Megathreads?

Yitzhak Rabin

Ok, so Nullzero has come up with an idea of dividing a few of the bigger topics into megathreads. It seems like a popular choice, so myself and the other mods have been discussing it over the last few days, and thinking of the different ways that it could be done.

I've narrowed it down to 4 different options. So if people could give us some more feedback, on which they think is the best idea, or if they have a better alternative, please let us know what you think.


Option 1:

We have a series of different megathreads for all the different topic. Lets say for 9/11:

9-11 Pentagon discussion.
9-11 Twin Towers discussion.
9-11 Key Players
9-11 scienetific and engineering discussion.
9-11 symbolism/occult connection discussion.
9-11 commission discussion.
9-11 WTC 7 discussion

Then there would be a stickied thread that links to all the individual topics, so if someone wants to post something to them they just find what area it falls under and post there.

The advantages: It means the forum is more organised and people can find what area of discussion they are interested in much easier.

The disadvantages: It doesn't really solve the main problem of double posting. The megathreads would become absolutely massive and people wouldn't bother reading it all and would repost the same stuff.

The soccer forum uses this system and it works well. However their forum moves much faster and topics change as the league progresses. CT isn't like that. I mean the moon landings happened(or didn't ) back in '69 and we are still discussing it.

Option 2:

We could have a locked threads where the mods can post particularly good and interesting posts. That way, visitors don't have to sift through all the BS to find what they are looking for. However, we need to think about a way of selecting what posts/topics get put there.

The Advantages: It solves the problems of double posting and bickering

The Disadvantages: Difficulty in selecting what "makes the cut", and how to organise the threads. The can be no discussion in these threads.

Option 3:

We could have a stickied index thread. Then the forum could be categorised and divided into topic areas. The forum would continue as normal, and when a new thread on a topic appears, it can be added to the relevant topic area, say "vaccines" with a link and a brief description of what has been discussed.

The Advantages: The forum would be organised and categorised

The Disadvantages: Still wouldn't solve the double posting.


Option 4:

We maintain the status quo, but continue to enforce the charter and cut out bickering and in fighting.

The Advantages Discussion can continue unabated. There is no problems in 're-exploring' old topics again

Personally, I am in favour of this option, as nothing us mods could think of really solved the problem of double posting, without curtailing actual discussion.

So, what do ye all think? Which do you think is best? Or is there an option we missed?


P.S We think Mahatma Coats "Ask a Random Question" thread is a good idea. We are still discussing the best way to do that one and will then again put it to the floor to improve on it.

Finally, there is another type of thread/project I am toying with, and if I can get a concrete suggestion together, I'll put it here.

nullzero

I made the suggestion of megathreads for the sake of categorisation.
I know double posting will continue over long periods of time but my point was made with regards to the large amounts of 9-11 threads being posted within a very short space of time in which the same people were having the same discussions and arguments on the same topics within different threads.

Even if the megathreads idea was only applied to the 9-11 topics it would clean the forum up no end as it is the most discussed topic on the forum.

Stricter application of the charter is needed anyway regardless of anything else.

I think there's a,lot to be said for using the best parts of your first three ideas.
Locked threads for instance could be informative and perhaps suggestions could be made to mod's on those topics via PM and then be posted in the thread.

I don't think leaving things as they are is really the way to go.
Yes coming down hard to people who constantly act the eejit is welcome but I think a lot of stuff gets discussed here and then gets forgotten about as new topics are posted and old threads that were good reads get pushed into the archives of the forum.
I think we need to have a decently categorised forum how you mods go about that is ultimately up to you.

uprising2

yekahs wrote: »

Option 4:

We maintain the status quo, but continue to enforce the charter and cut out bickering and in fighting.

The Advantages Discussion can continue unabated. There is no problems in 're-exploring' old topics again

Personally, I am in favour of this option, as nothing us mods could think of really solved the problem of double posting, without curtailing actual discussion.

So, what do ye all think? Which do you think is best? Or is there an option we missed?


P.S We think Mahatma Coats "Ask a Random Question" thread is a good idea. We are still discussing the best way to do that one and will then again put it to the floor to improve on it.

Finally, there is another type of thread/project I am toying with, and if I can get a concrete suggestion together, I'll put it here.

Your taking to your new job like a duck to sea!, man, that's one way of getting your pillow's fluffed up, does it have to be so complicated?
Only joking but I say leave it as it is, just stop the BS, Option 4 so.
I misread the PS bit and thought it said "Ask Mahatmacoat a random question thread", and had visions of some Bosco crap from years ago, then I copped on!.

iPlop

Option 2

I like option 1.As we have seen with 9/11 ,it's a debate that can easily get derailed as there is so many aspects to it.For example people are discussing WTC bombs and then someone will but in with the occult stuff and it can get messy.This way each 9/11 thread will deal with that particular aspect and it should be easier to mod! A sticky or charter for each one would help.And then maybe we can finally have a discussion:)

Torakx

Im not sure exactly what this mega thread will look like.
What i could imagine working is a few sub sections at the top.
Like resources,grassy null etc.
And also 9-11 and any other topic that gets frequent and unabated discussion/arguement.
Inside the 9-11 sub-section could be where all the threads are posted and the ones that are categorised can be sticked at the top inside that section.
All the sub sections could also be at the top of the forum so people would not be double posting.They would simply have their thread moved to the subsection if it was 9-11 relatedand possibly stickied if that was suitable for that forum.If they showed it wasnt needed to be in the sub section they could present said case to the mods who would be prowling around looking for threads to organise
I could see that working well but i dont know if you guys are allowed create a sub section inside the ct one.
If its just a thread on the topic like we currently have for grassy knull or resources i see no point.

Sightaridis

Another Suggestion (specify in thread)

To solve double posting, all you have to do is come down hard on the offenders, it's really not that big a deal. There is also the option of having 'Multi-Post' enabled. This merges double/triple/quadruple posts in to one, and can be enabled for specific forums, worth asking the Administrators about as it would be perfect for this forum.

I don't think megathreads suit this forum. As you've said, megathreads in the Soccer forum benefit from weekly matches, news, rumours about players, there's always something new to discuss. They work.
9/11 megathreads specifically would fast become bloated with arguments and bickering, pages and pages of it. For someone new browsing the forum, there is nothing more repelling that megathreads with thousands of posts.
You've talked of having multiple 9/11 threads, but so many things are interconnected and it would only be a matter of time before the thread titles are ignored as arguments develop and grow into other areas.

I think things should be left as they are regarding threads. If a new thread needs to be made, let it, if a new member signs up and posts why he thinks WT7 was a controlled demolition, let it and be happy for the activity! What's most crucial is that the mods maintain control of events and are fair and reasonable in their actions.

I know as a newbie my opinion doesn't matter so much, but I definitely feel that the Multi-Post option should be explored. I have seen it in action on other websites and you wonder how you ever done without it.

tallus

Option 2

Option 1 sounds good to me.

Why not post a poll shakey ?

pablo_escobar

Option 2

option 1

are sub-forums out of the question?

seannash

megathread would simply be too hard to manage.plus it might discourage new members.
if a new member comes along and has only heard about a certain conspiracy he's gonna wanna discuss it.hes not gonna want to be pointed to a big thread and told read it.you might as well get him to read a manual.

TalkieWalkie

Option 5 (another suggestion): Get rid of all the bickering t0ssers who eventually inevitably turn every thread into a river of bitchy nonsense, flowing with snide remarks and under-armed insults. Belittling CT'rs in an effort to bring them down to their level.
This is a CT forum for discussing CT's, not necessarily weather they are factual or not. I for one enjoy getting stuck into a good CT even if it's not true, it's still fun putting the pieces together. So I come to the CT forum to discuss CT's.
I don't need some ignorant miserable pr!ck who always races to be the first reply to a CT with some snide holier than thou remarks.

More strictness on skeppies. More lenience on CT'rs makes for a better less stressful read and a more organised forum which is better for everyone.

EDIT:
I don't go on the religious forums but my guess is if I went over there with an attitude stating "there is no god !!", I wouldn't last to long. Same should apply here.

nullzero

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

Option 5 (another suggestion): Get rid of all the bickering t0ssers who eventually inevitably turn every thread into a river of bitchy nonsense, flowing with snide remarks and under-armed insults. Belittling CT'rs in an effort to bring them down to their level.
This is a CT forum for discussing CT's, not necessarily weather they are factual or not. I for one enjoy getting stuck into a good CT even if it's not true, it's still fun putting the pieces together. So I come to the CT forum to discuss CT's.
I don't need some ignorant miserable pr!ck who always races to be the first reply to a CT with some snide holier than thou remarks.

More strictness on skeppies. More lenience on CT'rs makes for a better less stressful read and a more organised forum which is better for everyone.

EDIT:
I don't go on the religious forums but my guess is if I went over there with an attitude stating "there is no god !!", I wouldn't last to long. Same should apply here.

Good points well made.
Good to have you back TW, I hope they weren't too rough with you in the prison forum.

Penn

Another Suggestion (specify in thread)

More strictness on skeppies. More lenience on CT'rs makes for a better less stressful read and a more organised forum which is better for everyone.

Really? Surely more strictness on everyone, equally, is the best possible course of action. Regardless of what they believe, rudeness is rudeness. No matter who says it, it should be reported and stopped

If you believe that most of the insults etc is coming from the skeptics (and I'm not disagreeing with you on that), then fair enough. If its mostly skeptics being infracted for being rude, then that's fine. But if a ct'er makes an equally rude comment back, they should also be infracted. Regardless of which side throws the most insults, the rules have to apply to all, equally

TalkieWalkie

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

If you believe that most of the insults etc is coming from the skeptics (and I'm not disagreeing with you on that), then fair enough.

Thanks. It is fair enough.

The Recliner

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

Option 5 (another suggestion): Get rid of all the bickering t0ssers who eventually inevitably turn every thread into a river of bitchy nonsense, flowing with snide remarks and under-armed insults. Belittling CT'rs in an effort to bring them down to their level.
This is a CT forum for discussing CT's, not necessarily weather they are factual or not. I for one enjoy getting stuck into a good CT even if it's not true, it's still fun putting the pieces together. So I come to the CT forum to discuss CT's.
I don't need some ignorant miserable pr!ck who always races to be the first reply to a CT with some snide holier than thou remarks.

More strictness on skeppies. More lenience on CT'rs makes for a better less stressful read and a more organised forum which is better for everyone.

EDIT:
I don't go on the religious forums but my guess is if I went over there with an attitude stating "there is no god !!", I wouldn't last to long. Same should apply here.

If you have an issue with posts then report them and let the Mods decide what if any action is to be taken

It shouldn't matter what side of the debate someone is on, the rules will apply equally

Having had some experience of Modding the Islam forum I can tell you that if no questioning of CT's were allowed this would become a very boring place

Yitzhak Rabin

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

More strictness on skeppies. More lenience on CT'rs makes for a better less stressful read and a more organised forum which is better for everyone.

I think Paddyirishman and The Recliner have already summed up why it should be equal rules for all, not stricter on skeptics and more lenient on CT's.

EDIT:
I don't go on the religious forums but my guess is if I went over there with an attitude stating "there is no god !!", I wouldn't last to long. Same should apply here.

No, I don't think so. As far as I am aware, atheists are free to ask questions on the religious forums provided they are not trolling. The threshold for what is considered trolling instead of criticism may be lower there, but there is a reason for that.

Religion requires that you have a belief regardless of the evidence - i.e faith. So criticism and questioning can become pointless. Religious people choose to believe without evidence, and in some cases in spite of the evidence.

This is not what the CT forum is. What we strive for here is the truth. No one here should be afraid of criticism. We should welcome it with open arms. Personally I rejoice in being proven wrong. It means it is one less false thing that I believe now.

The CT forum has helped dispel lots of false beliefs I once had. Before I began posting, and even in my early days of posting here I thought the idea of an NWO was completely insane. That is no longer the case.

The religious forums are for people who already believe something wholeheartedly, and use the forum to validate and discuss that belief. I think the CT forum is different. We should be arriving here as blank slates, ready to challenge any of our existing beliefs

Edit But back to the megathreads suggestions.....

TalkieWalkie

yekahs wrote: »

I think Paddyirishman and The Recliner have already summed up why it should be equal rules for all, not stricter on skeptics and more lenient on CT's.


No, I don't think so. As far as I am aware, atheists are free to ask questions on the religious forums provided they are not trolling. The threshold for what is considered trolling instead of criticism may be lower there, but there is a reason for that.

Religion requires that you have a belief regardless of the evidence - i.e faith. So criticism and questioning can become pointless. Religious people choose to believe without evidence, and in some cases in spite of the evidence.

This is not what the CT forum is. What we strive for here is the truth. No one here should be afraid of criticism. We should welcome it with open arms. Personally I rejoice in being proven wrong. It means it is one less false thing that I believe now.

The CT forum has helped dispel lots of false beliefs I once had. Before I began posting, and even in my early days of posting here I thought the idea of an NWO was completely insane. That is no longer the case.

The religious forums are for people who already believe something wholeheartedly, and use the forum to validate and discuss that belief. I think the CT forum is different. We should be arriving here as blank slates, ready to challenge any of our existing beliefs

Edit But back to the megathreads suggestions.....

I agree with the above and I also appreciate having skeppies around. My problem is with 3 skeppies in particular, we all know who they are. They bring every thread into a slagging match. It's apparent they are here to insult, belittle and argue until the cows come home, whatever the point.

So, i'll edit my previous post :

Option 5 (another suggestion): Get rid of all the bickering t0ssers who eventually inevitably turn every thread into a river of bitchy nonsense, flowing with snide remarks and under-armed insults. Belittling CT'rs in an effort to bring them down to their level.
This is a CT forum for discussing CT's, not necessarily weather they are factual or not. I for one enjoy getting stuck into a good CT even if it's not true, it's still fun putting the pieces together. So I come to the CT forum to discuss CT's.
I don't need some ignorant miserable pr!ck who always races to be the first reply to a CT with some snide holier than thou remarks.

More strictness on skeppies. More lenience on CT'rs makes for a better less stressful read and a more organised forum which is better for everyone.

It's only 3 of them. More CT'rs leave or get banned due to these messers.

The place will thrive and benefit in their absence.



Now back to superthreads.

nullzero

I'm starting to think that we're going to be going with option 4, the do nothing becasue it's more expedient option.

There is definitely a case to be made for amending the structure of the forum.
Even to simply sticky threads for certain topics so that they don't become lost in the barrage of 9-11 threads that make up most of the forum.

I feel very strongly that the 9-11 topic should be dealt with in the manner outlined in option 1 as it has a life of its own and every time a new thread is posted you're always going to get posts like "you said blah blah blah in the previous 9-11 thead" which takes the thread in the same direction as every other 9-11 thread and reignites old arguments. For my part I'll report such posts on the basis that they are attempting to derail the thread or discuss the topic of a previous thread.

I do think something has to be done, I just hope we don't come out the end of all this discussion in the same situation.
If you do choose to do this at least enforce the charter and site rules properly as promised in option 4.

uprising2

yekahs wrote: »

Ok, so Nullzero has come up with an idea .

Just had an idea..
What about a free for all sticky?, poster's could vent their haterd and loathing of each other without risk of getting banned.
A poster could be INVITED to "Take it to free for All?"and the threads left clear of petty or heated scuabbles.
The Invited party could accept or ignore/reject the offer, the rule's of "Free for All" , there are no rules!;)

Just a thought!!:D

Yitzhak Rabin

uprising2 wrote: »

Just had an idea..
What about a free for all sticky?, poster's could vent their haterd and loathing of each other without risk of getting banned.
A poster could be INVITED to "Take it to free for All?"and the threads left clear of petty or heated scuabbles.
The Invited party could accept or ignore/reject the offer, the rule's of "Free for All" , there are no rules!;)

Just a thought!!:D

Its called the thunderdome!

TalkieWalkie

Why not just create a series of sub forums for the most popular CT's.
1. 911
2. NWO
3. Government deception etc

And the usual CT forum as general.

EDIT:
Though I wouldn't wanna be the mods (yekahs & recliner) who are allocated the job of moving the current threads into their new homes

Penn

Another Suggestion (specify in thread)

Thunderdome has been suggested recently for a few posters getting out of hand. Having a CT thunderdome thread on the forum would be a bad idea though. If there is somewhere on this forum for people to be uncivilised, it will inevitably spill out into other threads, or references made to the thunderdome thread.

People just need to respect other posters. Not too much to ask. This whole 'keyboard warrior' stuff is ridiculous. People should treat people like they would if the keyboards were removed and you were actually talking to the other person

I do feel some sort of megathread, particularly for 9/11 would be good. I don't know how many times I've typed out my explanation of how it is possible the towers collapsed using my knowledge of structural design and then having to write pretty much the same thing out for another poster 10 pages later or in another thread

My name is URL

I'll go with whatever.. I've never really taken part in the 9/11 discussion anyway though.

Not really a fan of megathreads tbh, they can sometimes envelope the forums in which they're contained. The same people are going to argue about stuff no matter what aspect of the whole thing is going to be discussed.

I'd be in favor of a 'Truther' sub-forum if it was a possibility.

nullzero

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

Thunderdome has been suggested recently for a few posters getting out of hand. Having a CT thunderdome thread on the forum would be a bad idea though. If there is somewhere on this forum for people to be uncivilised, it will inevitably spill out into other threads, or references made to the thunderdome thread.

People just need to respect other posters. Not too much to ask. This whole 'keyboard warrior' stuff is ridiculous. People should treat people like they would if the keyboards were removed and you were actually talking to the other person

I do feel some sort of megathread, particularly for 9/11 would be good. I don't know how many times I've typed out my explanation of how it is possible the towers collapsed using my knowledge of structural design and then having to write pretty much the same thing out for another poster 10 pages later or in another thread

I highlighted that middle paragraph as it's very important, and it'd be nice to see that approach taken by more people. I've always maintained the approach that I'd never say anything here that I would say to somebody's face.
I thought the idea of having somehwere to have a go at each other would be ok, but as you pointed out it would probably spill out over into other discussions.

Yitzhak Rabin

nullzero wrote: »

I'm starting to think that we're going to be going with option 4, the do nothing becasue it's more expedient option.

There is definitely a case to be made for amending the structure of the forum.
Even to simply sticky threads for certain topics so that they don't become lost in the barrage of 9-11 threads that make up most of the forum.

I feel very strongly that the 9-11 topic should be dealt with in the manner outlined in option 1 as it has a life of its own and every time a new thread is posted you're always going to get posts like "you said blah blah blah in the previous 9-11 thead" which takes the thread in the same direction as every other 9-11 thread and reignites old arguments. For my part I'll report such posts on the basis that they are attempting to derail the thread or discuss the topic of a previous thread.

I do think something has to be done, I just hope we don't come out the end of all this discussion in the same situation.
If you do choose to do this at least enforce the charter and site rules properly as promised in option 4.

I actually had to look up what expedient meant.

Convenient and practical, although possibly improper or immoral

By this definition, then no, that will certainly not be the reason for an option, or combination of options being picked.

I still haven't fully decided which option I like best. I'm between a mix of 1 and 3 or else 4 personally. Thats the purpose of this thread though so we can all discuss it and see what everyone here wants. The decision will be for whichever works best for the forum.

I think an index thread could work well. Just a thread stickied at the top where it lists all the different topics, and their various subtopics, and where they can be found. When a new thread is started, it is then indexed and a link to it put in the index thread.

That way, people can find the threads that they are looking for easily, and can search to see if there is already a discussion on it.

Also the problem, of interesting topics being lost would be solved, as although the thread wouldn't be on the front page, a link to it would be, in the index thread.

What do people think of that scenario?

nullzero

yekahs wrote: »

I actually had to look up what expedient meant.



By this definition, then no, that will certainly not be the reason for an option, or combination of options being picked.

I still haven't fully decided which option I like best. I'm between a mix of 1 and 3 or else 4 personally. Thats the purpose of this thread though so we can all discuss it and see what everyone here wants. The decision will be for whichever works best for the forum.

I think an index thread could work well. Just a thread stickied at the top where it lists all the different topics, and their various subtopics, and where they can be found. When a new thread is started, it is then indexed and a link to it put in the index thread.

That way, people can find the threads that they are looking for easily, and can search to see if there is already a discussion on it.

Also the problem, of interesting topics being lost would be solved, as although the thread wouldn't be on the front page, a link to it would be, in the index thread.

What do people think of that scenario?

I think we might be moving in the right direction there. My only concern is that nothing would be done. The ideas you had there were reasonably good in my opinion and could be a good way to changing things for the better.

As for having to look up what words mean, I thought you Mod's knew everything:pac:
Only joking.;)

TalkieWalkie

Sub-forums ?

nullzero

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

It's only 3 of them. More CT'rs leave or get banned due to these messers.

The place will thrive and benefit in their absence.

While I don't wish to comment on the context of what you're saying there I feel it's interesting that (I assume we're thinking of the same people here) none of those users have chosen to give any suggestions for how they feel the forum should be improved.

In fact as yet, no scepetics have added their two cents (unless they voted on the poll and decided not to comment).
Surely as regular users they should be sharing their views with the rest of us so we can get a fair and balanced reading of what we all want.

Yitzhak Rabin

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

Sub-forums ?

I'll have to ask someone more qualified. I don't know how they are setup. I'll get back to ye.

seannash

whether ye like it or not you need people to pul you up on some of the (in my opinion) ludicrous things that come up.

if there was noone offering the other side of the story you guys would become alot more paranoid than you are(in my opinion)

as for the 3 messers,why do you bite.just dont take the bait.if you do take it its your own fault

TalkieWalkie

yekahs wrote: »

I'll have to ask someone more qualified. I don't know how they are setup. I'll get back to ye.

It's easily done. I ran a few of these vbulletin forums back in my warez days. Piece of cake

Yitzhak Rabin

Seannash, pay attention to this part of the charter.

Please don't use sweeping generalisations which indirectly attack or belittle other posters here. Posts which are insulting to those who believe conspiracies / the mainstream, for example, may be considered to be insulting to other posters, and as such will not be tolerated.