You ever notice that by the time a thread reaches about 150 posts, it has usually become a complete waste of time?
After a certain point the only people still posting are just venting their spleen at the few other people that are venting their spleen.
No one is really reading the other posts (at least not really trying to understand them) except to find a little snippet they can take out of context to try and make the other poster look foolish. Often they don’t even realize they are not even arguing on the same topic anymore.
If you don’t really want to communicate and aren’t going to even try to understand, why bother posting?
I don’t know about you, but I’ve reached the point where (even if it is a topic I am very interested in reading) I don’t even bother opening a thread if it has gotten fairly long. If I really want to discuss it I will start a new thread.
Even if I started the thread. Once it has gotten to more than a couple of pages (not that that happens too often), I will click the hide button to keep my blood pressure down.
That’s not even starting to talk about the folks that feel the need to import old off-topic arguments. I find that more than just a bit annoying.
Sometimes I really don’t understand people.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think that's a bit of an unfair generalization: Some topics stay good for a long time, others crumble into a fighting pit with flame-spewing chainsaws at the eleventh post.
A different matter is that, one could conjecture, the longer a topic is the less likely it is to attract new posters, merely for the fact that it is harder to join an ongoing discussion when it's several pages long, resulting in very long conversations that usually have only a handful of interlocutors actively participating; moreso if the subject is very specific or has arrisen from the very discussion therein. And of those that do join in, there is a good chance they didn't have the time or inclination to read the whole thing. But that doesn't mean the thread will turn into a spitfest of angry people at every 150th post. We have several good, long threads around here that prove otherwise.
About the blood pressure thing, just remember this is the Internet, and you need to take it lightly. There is always going to be someone who disagrees with you, always someone willing to fight you over it, and always someone ready to troll everyone involved. That's what you get in a medium where we can type faster than we think, where tones and implications are lost in the text, where anonymity abounds, and where for some reason some people think you have to win discussions.
But if you take it with a good bit of humour and laid-backness, you really just learn to have patience and not take things personally. Also, it's great for cardiovascular care, which is something I need to watch if I want to keep enjoying those fantastic sandwiches with caramelized ham and fried egg they serve two blocks from here. They even add bacon fried in olive oil.
Yet, you created a thread to vent your spleen ;-)
But I'm not 'screaming' about it in someone else's thread and ignoring what others put down.
And if someone disagrees with me I will not launch into an eternal flaming rage fest to humble them.
=-)
You ever notice that by the time a thread reaches about 150 posts, it has usually become a complete waste of time?
You ever noticed that by the time it reaches 1000 post its looped and talked about the same subject several times and is pretty much guaranteed to have the same result?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah. I've tried to catch up on a couple threads that went long, because the OP was a topic which intrigued me... only to find that by the time I've waded through pages of discussion (wanting to be up to speed on the discussion and not raise points already covered, etc.) that it's nothing but posts about bacon there at the end.
>sigh<
Not that I think there's anything to be done, just noting that I support your position.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So... the bigger the thread time (T) becomes, the more the probability of bacon (P) rises? Anyone have a formula for this?
All this talk of bacon is helping me stay true to my diet!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You ever notice how some threads take 150 comments before they become a complete waste of time, and others area a complete waste of time starting at the initial post?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You ever notice how some threads take 150 comments before they become a complete waste of time, and others area a complete waste of time starting at the initial post?
People in the office are staring at me because I started snickering during a really boring meeting.
Btw, Keilaantara, nice work on baconing this thread. =)
mmmmm.... baacconnnnnn....
Most threads seem to stop making sense to me at about the 10th post . . .
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
man what
when I push a thread past 150, it is a runaway train of awesome
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hm. Confirmation bias, I think.
Threads in the AP-specific forums and house rule forums that go over 150 are usually the best threads on the whole site.
Now, if you revise your statement limiting it to the rules and PFRPG general discussion forums, then yes. With occasional exceptions.
I know a forum I frequent has the moderators locking threads around when they reach 20 pages or so. People are free to start a new thread about it, but it kind of cuts down on the same people yelling at each other over threads and threads of stuff.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Life cycle of an internet messageboard thread.
1. OP has a question or observation that is provided to the general community in a genuine attempt to provide a public service.
2. Responder attempts to provide an honest and useful reply.
3. OP indicates appreciation of response, but clarifies a misunderstanding.
4. Hyper-sensitive person jumps on some trivial semantic, ideological or rules issue in knee-jerk attempt to advance a personal agenda.
5. OP and/or first responder attempts to mollify hypersensitive person with further clarification.
6. A dozen lurkers "like" the hyper-sensitive person's off-topic rant.
7. Reasonable person attempts to intervene explaining how the hyper-sensitive person over-reacted to an innocent mistake.
8. Hyper-sensitive person and three like-minded allies gang-tackle reasonable person, calling into question their intelligence, moral clarity and upbringing.
9. Someone makes a comment about popcorn.
10. OP and/or other interested parties try one more time to restore the thread to the original purpose.
11. Ranters on both sides unload on OP and/or other interested parties to point out how completely unaware they are of the critical importance of whatever agenda item they are promoting.
12. Lurkers begin commenting about the thread going off the rails.
13. Ranters on both sides begin making personal attacks.
14. Moderators warn everyone to "play nice"
15. Innocent bystanders express indignation about being lumped in with the ranters.
16. Ranters are now lined up on both sides firing semantic nuclear bombs at each other.
17. Someone makes a statement that gives the other side their chance to claim racism, sexism, bigotry or some other "scarlet letter" level of moral turpitude.
18. Mods finally lock the thread.
Godwin's Law
That's right, AD, I favorited your post. Now I'm trying to figure out where that puts me in your progression list.
: puts on reading glasses :
5$ this thread lasts a while.
That won't buy much popcorn at a movie theater these days...
Hm. Confirmation bias, I think.
Threads in the AP-specific forums and house rule forums that go over 150 are usually the best threads on the whole site.
Now, if you revise your statement limiting it to the rules and PFRPG general discussion forums, then yes. With occasional exceptions.
Ok, I will admit I don't spend much time on the house rules (our group doesn't use many house rules) and AP specific (I'm not the GM for the AP group and I don't want to ruin the surprise) forums.
I do tend to mostly look at the advice, rules, and general discussion forums.
It never occured to me that the situation might be that different on the other parts of site.
Life cycle of an internet messageboard thread.
1. ...
That is a scary accurate schedule. 8-0
5$ this thread lasts a while.That won't buy much popcorn at a movie theater these days...
That won't even buy a small at the theatre near my house. :(
5$ this thread lasts a while.
Not taking the challenge... You will be cheating and posting here just to keep it going... :P
5$ this thread lasts a while.Not taking the challenge... You will be cheating and posting here just to keep it going... :P
Most mass murderers are cheaters. Hitler was a cheater.
"Yeahhhh...that sounds like something Hitler would have said."
Actually I left out a key step in the progression. There are two very important steps between 8 and 9:
8.5 Person with reverse attitude about hyper-sensitive person's agenda item rebuts hyper-sensitive person's knee-jerk rant.
8.7 Lurkers on other side of hyper-sensitive person's knee-jerk item like the reverse attitude poster's rebuttal rant.
That won't even buy a small at the theatre near my house. :(5$ this thread lasts a while.That won't buy much popcorn at a movie theater these days...
Who honestly doesn't just bring their own food into the theater? That's the reason you bring a date, and you tell them to bring some oversized popular purse.
I don't. The food concessions are the main revenue source for paying the staff. Bringing your own food in is not that much better than stealing tips from diner tables.
Who honestly doesn't just bring their own food into the theater? That's the reason you bring a date, and you tell them to bring some oversized popular purse.
Well how else do you expect me to pay for the food I sneak in? MY money?!
Oh, and yet another critically important point to make.
You know who was also a terrible tipper?
Jeffrey Dahmer.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
man this is just like my college Econ 101 class
except that I am not drunk and exhausted
oh wait yes I am
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wasn't this thread about a guy who was angry at people derailing other threads? I sense some irony coming on.
Is it actually irony if that was the obvious intent?
For science!
For Science!
For science indeed.
Wasn't this thread about a guy who was angry at people derailing other threads? I sense some irony coming on.Is it actually irony if that was the obvious intent?
Nope.
Anyone who doesn't push this to 150 comments is obviously a science denier!
For science!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I was just thinking...
The threads that are good over 150 posts are generally threads where someone is creating something, or helping someone else.
The threads that get terrible are usually the ones where people are criticizing something, or tearing down other people.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Life cycle of an internet messageboard thread.
1. OP has a question or observation that is provided to the general community in a genuine attempt to provide a public service.
2. Responder attempts to provide an honest and useful reply.
3. OP indicates appreciation of response, but clarifies a misunderstanding.
4. Hyper-sensitive person jumps on some trivial semantic, ideological or rules issue in knee-jerk attempt to advance a personal agenda.
5. OP and/or first responder attempts to mollify hypersensitive person with further clarification.
6. A dozen lurkers "like" the hyper-sensitive person's off-topic rant.
7. Reasonable person attempts to intervene explaining how the hyper-sensitive person over-reacted to an innocent mistake.
8. Hyper-sensitive person and three like-minded allies gang-tackle reasonable person, calling into question their intelligence, moral clarity and upbringing.
9. Someone makes a comment about popcorn.
10. OP and/or other interested parties try one more time to restore the thread to the original purpose.
11. Ranters on both sides unload on OP and/or other interested parties to point out how completely unaware they are of the critical importance of whatever agenda item they are promoting.
12. Lurkers begin commenting about the thread going off the rails.
13. Ranters on both sides begin making personal attacks.
14. Moderators warn everyone to "play nice"
15. Innocent bystanders express indignation about being lumped in with the ranters.
16. Ranters are now lined up on both sides firing semantic nuclear bombs at each other.
17. Someone makes a statement that gives the other side their chance to claim racism, sexism, bigotry or some other "scarlet letter" level of moral turpitude.
18. Mods finally lock the thread.
So it is just a bunch of bots posting back and fourth......
Oh, and for Science!
I was just thinking...
The threads that are good over 150 posts are generally threads where someone is creating something, or helping someone else.
The threads that get terrible are usually the ones where people are criticizing something, or tearing down other people.
Yeah, but sometimes it is a case of people criticizing/tearing down creative process. But you are right that usually the bad ones are related to application of existing rules (or political ideas) instead of creation of new ones.
For Fhtagn!!