Start more new threads.

[Sanchek]

Don't be shy about starting new threads.

If you're posting a reply to a thread that's a page or two long, consider whether your thoughts might justify a new thread. We have a tendency to run threads too long here, to the point that it's difficult for people to follow them unless they've been active in the particular thread.

I try to split them when possible, but it's generally very difficult to do that without disrupting the original thread too much.

For example: http://ayonae.com/un-3rd-time-sancitons-to-iran-for-uranium-t10407.html

That thread should probably be a half dozen separate threads to actually be useful. There are several good discussions that should be going on in parallel, but are killed off when the topic changes each page.

(edit: And, I know I'm just as bad about it as anyone. I'm going to try to be better about it myself.)

[akipt]

Yeah Jedd :p

[Jedd Corpse]

I don't like to make new ones, cause people blame me for flooding the forum with the same kind of threads :(

[Sanchek]

If they don't like your threads, they can start better ones of their own; which will be more active and push yours out of the way. If they can't, then they don't have much room to complain.

[Jedd Corpse]

alright :)

[Cados Evilsbane]

Can we increase the option for number of replies per page in a thread? It would be nice to see fewer 1,2,3,4,5 next to a thread if I could tell it to post like up to 200+ posts per page. I'd be willing to read more of even the longest threads of I didn't have to keep clicking those annoying, tiny page numbers.

[Sanchek]

Can we increase the option for number of replies per page in a thread? It would be nice to see fewer 1,2,3,4,5 next to a thread if I could tell it to post like up to 200+ posts per page. I'd be willing to read more of even the longest threads of I didn't have to keep clicking those annoying, tiny page numbers.
Check out: http://ayonae.com/profile.php?do=editoptions

[Cados Evilsbane]

Check out: http://ayonae.com/profile.php?do=editoptions

Yes I knew about that, but 40 is the max option and for this board that is not even near enough (for my preferences). Our internet connections these days can probably handle higher. Anyway just wondering if maybe 200 or at least 100+ is possible as an option.

[Haloface]

I must say, I prefer longer threads than multiple ones - that's when it becomes harder to keep up.

A long discussion, over a period of time, with multiple posters, is far more enjoyable - and has been for several years here.

Some of our most enjoyable political debates ran for months with 20 -30+ pages. If replies and new thoughts split off across the forum I doubt it would be so successful a debate/discussion/flame.

[Cados Evilsbane]

Yes I knew about that, but 40 is the max option and for this board that is not even near enough (for my preferences). Our internet connections these days can probably handle higher. Anyway just wondering if maybe 200 or at least 100+ is possible as an option.

Thanks Sanchek! The max "show post" option is now 200 posts per thread-page!

[Esbat]

Am I the only one who hears the zombie saying "Send more cops!" whenever I read the title of this thread?

[Kelraz Bladesinger]

So I dunno how a discussion about types of motorcycles in a thread about the projected costs of gas doesn't warrant Sanchek splitting it off and adding his own stupid editorial thread headings but discussing Obama in a thread about Hillary is against the rules ...

[Sanchek]

I haven't been reading that thread lately, so I didn't notice.

If you go look at the threads I split, all of them took off in their own directions simultaneously. If they hadn't be split, only one of those discussions would have proceeded, preempting the others. It's an easy choice.

Honestly, you should know better than to whine about something like this. With all of your DC intrigue and back-room connections, can you seriously think of nothing better to post about than this?

[Kelraz Bladesinger]

Maybe I just don't care for your stupid editorializing under my name? Thus far I've seen you split 3 threads, two by me where you put your own stupid name in (totally irrelevant to the intent and message of my post) and one where you just put the old topic and (split) in the title.

If I or anyone meant for them to be a separate thread I'd assume we're all competant enough to make them one. We don't need you to babysit us.

Not that you're ever wrong and I should have learned by now its Sanchek's way or no way regardless of what the rest of the community here thinks.

[Sanchek]

I told you exactly how you can give them the title you desire.

Again: With all the threads we have open about important issues right now, this is the best thing you have to occupy yourself with? :rolleyes:

[akipt]

Sanchek I love your work here /hug

Keep doing the split threads... just don't editorialize the title with your own opinion :p Or communicate to everyone how to change it after it's done instead of the super-secret 'I told you how before' message.

[Nydia Ywalmoriel]

How nice that you weren't asking for opinions! :P

I would have to say that I agree with Halo that I don't mind letting a discussion 'evolve' naturally; let the author or authors decide whether they think a split is indicated (which I always indicate on my posts).

Excessively discombobulating and separating trains of thought in a discussion thread makes it more, not less, difficult to follow and if someone tends to think in a more diffuse or global fashion, as I do, one comes back and then realizes one's response must now address two or more discussions in separate threads.

I'd prefer we keep thread splits to the minimum necessary and when they are obviously (not semantically) indicated.

Regards,
Nydia

[Sanchek]

I just go on the numbers. When we split these things, far more total discussion is the end result.

Feel free to prove me wrong though. That would make me happy.

Hint: That won't happen through posts on this thread.