Suggestions on handling Recurring Discussions

[lukjad007]

I have a few suggestions as to how the Recurring Discussions are handled.

Suggestion 1) All threads that are rehashes of recurring discussions be moved into a mega-thread in the recurring discussions sub-forum that it is most similar to. That way there would only be one thread which will be easire to ignore while allowing people an outlet for their agressions.

Suggestion 2) The entire sub-forum be taken out of the New Posts so that people aren't tempted to post as much.

Suggestion 3) Possible closure of all recurring threads. Not to be mean, but the point of recurring threads is that they don't go anywhere, people just use the same old arguments, and everyone ends up yelling at everyone else, and then the thread gets locked. Why not cut out the middle piece and just send it to recurring, automatically closing it? Less fuss, less muss.

Suggestion 4) Close the threads after a certain period of inactivity, say 4 days, automatically. If there is another thread like it that is merged, it will automatically reopen and stay open until there is inactivity for 4 days.

Suggestion 5) Close the thread after a certain period, say 15 or 30 days, the thread is automatically closed. That way we won't get endlessly long, heated debates.

Suggestion 6) Taking the last two suggestions into one. All recurring discussions are closed automatically after 30 days regardless and after 4 days if there is no interest. Reopened when a new thread is added for at least 4 days and at most 30.

Not all of these will work, but I do think they would be an improvement over the current situation of a mass of endless flame threads.

[BslBryan]

I personally think it's fine the way it is. I saw a thread in the Community Cafe that was really unique, and had been around and alive since 2007 or so. Well, in 2009, someone else posted a very similar thread, and they both got merged into a megathread and were thrown into recurring discussions.

I don't really think it would be terribly fair to delete these threads. And it's also a pretty big stretch to assume that all of the threads are negative. There are plenty of fun threads that I enjoy posting in up there, no recurring arguments, just fun.

I see where you're coming from, but it would really upset me if your suggestions were put into action.

[lukjad007]

Not all of my suggestions are meant to be all inclusive and not all of them would close the thread automatically, as long as there an interest. Some of them, like suggestion 1, 2, and 4 would cut down on flamers, but would still allow people that have interest in the thread to keep on posting.

[Tamlynmac]

lukjad007
Not all of my suggestions are meant to be all inclusive and not all of them would close the thread automatically, as long as there an interest.

Hence, the problem. When implementing rules, it's beneficial to set rules that are inclusive. Either that or they remain open to interpretation and are constantly being argued.

Setting, multiple rules to cover the actions of a DB, can result in numerous restrictions that may not be applicable to every entry. Requiring the implementation of a new rule and so on...

I doubt the staff has time to identify and implement rules for each incident or diversion and agree with BslBryan - just from a different perspective.

[lukjad007]

Hence, the problem. When implementing rules, it's beneficial to set rules that are inclusive. Either that or they remain open to interpretation and are constantly being argued.

Setting, multiple rules to cover the actions of a DB, can result in numerous restrictions that may not be applicable to every entry. Requiring the implementation of a new rule and so on...

I doubt the staff has time to identify and implement rules for each incident or diversion and agree with BslBryan - just from a different perspective.
I was not clear. I did not meant that they should pick and choose, I meant that I didn't want ALL of my suggestions to me accepted, I wanted some of them to be accepted, and the rest be disgarded.

[Tamlynmac]

lukjad007
I was not clear. I did not meant that they should pick and choose, I meant that I didn't want ALL of my suggestions to me accepted, I wanted some of them to be accepted, and the rest be disgarded.

I understand and wasn't attempting to insinuate anything. ;)

Please accept my apology if my post offended you in any way, as that was not my intent. :-k

I was only trying to pointing how hard it may be to implement rules that are not inclusive. An example may be the COC and the number of time it's argued in the "Resolution Center". It's MHO, some interpret rules differently than others and even inclusive rules are often subject to interpretation based on perspective. Individuals may even deliberately misinterpret rules to justify their own desire not to conform. But that's a whole different thread.