The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum - View Single Post

Bill Ferny · 02-08-2003, 10:19 AM

Heren, the IQ test comment was tongue in cheek [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]. Actually, I agree with both you and Diamond18. As Diamond18 points out there are many people, like myself, who would not be able to start new threads in say the books section. I for one have little time to build up 500 posts in a short amount of time (and even less intelligent things to say). There probably would be people throwing up nonsense posts, and irrelevant crap just to build their numbers. There are people (like Diamond18 and myself) who give a rat’s arse about that number.

However, among relevant choices, this choice still remains a viable one. I for one never post in the Rivised Silm section, nor do I have a desire to do so. I simply do not have the time to research Tolkienology on that level. That’s not to say I don’t often read that section. In fact I use the search engine on that section frequently to research for posts I write in the books section. The same thing goes for the RPG sections. There are probably a lot of people on this forum who feel the same way about the books section. They spend most of their time engaging in discussions in the movies or novices and newcomers, but often use the books section to find answers to questions that might pop up there. I think a lot of people would be upset about such a restriction, but at the same time, I don’t think it would seriously hinder their ability to start new threads in other sections, nor would it hinder their ability to engage in discussions already started in the books section (after all, they would be able to post responses as normal in the books section).

I know under this restriction that I wouldn’t be able to start a new thread in the books section. However, since… I think I joined the forum back in… early September of last year I’ve only started one thread in the books section, and that thread could have waited until I knew more about the subject in general anyway. However, I have contributed to many threads in that section started by others. I for one would not really be overly affected by such a restriction.

As far as nonsense posts go, you will probably have your fair share of them. In fact, we already do. There are even long standing members who have a supreme talent for posting nothing but irrelevant one liners, then lauded for their wit. Its really not that difficult to pass over twit-headed responses, and I think everyone should have a voice, even those who want to post nonsense. As I said, even those who make nonsense posts will at least have a fair idea of the more recent threads that have been started, and will be less likely to start redundant threads. Moderators have always had the ability to delete nonsense from the forum. I doubt that such a restriction would inundate them with new nonsense posts.

In the end, though, such a choice, as has been pointed out is a difficult one, and one that will certainly enrage (errr) a number of people. However, if the moderators of this forum are determined to take the measures needed, one’s that are actually pro-active and relevant, then, no doubt they will be unable to avoid that rage (errr). It depends on whether the moderators think this problem is serious enough to warrant pro-active measures. I, for one, am NOT convinced that the problem is that serious.

However, if others think the problem seriously hinders their ability to use and enjoy the forum, but at the same time wants to avoid the rage (errr) that pro-active measures will inevitably bring about, perhaps the addition of new sections would help to curb the problem. For example, splitting the novices and new comers section into a new comers section and a general Tolkien discussion section, and the addition of a “I have a question” section. This solution is more pro-active than a FAQ thread that we know most people won’t read, but, on the other hand, it also doubles the amount of labor for the moderators.

Anyway, I have apple crisp to make [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

02-08-2003, 10:19 AM	#30
Bill Ferny Shade of Carn Dûm Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Bree Posts: 390	Heren, the IQ test comment was tongue in cheek [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]. Actually, I agree with both you and Diamond18. As Diamond18 points out there are many people, like myself, who would not be able to start new threads in say the books section. I for one have little time to build up 500 posts in a short amount of time (and even less intelligent things to say). There probably would be people throwing up nonsense posts, and irrelevant crap just to build their numbers. There are people (like Diamond18 and myself) who give a rat’s arse about that number. However, among relevant choices, this choice still remains a viable one. I for one never post in the Rivised Silm section, nor do I have a desire to do so. I simply do not have the time to research Tolkienology on that level. That’s not to say I don’t often read that section. In fact I use the search engine on that section frequently to research for posts I write in the books section. The same thing goes for the RPG sections. There are probably a lot of people on this forum who feel the same way about the books section. They spend most of their time engaging in discussions in the movies or novices and newcomers, but often use the books section to find answers to questions that might pop up there. I think a lot of people would be upset about such a restriction, but at the same time, I don’t think it would seriously hinder their ability to start new threads in other sections, nor would it hinder their ability to engage in discussions already started in the books section (after all, they would be able to post responses as normal in the books section). I know under this restriction that I wouldn’t be able to start a new thread in the books section. However, since… I think I joined the forum back in… early September of last year I’ve only started one thread in the books section, and that thread could have waited until I knew more about the subject in general anyway. However, I have contributed to many threads in that section started by others. I for one would not really be overly affected by such a restriction. As far as nonsense posts go, you will probably have your fair share of them. In fact, we already do. There are even long standing members who have a supreme talent for posting nothing but irrelevant one liners, then lauded for their wit. Its really not that difficult to pass over twit-headed responses, and I think everyone should have a voice, even those who want to post nonsense. As I said, even those who make nonsense posts will at least have a fair idea of the more recent threads that have been started, and will be less likely to start redundant threads. Moderators have always had the ability to delete nonsense from the forum. I doubt that such a restriction would inundate them with new nonsense posts. In the end, though, such a choice, as has been pointed out is a difficult one, and one that will certainly enrage (errr) a number of people. However, if the moderators of this forum are determined to take the measures needed, one’s that are actually pro-active and relevant, then, no doubt they will be unable to avoid that rage (errr). It depends on whether the moderators think this problem is serious enough to warrant pro-active measures. *I, for one, am NOT* convinced that the problem is that serious.** However, if others think the problem seriously hinders their ability to use and enjoy the forum, but at the same time wants to avoid the rage (errr) that pro-active measures will inevitably bring about, perhaps the addition of new sections would help to curb the problem. For example, splitting the novices and new comers section into a new comers section and a general Tolkien discussion section, and the addition of a “I have a question” section. This solution is more pro-active than a FAQ thread that we know most people won’t read, but, on the other hand, it also doubles the amount of labor for the moderators. Anyway, I have apple crisp to make [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] __________________ I prefer Gillaume d’Férny, connoisseur of fine fruit.