classicman2

I am opposed to the lumping of all things about Iraq - how things are going, pre-war intelligence, alternatives to the administration's policy, etc. into one thread.

First of all - it's confusing.

BTW: I think the same thing - to a somewhat smaller degree - about the lumping of threads that has anything to do with elections into one thread.

As I said in another thread - that's not done in the Other Forum. Why should it be done in the Politics Forum?

nemein

Related things are lumped together in the Other forum when it is appropriate. The main reason you don't see it as much in the Other forum though is there are usually a wider variety of discussions going on at any giving time. The reason more discussions are merged in the Political forum is because people end up cross posting a lot of the same info in different threads so personally I think it makes it harder to try and remember where any specific discussion is going on.

IMHO it's really up to the people who post... if they can keep discussions focused on distinct issues the threads will remain distinct. If threads continue to conglomerate they will continue to be merged.

classicman2

If things were going really well in Iraq - do you believe we would have only thread allowed on the Politics Forum?

nemein

Yes. If you think this is some cheap trick to try and lump bad news together so it doesn't seem as prevalent, and if you think the moderation here is that biased/one sided/bad, why do you keep coming back?

NCMojo

I completely agree with C-man on this one. This thread got locked:

Senate Finds No al-Qaida-Saddam Link

neimen, you closed it, and suggested it be placed in this thread:

1/only Iraq "strategy" thread (pre-war intel, options/ideas for the future go here)

First of all, that is a hopelessly vague thread title. Suggesting that any and all discussion of Iraq go into one thread is preposterous, IMO -- especially when the original thread in question was worthy of front-page space in most major newspapers.

Second, multi-page threads tend to be somewhat discouraging... if people feel like they have to read all the way through the thread just to participate, they are much less likely to click inside.

C-man has an excellent point of comparison with Other. It is rare to find people in Other trying to carry on a real conversation... it's more quips, quick replies, opinion and advice, whereas the Politics Forum frequently has multiple point-counterpoints, extended analysis and review, etc. I'd rather see more new threads in Politics and fewer threads in Other, but I'd be OK with just a little bit more "breathing room".

(This isn't meant as criticism of neimen or any other mod -- just some ideas on my part.)

VinVega

Whether I agree with the mod call or not, to suggest that nemein's intentions were anything other than genuine is unfair. With all the ideologs we have in Politics, he consistantly bends over backwards to be fair.

NCMojo

I could not agree more. I also appreciate the thread I mentioned earlier being unlocked.

nemein

The main function of the moderators is to make sure the forum runs smoothly. Personally I thought I was doing people a favor by trying to keep topics grouped together when I start to see a lot of cross posting. If people want to keep them separate I'm fine w/ that and will be more judicious in the future about merging threads.

The only exception I take in all this is the accusation by some, here and in the Political Forum itself, that this was being done for partisan reasons

Groucho

I say the lumping hasn't gone far enough, until we have a "One and Only Politics" thread, put everything there, and move the thread to Book Talk.

X

That sounds like a very good suggestion to me!

dork

I am strongly opposed to the use of gerunds in thread titles. Many of us read the forum at work and are small children.

I hope that the perpetrators will be dealt with appropriately.

NCMojo

OK, a new beef. This one concerns the "five threads on the front page" rule that is being hawkishly enforced. Two recent examples, one from each side of the aisle:

http://forum.dvdtalk.com/showthread.php?t=477534
http://forum.dvdtalk.com/showthread.php?t=477654

We've had problems with some posters starting too many new threads at once -- hell, I've been busted for that a couple of times -- but I think there might be an issue with some overzealous enforcement of that rule. Did anyone click on Report to Moderator? Was there really a major issue with either one of those threads?

(Although in X's defense... his remark was pretty funny in grundle's thread...)

classicman2

Why don't we just lump all the threads in the Politics Forum into one gigantic thread?

I really have a better suggestion, but, I better not say it.

NCMojo

I cannot believe that X closed this thread. That's just riddiculous. I know there are these "rules" and all, but when you consider that at least one thread on that front page was started over a year ago... it just seems more like someone being anally retentive than someone actually looking to make the forum better.

Tracer Bullet

I agree with this. Bad decision.

X

So NCMojo, you're just going to take this opportunity to vent your spleen?

There sure weren't any complaints when grundle had his threads closed after he was warned and couldn't restrain himself from starting new threads. Classicman2 has also had warnings when he passed the number of threads we generally allow.

There's a very good reason this is done and we do this without consideration as to whose threads those are.

NCMojo

Actually, I said at the time that I thought you should have left grundle's thread alone. I am not accusing you of political bias -- I am accusing you of being way too nitpicky in enforcing these rules in the Political Forum.

neimen and VinVega are doing an excellent job of keeping things in check over there. Did anyone really report either of C-man's two new threads -- including one that was only created when a mod split the thread? Was there really an issue? Or were you just trying to enforce the letter, not the spirit, of the law?

EDIT TO ADD: and I also want to state that I do not think you're on some kind of vendetta against any individual, including classicman.

classicman2

1. I really don't recall any warnings.

2. There was a reason - whether it's very good is debatable.

3. I didn't start the Ann Richards thread.

4. The limit on the number of threads on the first page allowed is ridiculous. Members could post in threads that are year or so old; and , that would move the thread to the first page.

X

Some time back I put a couple warnings in your threads when you were getting excessive. Same as I did with grundle recently. You continued to participate in the thread and stopped posting new threads so I assumed you had seen them. I deleted my posts afterward assuming you had seen them. No big deal.

Today I put in another warning about so many threads on the first page of the forum and a chance for you to reply about it. You chose to reply with a political jab and other posters also followed with posts that had nothing to do with the topic so that thread looked like a good one to close, no matter the original reason.

I'm confused about your not starting the Ann Richards thread where this all happened. http://forum.dvdtalk.com/showthread.php?t=477654

I think limiting the number of threads that any one member has on the front page of a forum is especially important in Politics. We've seen that is a good way to not get overrun by threads with similar themes by some of our more rabid posters in the past and it has continued to provide a good mix of threads with different ideas where people will see and participate in them.

NCMojo

First, I think classicman got confused (which happens a lot to old people ) when he said he didn't start the Ann Richards thread. He started that one, but VinVega actually "created" the one entitled Sens. challenge White House terror bill by splitting it from another thread.

Second, I do understand the idea of the five thread rule. And I agree with it. But I'm just saying that any and all moderation should be done in... well, moderation. There's some leeway with every rule. The spirit of the rule is to keep one poster from dominating the front page of the forum, and as long as that is followed, I just don't see where there's an immediate problem.

hahn

Have to speak up in agreement with NCMojo here. The purpose of the rule (to my understanding) was to prevent people from flooding the forum with threads. In turn, it serves a greater purpose in that too many threads might annoy some posters. Thus, it seems logical to me that the number limit is in place to serve this purpose. If no one is being offended or annoyed by the number of threads started by someone, then what's the purpose in enforcing the 'law'? Simply because it can be?

As a result now, someone re-posted the exact same thread that c-man started (because it IS a post-worthy news item) and so now we have a redundant post, which (and maybe it's just me) seems more of a pain than c-man having one extra post on the front page. And yes, I was opposed to grundle's thread being shut down too so this has nothing to do with partisanship.

grundle

I understand why moderators don't want any one poster to dominate the political forum. So sometimes a poster gets his newest thread locked.

But an arbitrary limit of 4 threads per poster has a couple problems:

First, sometimes old threads by that poster get bumped, which can push them past 4 on the front page.

Secondly, sometimes days go by when hardly any new threads get started. So threads don't get pushed off the front page.

So I have a proposal:

Write forum software that limits any person's new threads in the political forum to one new thread every 24 hours (or 36 hours, or whatever). That will keep things nice and simple, and it makes sure that everyone gets treated fairly.

Dr. Henry Jones, Jr.

so I can just bump all of someone's old threads and they won't be able to start any more? cool.

wildcatlh

Sounds like it.

That could be fun.

Seriously though, as NCMojo said, there has to be more moderation in the moderation. The rule can't be hard and fast -- "If you have more threads than this open it will automatically be closed". It has to be reasonable. Is there any real reason why it matters whether classicman2 starts an Ann Richards thread or if someone else does? What's it matter who's name appears under the thread title as the thread starter? Silly, IMO.

wendersfan

I'm opposed to this, for purely selfish reasons. I don't start many threads, but once in a while I'll be feeling really industrious (or it's an especially slow day at work) and I'll feel like starting a couple of different threads on issues, articles, or research I've been thinking about a lot at that time. I really don't think it's fair to punish that sort of (IMO) harmless forum behavior because a few people like to start a lot of threads.