Forum Revamp?

[night]

His argument is simply what many observe, because it seems like you guys are simply shooting down our ideas because "I like it this way.". It gives us the sense that you are too busy/lazy or whatnot to even consider our argument, or come up with a valid one of your own.

@para - Perhaps give an option for each suggestion, or a yes/no for each suggestion, and give the voters enough votes to vote for each suggestion.. ?

[Grandi]

Sept 11, 2008 19:11:49 GMT -5 Gran Gran said:

Sept 11, 2008 18:59:16 GMT -5 Grandi said:

Aesthetic preferences are irrelevant to common sense. Especially if those preferences are developed from nostalgia and Appeal to Tradition.

Hmm define 'common sense' other then a supposed logic assumed for most parts.

Common sense is streamlining the forums to allow for recent things like lack of interest in a board, boards being frankly outdated and the entire slowdown of traffic on DH in general. Combining and rearranging boards to make things simpler and to trim the unnecessary fat. Basically everything stated in the OP.

Since no poll has been conducted this argument bases on assumption. Assumptions are the mother of all screw-ups.

I'm basing that on the people who have posted in this thread, and therefore the only people who care enough to think out their arguments and ideas.

Nostalgia and traditions are not bad things to be thrown out, just because they are old. As well as not all new things are actually an improvement.

Streamlining the forum would be an improvement for many of the ways stated in the OP. Holding onto nostalgia for the sake of it hinders progress.

And this still leaves that imposing judgment of another person's preferences is also a fallacy.

First off that's not actually a logically fallacy going by the definition of a fallacy.

I highly doubt any forum change could get 100% approval, so in any case a minority would have to put up with what the other people want. Forum arrangements are not inalienable rights, they have no protection for the minority.

[Horyo]

But there are so many arguments on the first place, calling them lazy seems like an ad hominem response.

I mean, if you want I can try to come up with many reasons to counter all your arguments for the sake of it. Though, I've already stated what I really feel.

[Grandi]

Sept 11, 2008 19:20:15 GMT -5 Horyo said:

But there are so many arguments on the first place, calling them lazy seems like an ad hominem response.

Ad-hominem would be saying GH's points are invalid because he is lazy. I never said his points were invalid because of personal criticism directed against him, however criticism was directed but I didn't use it to discredit his other points. I responded to his individual points on a basis of merit.

[username]

Sept 11, 2008 18:47:43 GMT -5 Gran Gran said:

Kaneda, shut up.... you are not even in the same league as the 2 main antagonists just parroting does really add nothing, cursing demminishes the weight of your (I mean Grandi's) argument!

I'm sorry, I didn't realize I'm not allowed to post when somebody else covered what I'm arguing for better. You all better get on top of banning half of everyone who posted in the CT ever.

I did make something of a point a few times in this thread, admittedly not expertly composed. I should be careful not to make a joke with an asterisked profanity ever again seeing as it invalidates all my previous arguments.

The argument you're making simply makes the staff come across as lazy. You and GH have yet to make a proper rebuttal against the claims raised in the very first post, aside from "it's worked till now" which doesn't even make sense seeing as the nature of what the forum revolves around has drastically changed.

So I'm sorry if saying the argument is lazy is offensive, but until I hear a decent reason why changing it would be a bad thing, it's what I'm going to have to call it.

[luthien]

Ok, I'm going to throw my two cents in here, as someone who's just a layman looking at whether parts of the board make sense, and are easy to navigate for someone like me.

I think a revamp is in order. The show is over, and the board needs to reflect it. DH is an organic creature so to speak, and like any organic creature, it needs to evolve and adapt in order to stay alive.

Not to parrot too much what syara said so well above, but Spoilers regarding the television show need to be eliminated. There are no spoilers left to be had, all has been revealed regarding Avatar, and so it's an outdated board that just clutters things up.

I would propose replacing the Spoiler board with a movie board, which can include spoilers for the film. And I don't see the need yet for a separate film spoiler board, as individual threads can probably handle that - even when we know more about the movies.

The Distant Horizon and DH Forum boards should be merged - they basically cover the same territory and I'm sorry - but having them separated is confusing and frustrating. Often I have to poke around to find something I'm looking for because I assume it should be in "DH Forum," and instead it's in "Distant Horizon." It's unnecessary, and frankly the only way it makes sense for them to be separate is if "Distant Horizon" begins to strictly deal only with the part of the site that is *not* forum related, which does not appear to be the case. A lot of forum business goes on in both sub-boards, seemingly at random, and it does create a problem for me to find certain things. And I'm sure I'm not the only one in this boat. I mean, really - where's the sense in having a DH Forums sub-board, then putting Legendary Threads in Distant Horizon. Since the threads are a feature of the Forums, shouldn't it be put there? It makes it difficult to navigate, honestly.

Not to point and say "See how they did it" - because I know that's aggravating - but I find a site set-up like this one:

www.council-of-elrond.com/forums/index.php

to be a bit more user-friendly. It's a little clearer, more intuitive, and easier to navigate, at least from this user's perspective.

[Horyo]

Sept 11, 2008 19:22:22 GMT -5 Grandi said:

Sept 11, 2008 19:20:15 GMT -5 Horyo said:

But there are so many arguments on the first place, calling them lazy seems like an ad hominem response.

Ad-hominem would be saying GH's points are invalid because he is lazy. I never said his points were invalid because of personal criticism directed against him, however criticism was directed but I didn't use it to discredit his other points. I responded to his individual points on a basis of merit.

Maybe we could have both worded better.

Either way, from my POV, the implication of laziness was that the staff was too lazy to act on anything, thus they "reject" any suggestions brought up. I'm simply trying to deflate that belief because it's not true; they do try to implement suggestions, but when they feel as if they disagreed with the points, then they collaborate and compromise.

[Grandi]

-it's still being used, whether regardless of the amount of activity in comparison to other boards.

Boards that only get several posts a day are dead space and most often the topics in them that are active can be neatly put in another category without causing any waves.

-they might be needed in the future for fun active conversations, my point pertaining mostly to the theories.

Boards can be recreated if the need be. As of now Avatar doesn't look like it's going to be doing very much for a long time. If a need arises then the board can be added again. It's really only a few clicks in the admin panel

[Horyo]

Sept 11, 2008 19:29:20 GMT -5 Grandi said:

-it's still being used, whether regardless of the amount of activity in comparison to other boards.

Boards that only get several posts a day are dead space and most often the topics in them that are active can be neatly put in another category without causing any waves.

Several posts a day is sitll good; it's when a board hasn't had a single reply in one to two weeks that makes it a candidate for deletion.
our boards don't have to thrive on 50 answers every hour.

-they might be needed in the future for fun active conversations, my point pertaining mostly to the theories.

Boards can be recreated if the need be. As of now Avatar doesn't look like it's going to be doing very much for a long time. If a need arises then the board can be added again. It's really only a few clicks in the admin panel[/quote]

Added again sure, but when you have to delete all the previous theories, it makes it so undesirable and when people come and start posing repeat threads that have been discussed to many lengths.

[Paraiba Ocean]

A poll has been added now. Thanks for the suggestion, Gabi. ^_^

[username]

Sept 11, 2008 19:37:05 GMT -5 Horyo said:

Sept 11, 2008 19:29:20 GMT -5 Grandi said:

Boards that only get several posts a day are dead space and most often the topics in them that are active can be neatly put in another category without causing any waves.

Several posts a day is sitll good; it's when a board hasn't had a single reply in one to two weeks that makes it a candidate for deletion.
our boards don't have to thrive on 50 answers every hour.

So two posts a week means it's a thriving board? I'm pretty sure merging some and streamlining it would be a superior alternative.

[Gran Gran]

Sept 11, 2008 19:23:58 GMT -5 @username said:

Sept 11, 2008 18:47:43 GMT -5 Gran Gran said:

Kaneda, shut up.... you are not even in the same league as the 2 main antagonists just parroting does really add nothing, cursing demminishes the weight of your (I mean Grandi's) argument!

I'm sorry, I didn't realize I'm not allowed to post when somebody else covered what I'm arguing for better. You all better get on top of banning half of everyone who posted in the CT ever.

I did make something of a point a few times in this thread, admittedly not expertly composed. I should be careful not to make a joke with an asterisked profanity ever again seeing as it invalidates all my previous arguments.

The argument you're making simply makes the staff come across as lazy. You and GH have yet to make a proper rebuttal against the claims raised in the very first post, aside from "it's worked till now" which doesn't even make sense seeing as the nature of what the forum revolves around has drastically changed.

So I'm sorry if saying the argument is lazy is offensive, but until I hear a decent reason why changing it would be a bad thing, it's what I'm going to have to call it.

My rebuttal?

Frankly my Dear I don't give a ....well whatever.

I am taking offense to your asinine behavior and letting water down my back isn't gonna make it rain, Pilgrim!

And if you had read for comprehension, you would have noticed me being in the middle. So far you have wasted any chances to make me look past your idiotic outbursts to consider anything that might be hidden in there - or not.

But that is turning into , neither here nor there.

[username]

Yah, more in the "be an @$$hole to Kaneda because you're still bitter over last year" zone.

[Gran Gran]

Last year?

No, you are being a jerk now, and I don't care why, but this does not go here. y mailbox is open.

[Grandi]

Several posts a day is sitll good; it's when a board hasn't had a single reply in one to two weeks that makes it a candidate for deletion.
our boards don't have to thrive on 50 answers every hour.

One board with 15 posts a day opposed to 5 boards with 3 posts a day would be much less unwieldy.

Added again sure, but when you have to delete all the previous theories, it makes it so undesirable and when people come and start posing repeat threads that have been discussed to many lengths.

All the theories in the show have pretty much been discussed to death. And with the show over there isn't going to be people coming in going "HERE'S A THEORY ABOUT THAT SHOW THAT ENDED A YEAR AGO" Plus we don't have to even delete the theories, we can archive either the legendary ones, or even all of them.