New G&T thread limits

ronzo · November 2006

New rule just appeared for G&T, limiting page to around 50. I have no problem with this, but it was implemented rather badly. I just saw about 7 threads reboot, mid conversation. For the future, could we either have a bit more warning for rule changes, or grandfather the older threads under old rule until they reach the limit?

Einhander · November 2006

Warning for rule changes?

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

Like they'd ever do that. Besides, it's fun to wake up one morning and fire up the forums to see a beloved feature (or entire forum) gone with no explanation and all the threads asking kindly for one being locked. Or, with a half-assed shoehorned explanation. It is in fact my favorite thing.

Accualt · November 2006

I didn't think having new threads be created would be a problem. My bad.

PenguinSeph · November 2006

What was the point of changing the limit of threads in GnT anyway? And are these limits in the other forums as well?

übergeek · November 2006

It's completely unneeded, especially since Alpha fixed that problem with the forums exploding after 100 pages months ago.

Accualt · November 2006

It is actually an old rule G&T use to follow and some of the other forums still do follow. Somewhere along the line the rule was removed and an unofficial "lock it at 100 because it kills the forums" trend hit. Some of the mods felt long ass threads are intimidating to join and a bitch to navigate. Here is the rule as put in the rule thread.

Thread Length
Once a thread reaches 51 pages it will be locked by a mod. Feel free to have someone create a new thread around page 50 and PM a mod to have the old one locked. This makes threads less intimidating and easier to search.

Normally I would have been all for a grandfather clause but I didn't feel it was needed for something like this where you just create a new thread and carry on. I apologize for stepping on conversational toes.

Einhander · November 2006

I was just venting after the sudden canning of the chat thread and linksville without warning and in such quick sucession, really.

It's always been my assumption that threads over 100 pages bork the search somehow, and take up a lot of space on the server contrasted to smaller threads, so breaking them up would make sense.

But it would be nice to have a warning, is all.

Linksville · November 2006

PenguinSeph wrote:

What was the point of changing the limit of threads in GnT anyway? And are these limits in the other forums as well?

To relieve stress on the server. The other high traffic forums probably have this rule as well.

JAEF · November 2006

Since it's already done, there's not much to be changed about it. Now we know for next time though, when we start locking threads on page 2.

Edit: Don't bring Linksville into this Einny. I think tears are forming in my eyes.

PenguinSeph · November 2006

Accualt wrote:

It is actually an old rule G&T use to follow and some of the other forums still do follow. Somewhere along the line the rule was removed and an unofficial "lock it at 100 because it kills the forums" trend hit. Some of the mods felt long ass threads are intimidating to join and a bitch to navigate. Here is the rule as put in the rule thread.

Thread Length
Once a thread reaches 51 pages it will be locked by a mod. Feel free to have someone create a new thread around page 50 and PM a mod to have the old one locked. This makes threads less intimidating and easier to search.

Normally I would have been all for a grandfather clause but I didn't feel it was needed for something like this where you just create a new thread and carry on. I apologize for stepping on conversational toes.

That makes sense. Thanks for the explanation.

Accualt · November 2006

JAEF wrote:

Since it's already done, there's not much to be changed about it. Now we know for next time though, when we start locking threads on page 2.

Now that is a good idea. New Rule!

The JAEF Effect
Any thread which JAEF posts in shall be locked at Page 2 or, at the latest, two pages after JAEF posted in it. This will prevent the thread from becoming any worse by limiting the number of times JAEF may post in it.

anyprophet · November 2006

Accualt, I badly want to correct your grammar in the G&T rules thread.

Or maybe I should have Strong Bad correct it, since he disliked the error enough to write a song about it.

JAEF · November 2006

It's only fair, Accualt. If you'll excuse me, I have to go post in every thread on the CoH forums, and after the month it takes to accumulate 2 pages worth of posts in those threads, they will all be locked!

Kefka%20-%20Laugh.gif

Accualt · November 2006

Ouch, that hurts.

And Anyprophet just PM me what you want and I'll (probably) change it.

Aroduc · November 2006

While we're talking about grammar and such, you may want to reword the 'stillborn' rule because at the moment, it's illegal to post in 'bad threads' at all, be it to point out that it's a duplicate (or ignorance that it's a duplicate), to point out rule breaking for those that don't know, to say "yo, this belongs in D&D or wherever," etc etc.

Also, maybe stop archiving and praising those really REALLY bad threads.

Accualt · November 2006

Aroduc wrote:

While we're talking about grammar and such, you may want to reword the 'stillborn' rule because at the moment, it's illegal to post in 'bad threads' at all, be it to point out that it's a duplicate (or ignorance that it's a duplicate), to point out rule breaking for those that don't know, to say "yo, this belongs in D&D or wherever," etc etc.

Yeah, I tossed that idea around. The problem I imagine is multiple people posting using the guise of being helpful when really they are repeating the same crap over so they can get in a "legendary thread." When the mod locks it he can just point out the violated rule, link to the duplicate thread, ect.
The idea is if no one posts in the bad thread, at all, it will fall off the front page and become a non-issue.

Aroduc · November 2006

Accualt wrote:

Aroduc wrote:

While we're talking about grammar and such, you may want to reword the 'stillborn' rule because at the moment, it's illegal to post in 'bad threads' at all, be it to point out that it's a duplicate (or ignorance that it's a duplicate), to point out rule breaking for those that don't know, to say "yo, this belongs in D&D or wherever," etc etc.

Yeah, I tossed that idea around. The problem I imagine is multiple people posting using the guise of being helpful when really they are repeating the same crap over so they can get in a "legendary thread." When the mod locks it he can just point out the violated rule, link to the duplicate thread, ect.
The idea is if no one posts in the bad thread, at all, it will fall off the front page and become a non-issue.

But on the other hand, it actively discourages people from saying "Hi" and/or trying to help the clueless new posters who are well meaning and sort of intelligent, just unfamiliar with how things work.

Accualt · November 2006

Aroduc wrote:

Accualt wrote:

Aroduc wrote:

While we're talking about grammar and such, you may want to reword the 'stillborn' rule because at the moment, it's illegal to post in 'bad threads' at all, be it to point out that it's a duplicate (or ignorance that it's a duplicate), to point out rule breaking for those that don't know, to say "yo, this belongs in D&D or wherever," etc etc.

Yeah, I tossed that idea around. The problem I imagine is multiple people posting using the guise of being helpful when really they are repeating the same crap over so they can get in a "legendary thread." When the mod locks it he can just point out the violated rule, link to the duplicate thread, ect.
The idea is if no one posts in the bad thread, at all, it will fall off the front page and become a non-issue.

But on the other hand, it actively discourages people from saying "Hi" and/or trying to help the clueless new posters who are well meaning and sort of intelligent, just unfamiliar with how things work.

Noted. We'll chatter about it.

Manyorcas · November 2006

Aroduc wrote:

Accualt wrote:

Yeah, I tossed that idea around. The problem I imagine is multiple people posting using the guise of being helpful when really they are repeating the same crap over so they can get in a "legendary thread." When the mod locks it he can just point out the violated rule, link to the duplicate thread, ect.
The idea is if no one posts in the bad thread, at all, it will fall off the front page and become a non-issue.

But on the other hand, it actively discourages people from saying "Hi" and/or trying to help the clueless new posters who are well meaning and sort of intelligent, just unfamiliar with how things work.

As a new poster, I'd like to add that other posters lightly pointing out and making fun of these rule infringements has helped me find out just how tightly certain broad rules are enforced and to the subjects they pertain too. The locked threads stand out to me as examples of what not to do, whereas if those threads had simply fallen I wouldn't have had second thoughts about them. Going to continue generally lurking awhile for these reasons.

I understand the policy of simply ignoring blatant violations though and I'm mildly impressed at how well everyone follows it at times.

wunderbar · November 2006

I'm not a huge fan of this. It makes conversation in the threads very difficult. Take some of the longer threads. Yes, the same questions can be asked a few times in the same thread. However having shorter threads won't change that. Long threads are fun. One 80+ page thread can talk about a single issue, why is that a bad thing? So instead we'll have 2 50 page threads on it. Why not have one 80 page thread?

First the mega threads, now this.

Just my opinion.

Accualt · November 2006

We won't have two. We'll have one locked and one running.
It actually works out better, I swear. The bigger threads get scary to post in for people who aren't on everyday and it is nice to get refreshed OPs and titles.

It doesn't hurt conversation, it isn't like you have to stop talking for any amount of time, and it is easier on the more casual posters. Not to mention it helps take some of the load off of the server once the old biggies get knocked out.

Orikaeshigitae · November 2006

JAEF wrote:

Since it's already done, there's not much to be changed about it. Now we know for next time though, when we start locking threads on page 2.

Edit: Don't bring Linksville into this Einny. I think tears are forming in my eyes.

linksville was locked because faurrego wanted it locked before it died on its own.

Thanatos · November 2006

wunderbar wrote:

I'm not a huge fan of this. It makes conversation in the threads very difficult. Take some of the longer threads. Yes, the same questions can be asked a few times in the same thread. However having shorter threads won't change that. Long threads are fun. One 80+ page thread can talk about a single issue, why is that a bad thing? So instead we'll have 2 50 page threads on it. Why not have one 80 page thread?

First the mega threads, now this.

Just my opinion.

Holy Jesus.

We don't want an 80-page thread because it's intimidating to someone to come in and have to read 80 pages before posting.

Why are you guys so in love with the idea of huge threads, anyhow? WHy is this even such a huge issue? Is it because everyone has to make scads of drama anytime anything is done to G&T? I think it is.

For fuck's sake, no one bitches this much about changes in any other forum.

fightinfilipino · November 2006

Thanatos wrote:

wunderbar wrote:

I'm not a huge fan of this. It makes conversation in the threads very difficult. Take some of the longer threads. Yes, the same questions can be asked a few times in the same thread. However having shorter threads won't change that. Long threads are fun. One 80+ page thread can talk about a single issue, why is that a bad thing? So instead we'll have 2 50 page threads on it. Why not have one 80 page thread?

First the mega threads, now this.

Just my opinion.

Holy Jesus.

We don't want an 80-page thread because it's intimidating to someone to come in and have to read 80 pages before posting.

Why are you guys so in love with the idea of huge threads, anyhow? WHy is this even such a huge issue? Is it because everyone has to make scads of drama anytime anything is done to G&T? I think it is.

For fuck's sake, no one bitches this much about changes in any other forum.

just to play devil's advocate, some other forums have threads spanning 500 posts or more. somethingawful, random anime fansites, that forum set up for Michael Bay fans...

Orikaeshigitae · November 2006

fightinfilipino wrote:

Thanatos wrote:

wunderbar wrote:

I'm not a huge fan of this. It makes conversation in the threads very difficult. Take some of the longer threads. Yes, the same questions can be asked a few times in the same thread. However having shorter threads won't change that. Long threads are fun. One 80+ page thread can talk about a single issue, why is that a bad thing? So instead we'll have 2 50 page threads on it. Why not have one 80 page thread?

First the mega threads, now this.

Just my opinion.

Holy Jesus.

We don't want an 80-page thread because it's intimidating to someone to come in and have to read 80 pages before posting.

Why are you guys so in love with the idea of huge threads, anyhow? WHy is this even such a huge issue? Is it because everyone has to make scads of drama anytime anything is done to G&T? I think it is.

For fuck's sake, no one bitches this much about changes in any other forum.

just to play devil's advocate, some other forums have threads spanning 500 posts or more. somethingawful, random anime fansites, that forum set up for Michael Bay fans...

somethingawful makes hundreds of dollars a day from registration fees and has a stack of servers the size of a house

we don't

Aroduc · November 2006

fightinfilipino wrote:

Thanatos wrote:

wunderbar wrote:

I'm not a huge fan of this. It makes conversation in the threads very difficult. Take some of the longer threads. Yes, the same questions can be asked a few times in the same thread. However having shorter threads won't change that. Long threads are fun. One 80+ page thread can talk about a single issue, why is that a bad thing? So instead we'll have 2 50 page threads on it. Why not have one 80 page thread?

First the mega threads, now this.

Just my opinion.

Holy Jesus.

We don't want an 80-page thread because it's intimidating to someone to come in and have to read 80 pages before posting.

Why are you guys so in love with the idea of huge threads, anyhow? WHy is this even such a huge issue? Is it because everyone has to make scads of drama anytime anything is done to G&T? I think it is.

For fuck's sake, no one bitches this much about changes in any other forum.

just to play devil's advocate, some other forums have threads spanning 500 posts or more. somethingawful, random anime fansites, that forum set up for Michael Bay fans...

And the vast majority of us don't care aside from the annoyance of suddenly having 10 threads on the front page be locked and duplicates formed all in the matter of about 15 minutes. Let's not do the whole "one person equals all of G&T," eh? It is magnitudes larger than almost all of the other subforums. With a population large enough, you'll find complaints about pretty much anything.

fightinfilipino · November 2006

Orikaeshigitae wrote:

fightinfilipino wrote:

Thanatos wrote:

wunderbar wrote:

I'm not a huge fan of this. It makes conversation in the threads very difficult. Take some of the longer threads. Yes, the same questions can be asked a few times in the same thread. However having shorter threads won't change that. Long threads are fun. One 80+ page thread can talk about a single issue, why is that a bad thing? So instead we'll have 2 50 page threads on it. Why not have one 80 page thread?

First the mega threads, now this.

Just my opinion.

Holy Jesus.

We don't want an 80-page thread because it's intimidating to someone to come in and have to read 80 pages before posting.

Why are you guys so in love with the idea of huge threads, anyhow? WHy is this even such a huge issue? Is it because everyone has to make scads of drama anytime anything is done to G&T? I think it is.

For fuck's sake, no one bitches this much about changes in any other forum.

just to play devil's advocate, some other forums have threads spanning 500 posts or more. somethingawful, random anime fansites, that forum set up for Michael Bay fans...

somethingawful makes hundreds of dollars a day from registration fees and has a stack of servers the size of a house

we don't

not my point (although SA does have a metric fuckton of resources backing them, true)

my point is maybe people are just weirded out by sudden changes like lowering the thread post limits without much notice and when thread limits don't seem to happen on other forums, not just somethingawful.

i'm not personally bothered by the rule, but i was surprised at the suddenness of it. maybe there should be a grace period where a new rule is announced but not enforced for a little bit of time.

as a side note, i just went to check the PA Cult site and saw they were closing down.

Javen · November 2006

The way I see it, it's either this, or having many duplicate questions in a single thread.

Though I don't usually frequent G&T, the former seems like a better solution.

MechMantis · November 2006

About these here post limits...

Are we going to be taking it to extremes? Only the OP in a thread?

Or maybe half an OP?

Kriz · November 2006

Thanatos wrote:

For fuck's sake, no one bitches this much about changes in any other forum.

Thanatos, that's not quite fair. other forums don't change as much as G&T has in the past few months, thus they don't have issues to complain about.

I don't know why there is drama over this, though. we still have megathreads, they just reboot at 50 pages, which is plenty.

if there's anything for a G&Ter to be voicing an opinion about, its that we haven't gotten our chat thread back.

Orikaeshigitae · November 2006

MechMantis wrote:

About these here post limits...

Are we going to be taking it to extremes? Only the OP in a thread?

Or maybe half an OP?

soon we will outlaw posting

and then only outlaws will post

Orikaeshigitae · November 2006

Kriz wrote:

Thanatos, that's not quite fair. other forums don't change as much as G&T has in the past few months, thus they don't have issues to complain about.

I don't know why there is drama over this, though. we still have megathreads, they just reboot at 50 pages, which is plenty.

if there's anything for a G&Ter to be voicing an opinion about, its that we haven't gotten our chat thread back.

as i understand it isn't coming back

Captain K · November 2006

MechMantis wrote:

About these here post limits...

Are we going to be taking it to extremes? Only the OP in a thread?

Or maybe half an OP?

Was this post really necessary?

BahamutZERO · November 2006

I was afraid for a moment I had accidentally posted a smart ass post I had typed up about the chat thread, then I realized that I had seen my name next to the thread under this one. Heh.

G&T Chat Thread for mod '07

Javen · November 2006

Orikaeshigitae wrote:

MechMantis wrote:

About these here post limits...

Are we going to be taking it to extremes? Only the OP in a thread?

Or maybe half an OP?

soon we will outlaw posting

and then only outlaws will post

They say people don't believe in heroes anymore. Well, damn them! You and me, Orikae, we're gonna give 'em back their heroes!

MechMantis · November 2006

Captain K wrote:

MechMantis wrote:

About these here post limits...

Are we going to be taking it to extremes? Only the OP in a thread?

Or maybe half an OP?

Was this post really necessary?

Seeing as the page/post limit has been going steadily down as of late, I was just wondering how far we would go. :P

Orikaeshigitae · November 2006

MechMantis wrote:

Captain K wrote:

MechMantis wrote:

About these here post limits...

Are we going to be taking it to extremes? Only the OP in a thread?

Or maybe half an OP?

Was this post really necessary?

Seeing as the page/post limit has been going steadily down as of late, I was just wondering how far we would go. :P

so, no, it wasn't

Whippy · November 2006

The chat thread is never coming back.

And this thread is god damned stupid. You people will bitch about anything.

Thanatos · November 2006

Kriz wrote:

Thanatos wrote:

For fuck's sake, no one bitches this much about changes in any other forum.

Thanatos, that's not quite fair. other forums don't change as much as G&T has in the past few months, thus they don't have issues to complain about.

I don't know why there is drama over this, though. we still have megathreads, they just reboot at 50 pages, which is plenty.

if there's anything for a G&Ter to be voicing an opinion about, its that we haven't gotten our chat thread back.

Yeah, because it's not like any other forums had their megathreads taken away shortly before G&T with no warning. :roll:

Kriz · November 2006

Orikaeshigitae wrote:

as i understand it isn't coming back

well, one of the many things said by the mods after the big rule changes was that "we're trying this for now, it could be easily reversed later on".

I thought that the modstaff would actually give it consideration, rather than that being just some false hope meant to calm down people down in the drama, but Whippy just shot that down right now.

yeah, its nice to know that mods and admins will lie to us.

Whippy · November 2006

I've just decided to be as abrasive and unhelpful as possible

I hope this is okay with you guys

Penny Arcade

Quick Links

New G&T thread limits

Posts

Penny Arcade

New G&amp;T thread limits

Posts

New G&T thread limits