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.

nullzero

seannash wrote: »

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

To be fair I can see what you're getting at but this is a discussion forum not a debating one.
We all want balanced discussion but some of what goes on here is beyond that and usually diverts into personal abuse and derailing of the thread.
No one wants a forum where evryone agree's all the time, but we do want a forum where we don't get ridiculed for a belief or interest in a certain topic.

EDIT: Yekahs, feel free to delete this post if you feel it's out of line, I didn't realise you had infracted the post I quoted before I posted.

Penn

Another Suggestion (specify in thread)

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

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

It's easy to do, but the admins have to decide if it's necessary or not, and they may not approve it. The point of the forum, how it will be run, why it is necessary, what is the problem with the main forum and if there is some way that can be remedied instead all have to be taken into account.

As I said before, fix this forum before starting a sub forum.

seannash

yekahs wrote: »

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.

my apologies

but there was no other way of saying it really.

not that im bothered but im sure you gave talkie an infraction for calling people messers.:)

anyway i think null sums it up

No one wants a forum where evryone agree's all the time, but we do want a forum where we don't get ridiculed for a belief or interest in a certain topic.

but again if someone take the bait they can only blame themselves.they know who the messers (as they call them)are but they still decide to get involved with them.

i would also ask that if were gonna claim that CTer's are being ridiculed for there beliefs id really really like them to make some of there posts a bit less vague.

there does seem to be alot of icons after suitably vague post and telling people its right in front of them they just have to look is not helping any discussion even if its not as derogatory as some of the other posts.

im not trying to offend anyone with this post so if its breaking the rules its unintentional.

TalkieWalkie

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

It's easy to do, but the admins have to decide if it's necessary or not, and they may not approve it. The point of the forum, how it will be run, why it is necessary, what is the problem with the main forum and if there is some way that can be remedied instead all have to be taken into account.

As I said before, fix this forum before starting a sub forum.

Creating sub forums does "fix it", if the problem is that it's a mess.

Other forums have sub forums, obviously they were disorganised before, now they are less disorganised.

Lab_Mouse

Another Suggestion (specify in thread)

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

A bit like thunderdome meets the CT forum..could be interesting:D

Penn

Another Suggestion (specify in thread)

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

Creating sub forums does "fix it", if the problem is that it's a mess.

Other forums have sub forums, obviously they were disorganised before, now they are less disorganised.

My apologies, I thought you meant what was requested before with a sub forum only for CT'ers etc as a way to quit all the bickering, people demanding evidence etc.

Sub forums for 9/11 threads and NWO threads (I'd say anything else would just be in the main CT forum) might not be a bad idea. Although my personal opinion would be a combination of 3 and 4. Leaves things largely the way they are, but have a sticky for links to 9/11 / NWO threads and have no punishments if those threads are necro'd (Posted in after they've been dormant for over 2 months which usually results in the thread being locked)

IceMaiden

Option 4

If it would be possible to have some type of categories/sub-forums to my mind it may be easier to find a number of topics & be easier / simpler to look-up . As the page looks at the time of posting its not so easy to find what’s available or what has been discussed at previous times, obviously if nothing changes then its most unlikely anything will improve be that the content or the users & moderators or overall conduct & satisfaction or input.So remaining with any problems it already has & the consequences that occur.

TalkieWalkie

IceMaiden wrote: »

If it would be possible to have some type of categories/sub-forums to my mind it may be easier to find a number of topics & be easier / simpler to look-up . As the page looks at the time of posting its not so easy to find what’s available or what has been discussed at previous times, obviously if nothing changes then its most unlikely anything will improve be that the content or the users & moderators or overall conduct & satisfaction or input.So remaining with any problems it already has & the consequences that occur.

LOL great idea

joebucks

I would be in favour of the 'Ask Mahatma Coat a question' sticky.

If sub-forums were possible then I think they would be a better option than Mega-threads.

Sightaridis

Another Suggestion (specify in thread)

Sub forums could rob the main forum of it's activity, though I'm probably wrong about that.

Any update on the multi-post feature? I think it's a vB add-on so it may not even be installed on boards.ie

Divorce Referendum

Option 2

nullzero wrote: »

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.

Option 1 is the best in my opinion. The 9/11 thread was a joke with about 5 topics every three minutes. I have shared my view now nullzero. No conspiracy

nullzero

Divorce Referendum wrote: »

Option 1 is the best in my opinion. The 9/11 thread was a joke with about 5 topics every three minutes. I have shared my view now nullzero. No conspiracy

I never thought there was a conspiracy there divorce referendum.
But thanks for adding your thoughts, hopefully more sceptics follow your lead and share too.:)

RoboClam

Another Suggestion (specify in thread)

nullzero wrote: »

But thanks for adding your thoughts, hopefully more sceptics follow your lead and share too.:)

Number 4 for sure. Content will always get repeated, there's no avoiding it. The same arguments will happen time and time again and I don't think megathreads would necessarily stop this.

The problem with megathreads is that people don't have to "Stick to the OP", as anything 9/11 related would be considered relevant. There could be lots of points raised simultaneously from different posters which would lead to some points being ignored while others dominate the conversation. There could also be different conversations going on in the same thread between sets of posters addressing different topics. This could lead to very sporadic and difficult to follow discussions.

Or if it was implemented it could work out to be one of the best things to happen to the forum, who knows unless it's tried I guess! I still vote for 4 though because in my opinion the real problem isn't with the forum, it's with the posters.

IceMaiden

Option 4

Not sure if this is any use ,but it’s a index method used on another part of the forum.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055658106

Yitzhak Rabin

I've put in a proposal for a new sub forum.

Its here. Please go over there and show your support. A simple +1 post will be sufficient. If we get enough people in favour of it, it should be granted.

Also, as its going to be a huge task to get the the forum categorised, I suggest that some users could volunteer to help out. So each volunteer could take an area, say moon landings, and go back and find the best threads about the topic over the last while.

Edit: 1,000th post w00t!

Yitzhak Rabin

Hi, I've made a sig there that people who want to promote the idea of the sub forum.

Its hosted here http://omg.wthax.org/sig_5.jpg

When you put it as your sig, use the link to the proposal here

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056037180

Brown Bomber

Option 2

yekahs wrote: »

I've put in a proposal for a new sub forum.

Its here. Please go over there and show your support. A simple +1 post will be sufficient. If we get enough people in favour of it, it should be granted.

Also, as its going to be a huge task to get the the forum categorised, I suggest that some users could volunteer to help out. So each volunteer could take an area, say moon landings, and go back and find the best threads about the topic over the last while.

Edit: 1,000th post w00t!

I could help out going over old threads, could be interesting. Draw the line at videos though.

Yitzhak Rabin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I could help out going over old threads, could be interesting. Draw the line at videos though.

Cheers BB.

I'll stick a list of topics here in a while, and people who are interested can pick which ones they'd like to look for.

bonkey

I know that yekahs has requested the 9/11 subforum, but regarding the idea of "categorising" things...an alternate idea occurred to me today...one which could be used in the interim / instead of / as well as the subforum idea.

Basically, we could implement prefixes....just like you see on the Forum Request forum. So each major topic could have a prefix:

Anyhoo...if it sounds like an idea, we can discuss the prefixes.

911
JFK
Moon (Landing)
...

At the top of the list of threads, there's a set of drop-downs for filtering threads. On forums where there are prefixes used, there is an option added for filtering by prefix...including "no prefix" as well as the specific prefixes.

It would still be something which would benefit from a run through the big historical threads to add prefixes to some of them....but moving forward it could be pretty handy.

Yitzhak Rabin

bonkey wrote: »

I know that yekahs has requested the 9/11 subforum, but regarding the idea of "categorising" things...an alternate idea occurred to me today...one which could be used in the interim / instead of / as well as the subforum idea.

Basically, we could implement prefixes....just like you see on the Forum Request forum. So each major topic could have a prefix:

Anyhoo...if it sounds like an idea, we can discuss the prefixes.

911
JFK
Moon (Landing)
...

At the top of the list of threads, there's a set of drop-downs for filtering threads. On forums where there are prefixes used, there is an option added for filtering by prefix...including "no prefix" as well as the specific prefixes.

It would still be something which would benefit from a run through the big historical threads to add prefixes to some of them....but moving forward it could be pretty handy.

Yeah, that could be a good idea. It would be as good as the index thread idea, and would eliminate the need for another sticky thread.

As long as there is an option for "no prefix" as well, as thats one of the things I dislike about the SEI forum, as you have to choose either 'policy' or 'science' when often topics will involve both, or neither of those prefixes.