Hi everybody,
just a little question about the topics on the forum here. Some topics might get over 200 or more replies when a debate get’s on fire. We as mods can close that topic, add to the subject (part 1) and create a new one with the same name and (part 2) behind it. The questions is:
Should we split topics after they get over an x-number of replies?
Please leave a reply if you want. Make also clear why that’s your opinion.
What about a special forum category just for @Al_Kafir and @Blindsite2k? 
@Seneca Brave man. Not even I’m going to say that, not even today, not even with toothache.
I think just split if the topic wonders off the original post. Hijacking a thread can be annoying, even if the tangent is interesting (and can be split into a new thread).
Lol…why do I always get tarred with the same brush…I only reply! 
The problem from my perspective is why should I give free adverts for daft ideas (Yes, I believe they exist by the way and that there’s more than ample evidence for their existence contained within the very long threads you talk about).
ITo cut to the chase with the thread you talk about, I think I suggested within the first few posts, starting a new thread (in off topic) for all the club ideas that Blindsite and the poster wanted to discuss. No other thread need have been started other than this and the thread would have not involved me whatsoever - that’s why I lobbied long and hard to have the off- topic category created in the first place - to keep it off the front page. If its on the front page then I’m going to respond to it.
I have no technical knowledge hardly, yet I’m sure any thread about smart contracts could just have been joined, as that was the only relevant thing really that was asked about that was relevant for the front page. There was no technical discussion to be had about how this app could be implemented for the purpose intended either physically or logically. All of his was pointed out in various ways by both myself and @Artiscience and the thread could have ended very early. The thread also had a misleading title and had nothing whatsoever to do with Law.
The thread became interesting for me when discussing related politics/philosophy, but descended into nonsense really, as usually happens…same old same old…Arguments are never conceded even when totally blown out of the water in order to promote the same old incoherent, self contradictory arguments etc, clutching at the flimsiest straw and the strongest arguments always premised on edge cases - usually the very event horizon of the very outermost edge case…before we all go spinning in to some Black Hole of insanity! s I say, there was no need for me to have had to reply to Blindsite…there really wasn’t…it should have been in off-topic in my opinion, and whatever wasn’t off-topic could have joined a smart contract thread.
Lol…he poked me!
Lol… this was the other idea I suggested along with the off topic
I don’t really blame the mods - it’s not like this whole tangled thread is easy to unravel…and I don’t just mean the arguments.
I do what I do and won’t change…if someone is promoting a political ideology, pseudo-science, quackery, irrationality or illogical posts on the main forum, then I will always in every circumstance challenge it.
I’d probably say split, but only to save scrolling and not sure how important that is really. I can’t think of any other reason myself and don’t mind either way.
I think as I’ve said that the recent topic itself should have been carved up in the way I suggested
What’s wrong with topics that have a lot of replies? Isn’t that a sign of a good topic with healthy discussion?
Not necessarily, No. You could have a contributor who talks complete and utter bollocks interspersed between the interesting, relevant and healthy discussion for example…this could lengthen what would otherwise be a shorter post. Repetition can affect things too, say never conceding anything, then repeating the same defunct argument…this could pad things out a bit.
Some may also just want to promote/advertise for a particular ideology (proselytising) etc and will just repeat mantras, unmoved by any argument against their position - again this can lengthen a thread.
So, No…not always…
.
IMO the moderators should continue to use their own discretion. What else can you do? You’ve been doing a great job. Some use this forum for ego masturbation. Perhaps as a courtesy some posters could be more succinct. Ten paragraphs is just inconsiderate, tangents that don’t lead back to topic etc. Come on guys, make your point.
What about a curated forum? Were moderators can strip away the trolling and leave the constructive parts?
In fact, what about a metamoderated forum where downvoted posts gets hidden by default?
Keep it zen eh? What about self curation and subscribing to posters to posters you like (or unsubscribing to those you don’t like ) .
I think I trust more the wisdom of the crowds.
Let’s mix both.
So what about the people you subscribed have more weight in their voting and downvoting for you?
Let’s say that I am not subscribed to anyone.
Then I find a Post X that got 5 downvotes, which to me is worth 5 downvotes.
Next, I subscribed to @dirvine.
@dirvine upvotes Post X. His +1 is worth +5 to me.
So Post X has 5 downvotes +5 from @dirvine, the PostX becomes neutral for me.
Interesting, eh?
In fact, subscription might not even required at all. It could be automatically calculated based on the +1 you leave around.
So if the statistical distribution of the +1 you leave around would determine which user you value the most, and therefore which users opinion you might respect the most.
And based on this, weight out their +1 for yourself.
For instance, in a simplified example:
The final count is:
Piluso: 1
Polpolrene: 2
dirvine: 4
troll: -1
So the next time that troll gives +1 to a post, it would be worth 0 to you.
And if dirvine gives +1 to a post, it would be worth +4.
One problem I seen to this is that probably we won’t have a chance to read newbies’ posts with no points, so it shouldn’t be the default.
Everyone have each different personality. I don’t think it’s the best place here to have this kind of formula. Everyone have a merit to be listened. Like me I think I would have get a lot of downvotes so far from the beginning.
It doesn’t really matter one way or another… Generally these are not terribly productive, and reading through them is a waste of most people’s time – Writing on them is likewise a waste of my own time.
It would be nice to throttle the speed of posts to one every few hours for each user on many of these… A debate that is slow and deliberate would be much more effective than one where it is a rapid fire exchange of opinions…
If people mis ascribe the nature of the problem, then it is unlikely they are going to come up with an efficacious solution in my view. There are not just forum rules/etiquette but normal rules of conversation and argument. The problem here is not the speed of posts, but of not observing the basic etiquettes and trall behaviour.
I am not seeing any solutions here and there are many freedom of Speech issues with them.
The problem is that people who do want to discuss and look for ways tech can help find solutions to political issues etc end up getting locked in a room with someone proselytising, handing out leaflets and completely ignoring all arguments against their position, then walking in other rooms where conversation is going on and repeating the process. How does slowing the chat etc help?
Yes it is, but it takes a huge amount of scrolling when a topic get’s 300 replies or so. So the idea is, the same discussion goes on in part 2 of the topic.
Should we split topics that have a lot of replies? (part 1) close this one after say, 300 replies
Should we split topics that have a lot of replies? (part 2) open this one directly for the discussion to continu
But what does this achieve? I’m still waiting to hear someone explain why splitting long topics helps.
Topics are more readable and easier to scroll when they’re below a certain amount of replies. The scrolling bar in the browser can become so small that it’s not comfortable to navigate. Try this one below, when you’re half in the topic, and you want to get to the top, you move your scroll bar to the top, but after that you need to do it again and again and again to finally reach the top of the topic.
What about that: Once a topic turns out to become a long private discussion, moderators kindly ask the discutants to deal with this issue via personal messages, hm?
I think it is in most cases kind of obvious when a discussion ran out of public interest and as you can see from the Bitlaw thread activity will die once there is nothing more to say.
(Also don´t forget that there is a “summarize this topic” button - people should start using it)