FTR, I was careful to phrase this so it would come across as a straightforward question, not an attack. And I got a straightforward answer.
I was satisfied with that answer. BTW, the words “bullshit” and “sociopathic” are more insulting than anything I said in my comment. But I don’t believe either of our comments deserved modding.
How DO you corral a discussion that has turned into an endless, pointless hamster wheel? Serious question.
Whenever I’m in doubt I will flag one of the posts and ask for mod help. Try to explain the issue as best I can in the report. I can’t say it’s a 100% guaranteed solution but I’ve had the mods help out multiple times when a discussion is going south. And it insulates me from a note or worse by trying to take on the issue myself within the thread.
Your part of the note was for a post that was somewhat insulting and taking your own thread further off-topic. I’m sorry you disagree with it, but it was only a note and I stand by it.
As to your question, I don’t have a good answer. That thread is once again a major mess.
Your comment comes across as both dismissive and demeaning. If you had put forward several instances of Sam being factually wrong, and said he should be ignored because he was factually unreliable, then your post might have had a valid point. Instead, you essentially implied that since several posters in the thread disagreed with Sam, his input into the discussion was worthless.
Do you think that unpopular minority opinions should be suppressed?
Seeing as she demanded that talk about Bidens Afghanistan policies be removed from her thread about Bidens first 1500 days in office, I would say yes. And a thumbs down to the mods who allowed this appeal to ignorance to succeed.
FWIW those omnibus threads that used to be relatively rare, but have come to take up a huge % of all the forum’s posts, are a big reason I personally think the quality of the board declined so massively in the last 10 years (among other reasons, which I’ve shared elsewhere.) The whole concept of being so arrogant as to post a thread that basically is saying “I want to pre-empt all other discussions about Joe Biden’s first term in office and have it centered in this thread, which will then force anyone who wants to discuss some specific Biden Presidency related issue to come into this giant mess of a thread that will be YEARS old by the time it runs its course”, is astounding.
With moderator help, you can split out those posts into a new topic. There is an off-topic flag for this purpose. More specific topics is always better than a handful of all-you-eat buffet kitchen sink topics.
Flag those puppies for splitting into a new topic! It’s an easy operation, and mods can capture all replies and replies-to-replies in a single click.
At the time when it was asked that the thread in question be limited there were, IIRC, six threads about Biden’s withdrawal from Afghanistan . . . which, clearly, still wasn’t enough for some people.
I have to somewhat disagree with you here. Sometimes this is true, sometimes not; it depends entirely on the intent of the topic and the potential breadth of the subject matter. The only real problem with “omnibus” type discussions is if they get excessively long, so that individual comments are quickly lost in a vast cacaphony, but we’ve had many such threads that have been quite successful, such as the Trump schadenfreude one or the monthly mini-rants in which anything goes.
Conversely, if topics are too specific, someone will always complain that some productive organic evolution of the discussion is off topic, or a mod will decide that it’s going off topic even if it’s productive. IMHO the only posts that are truly off topic, generally speaking, are those that are completely and indisputably irrelevant, or those that just constitute bickering between posters, like just happened in the topic about video stores. @What_Exit was quite right in cleaning that up.
It’s the meat grinder you end up with when only 6 topics are active and go on for years. Nothing good comes of that. It’s a chatroom!
Having a few megatopics? Fine, sure. That’s cool. Having dozens of megatopics that consistently dominate the entire discussion space? That’s a problem. See also:
That’s fair, but has never been an issue here thankfully.
Not sure how to gauge the active threads, but it is over a 100 at very least.
We have many more focused topics about the Biden Administration along with the 1500 day almost omnibus one.
In sports for Baseball we tend to go by month and in football by week.
The MMP is weekly. The book discussion monthly.
The biggest thread in GD is still only 3839 posts and finished a while ago.
A few P&E threads got long but most either reached a soft end or got closed.
Breaking news threads can get crazy busy and then usually slow down and largely play out. We seem to be pretty good at self-policing here.
But the “see also” link says, among other things, "Megatopics are genuinely rare “in the wild”. So I don’t see that it’s a problem if one pops up once in a while, as an occasional occurrence on a board that also produces a batch of new threads every day; since, if they’re genuinely rare, it’s hard for me to see it as a significant risk that they’ll take over the board.
I’d argue the megatopics are worse now on the new software. At least with pagination it was somewhat easier to break things up into readable chunks, even if it was 30 pages, instead of the infinite scroll and loading issues.
