# Don't close the \[blank's\] Presidential Campaign threads **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [September 26, 2016, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-close-the-blanks-presidential-campaign-threads/766953 "2016-09-26T14:37:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Personal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/b9bd4f/32.png) [@Personal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Personal)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2016, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-close-the-blanks-presidential-campaign-threads/766953/21 "2016-09-26T22:56:29Z")
I strongly agree with the decision by **engineer\_comp\_geek** to merge these two threads. (Post 13) ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2016, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-close-the-blanks-presidential-campaign-threads/766953/22 "2016-09-26T23:32:43Z")
I just don’t like that only two mods conferred. If you’re trying out some completely new moderation, I think all the mods should be on board. I don’t like this penchant to treat each of the subforums as separate boards, with the mods having their own little fiefdoms. I don’t really care about the thread closing. I don’t think it really matters at all. People in the new thread will expect people to be aware of things posted in the old thread, since it’ll mostly be the same people. The only reason I see to do this is because Tapatalk starts to choke on threads that are too large. But that’s something that should be decided boardwide–create a limit to the number of pages. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2016, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-close-the-blanks-presidential-campaign-threads/766953/23 "2016-09-27T00:13:14Z")
I’ve never had a problem with Tapatalk handling big threads. In what way? ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2016, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-close-the-blanks-presidential-campaign-threads/766953/24 "2016-09-27T00:32:18Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > Right, it is an argument against all mega-threads. > > I find all mega-threads useless and don’t bother reading them. With all due respect and I hate to be Mr Archivist, but you did participate in the Trump campaign thread. You posted stuff on page 20 and over the next couple of months until page 108. So is 110 pages your cut off? People who see those threads generally know they are long rambling things. Very few people are afraid to participate because their point might have been raised 3 months ago. I’ve never seen anyone get grief for it either unless the point was brought up within a page. Regardless, the decision here seems a little ad hoc. “Me and tom talked it over and this thread is coming to it’s natural end. So we’re killing it.” ---
**Author:** ![Fenris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fenris/32/498_2.png) [@Fenris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fenris)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2016, 1:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-close-the-blanks-presidential-campaign-threads/766953/25 "2016-09-27T01:41:10Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > I don’t think I’ve ever seen here a decision by the admins to close down an active popular thread, that has already resisted/bypassed some attempts at shorter term threads, and then have the mods start their own replacement thread. There was one equally stupid decision to close a long-running thread. It was a Diablo (the game) thread and a sock either started it or posted heavily in it. It was like 40-50 pages (with max replies per page) when it got closed with the (stupid) mod admonition that we all should have known better than to post to a thread that was started by (?) a sock. Sadly, the thread had a ton of then useful info. I don’t post in the megathreads but I read them, and I prefer the continuity of a single thread over having to jump from thread to thread to thread. Although voting is meaningless on the Dope regarding moderation, I vote “leave the damn threads open”. If someone wants to start a new one, _let the marketplace decide_: Start it and if enough people are sick of the old one, they’ll jump over and the old one dies. If not, the new one dies a natural death. I hate this new heavy-handed “Let’s control the flow of the conversation” style modding. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2016, 11:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-close-the-blanks-presidential-campaign-threads/766953/26 "2016-09-27T11:22:31Z")
There have been threads shut down in the past for length. **esprix** ’s popular “Ask the Gay Guy” thread, for instance, would regularly be closed and sequel threads created. We were told, I recall that long threads caused problems with indexing and put a strain on the sever, although if this was true, or 9 true now, I couldn’t say. ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2016, 12:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-close-the-blanks-presidential-campaign-threads/766953/27 "2016-09-27T12:59:13Z")
Sorry for the delay in answering. Debates. Think of this as an experiment. Earlier this year it was floated that we should have a new thread each month to allow for jumping on points and such. I was in favor of it - and Tom and I discussed it at the time - but it didn’t take off. I want to see how such things go in terms of participation and such. I don’t think I’m telling anyone any revelation to say that the longer a thread goes the more it appears to become a shouting match between hostile camps. It’s my hope that changing things up may make it easier for new people to come on board. So let’s see how it goes and we’ll start to learn something. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2016, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-close-the-blanks-presidential-campaign-threads/766953/28 "2016-09-27T14:21:50Z")
Well if you expect a shiny new thread to create a influx of new posters, I think you’re likely to be disappointed. But the reasoning tomndebb gave in the Trump thread: > [@Donald Trump's 2016 General Election Campaign](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/donald-trumps-2016-general-election-campaign/753901/7295): > > The overworked Mods who need to try to figure out when a slap at one candidate in the other candidate’s thread is appropriate have decided that having a single thread without hundreds of earlier posts to track will permit us to continue to have family lives. It will also make it easier on the TM who will not have to guess which snarky comment will be more appropriate in which thread. Could be accomplished by simply announcing you weren’t going to moderate conflation of the two campaigns for the remainder of the election. But I guess that if there is even a small chance that a new thread will cease the hostile shouting and welcome in a golden age of being welcoming to newcomers I suppose we need to try it. Good luck with that. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2016, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-close-the-blanks-presidential-campaign-threads/766953/29 "2016-09-27T21:35:49Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > And just how does that help to welcome newbies to the boards, or new posters to the thread? Not to the thread, but to the conversation. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Bravo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_bravo/32/493_2.png) [@Johnny\_Bravo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Bravo)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2016, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-close-the-blanks-presidential-campaign-threads/766953/30 "2016-09-28T15:17:39Z")
The argument against megathreads is that they’re too bloated and nobody wants to participate in them. So the answer is to take two megathreads and combine them into a single megathread which will have twice as much\* posting? It’s going to be pages and pages long within a week or two. Will that one be shut down after a certain length of time or number of posts? There’s a lot of weeks left in the election. \*probably closer to 150% since there is definitely overlap between the two threads. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2016, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-close-the-blanks-presidential-campaign-threads/766953/31 "2016-09-28T15:35:59Z")
> [@Johnny\_Bravo](#): > > The argument against megathreads is that they’re too bloated and nobody wants to participate in them. > > So the answer is to take two megathreads and combine them into a single megathread which will have twice as much\* posting? It’s going to be pages and pages long within a week or two. Will that one be shut down after a certain length of time or number of posts? There’s a lot of weeks left in the election. > > \*probably closer to 150% since there is definitely overlap between the two threads. I just want to see them merged to see the unholy mess of a conversation it creates. ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2016, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-close-the-blanks-presidential-campaign-threads/766953/32 "2016-09-28T18:42:56Z")
Closing them and opening another one is the least bad solution. If you leave them open then you’ll need to follow at least two, possibly three, threads on the general presidential election. If you close them you’ll only need to follow one (other than additional offshoot threads people might make from time to time.) ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2016, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-close-the-blanks-presidential-campaign-threads/766953/33 "2016-09-28T20:38:00Z")
> [@LSLGuy](#): > > I’m of the other mind. > > I dropped out of Elections for a month or two. When I returned the threads had advanced some 20 pages. I resumed participating at the end. I never went back and read the intervening 20 pages. Nor did my follow-on participation seem to suffer from lack of context. With that unplanned experiment fresh in our minds. … > > . Here’s the problem with that. Let us say on page 32 some Mod cam in and issued a Moderator rule. You didnt read that page, so you post and violate that rule. You can be warned. This is why threads need to be ended and new ones started once they get too long. ---
**Author:** ![Knorf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/58956e/32.png) [@Knorf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Knorf)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2016, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-close-the-blanks-presidential-campaign-threads/766953/34 "2016-09-29T14:40:12Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Here’s the problem with that. Let us say on page 32 some Mod cam in and issued a Moderator rule. > > You didnt read that page, so you post and violate that rule. > > You can be warned. > > This is why threads need to be ended and new ones started once they get too long. I strongly disagree with this argument. For one thing, I see no evidence that this is actually a significant problem. How many examples can you provide to demonstrate frequent occurrences of this specific issue in long threads? ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2016, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-close-the-blanks-presidential-campaign-threads/766953/35 "2016-09-29T14:47:34Z")
Once threads get longer than a few thousand posts, they are unmanageable from a readers point of view. Subtopics jump around and it’s difficult to follow a thought with intervening posts discussing other issues. Same thing with that shooting omnibus thread in the pit. You spend more time trying to determine which shooting each post is talking about than following the thought. I applaud the decision. Overly broad threads should be dealt with by execution when they have reached such a point. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2016, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-close-the-blanks-presidential-campaign-threads/766953/36 "2016-09-29T15:54:15Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > I find all mega-threads useless and don’t bother reading them. For instance, I long ago gave up on the thread about voter ID because it has become a stats battle between **Bricker** and **Bryan**. I respect both of them as posters, but find the thread of no interest whatsoever. In fairness, the #2 contributor to that thread was elucidator (I was #3), but you probably have a point since after Bricker stopped posting to it, it wound down and has now been dormant for a week. Probably most threads will boil down to extended arguments among a handful of users, though the SRIOTD thread is getting steady injections of new Republican silliness, which is why I keep an eye on it because I find that sort of thing amusing. Heck, it must be possible to program vBulletin so that when a thread is only getting steady contributions from, say five or fewer users, it can automatically shunted off to another forum called (for the sake of argument) “Side Discussions”. That way, the discussion can continue for those who are active in it and the new users not burdened with it in the main fora. Or, for that matter, do this automatically with any active thread over one year old. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Bravo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_bravo/32/493_2.png) [@Johnny\_Bravo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Bravo)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2016, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-close-the-blanks-presidential-campaign-threads/766953/37 "2016-09-29T16:04:26Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Heck, it must be possible to program vBulletin so that when a thread is only getting steady contributions from, say five or fewer users, it can automatically shunted off to another forum called (for the sake of argument) “Side Discussions”. I think we call that forum Thread Games. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2016, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-close-the-blanks-presidential-campaign-threads/766953/38 "2016-09-29T16:15:36Z")
> [@Johnny\_Bravo](#): > > I think we call that forum Thread Games. 😃 Well-played. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2016, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-close-the-blanks-presidential-campaign-threads/766953/39 "2016-09-29T17:16:38Z")
> [@Knorf](#): > > I strongly disagree with this argument. For one thing, I see no evidence that this is actually a significant problem. How many examples can you provide to demonstrate frequent occurrences of this specific issue in long threads? If you are the one being warned, it only has to happen \*once. \* The mods made this rule about “following a moderators instructions” , a bannable offense. As long as we have that rule, threads need to end after a reasonable length. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Bravo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_bravo/32/493_2.png) [@Johnny\_Bravo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Bravo)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2016, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-close-the-blanks-presidential-campaign-threads/766953/40 "2016-09-29T17:19:23Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > As long as we have that rule, threads need to end after a reasonable length. What do you consider a reasonable length? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-close-the-blanks-presidential-campaign-threads/766953.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-close-the-blanks-presidential-campaign-threads/766953.md?page=3)