of a bunch of places which are all much more focused.
Two different places, each with varied menus ("Heads" and "Butts'n'stuff Tails" for the coin theme being the two bar hang outs for discussion of things that aren't video games or physical games) is still the ideal for me.
I think the cross-pollination between the politics/draw a horse stuff and the more general chats is what gives a place it's culture, and their cultures are what keeps them going. I think trying to prune as much as you can out from those two places to put together in a third place kind of misses the point, and all three bits will eventually wither away.
There is a button on the bottom right that lets you pop them back in. That is a large hassle I agree. Ideally we could fix that. I am not the one working the code though so I won't make any promises there. So yeah you wouldn't be locked out is the good news since you can reverse it while keeping the block in place. Very much a getting a quarter after losing a dollar kind of good news admittedly.
I am, so I will. I think it's an MVP feature that ignoring a user doesn't make assumptions about hiding other people's content because an ignored person started the thread.
However rather than messing with the vibes of people's preferred online hangouts, I wonder if the key is to encourage more cross-pollination as you might then find that whilst you prefer discussing one topic one way, something else might fit the other place more for you - you just didn't check it out before because it wasn't your place and there seemed a bunch of private jokes and things that went over your head the one time you looked.
Whether some inter subforum games would work. There's the classic Phallas but also perhaps some others that can include more lurker based users. Something like a scavenger hunt or hide and seek trying to find a phrase or image hidden somewhere across the forums. Probably need to have some threads marked Out of Bounds if they cover sensitive or contentious issues, but they could be specific to a few cross forum threads - something like a bit of dialogue given to a bunch of posters to hide across the two movie threads that need to be marked with a 'Found you' reaction or something.
Perhaps some more in person or virtual meetups as well, some perhaps again themed with some subforum team element to get others invested and involved who aren't the extroverts who love interacting with actual people.