This is really interesting because when I complained about this, you deleted 3 threads I had created when I only had 1 in the first page. The other 2 additional threads (making a total of 6) were bumped by members after those 4 threads were on the first page and I remember well that at least 2 of the 3 news threads had active discussion going on that you didn't care about and delete it without any remorse.

No one here is attempting "forum domination" or posting games. We were providing information relevant to the topics of the forum.

Something else that is bothering me is that you are insinuating that we can't use the Feedback Forum to discuss issues about the site. Where the hell do we discuss that then? You are not the only administrator of the site and certainly not the owner, yet you are the only one complaining about this issue. No one else in the forum was complaining about me or about DJariya. Instead of focusing on members that are actually supporting and contributing to the forum, why don't you focus your energy on members that come here and post how they have been scamming Target for free Icees or members who are rude to one another.

Or members who never miss an opportunity to constantly complain about the same thing in this forum?

Different things irritate different people. That's why we're doing our best to codify as much as we can, as you have requested dozens of times.

I'm actually a little offended by this. This statement seems to be insinuitating that I'm arrogant/have some type of superiority complex and love seeing my name on the threads appearing on the 1st page. That is complete rubbish.

All I have done was pass along information to fellow TV Talkers. If there is 6-8 shows a night that are IMO worthy of discussusion, then I would take the inititiative to create a thread for it and then if people want to talk about a previous episode on page 2 or 3, how am I suppose to control have possibly 16 topics on the 1st page? Are you really saying that I am doing harm to the forum when I have actually been trying to encourage more discussion/traffic.

So, if there is say 8 shows I want to talk about on say Monday night and you really want to limit my threads to 4-5 for the 1st page, your saying that I should ignore half of them and expect someone else to initiate discussion?

I don't want to sound like a hyprocrite when I responded to your PM, but besides the threads that I have created which have gotten little if not to no response, which I agree could be eliminated to cut down my number of posts, there are alot, I mean alot of other programs and days when there are alot of shows worthy of discussion that do get alot of hits/comments (ex. Monday nights as I pointed out to you)

Also, I have never once in my time in DVD Talk passed along/created usless threads just because I love seeing my name on a thread or want to pad my post count. Everything I have passed along was IMO newsworthy or worthy of discussion.

The thing is that no one is this forum is annoyed by this issue except you. You are the one who made this an issue by sending warning email to me, LorenzoL and DJariya. There were other guys doing the same thing in the parts of the forum and no one said a thing. You have been the only person in this forum making an issue of people who actually contribute something and aren't creating threads for the hell of it. We sparked positive discussions, which it is what the forum is all about.

Look at the reaction of the other members in the Smallville thread:

http://forum.dvdtalk.com/tv-talk/551...3-19-09-a.html

Not one person agrees with you and almost everyone says that DJariya should continue doing what he was doing without any repercussions. I can speak that in my case and his, nowhere does it look that we were padding our posts or anything else. Like I said before, I could care less if I had 1 or 6,000 posts in my account, what matters is the intention and it both cases they were good intentions for the best interest of the forum.

What's the problem with this? Are you trying to imply that creating a thread about an episode of 24 with a synopsis and a picture is a waste of space? That's the whole point of starting an episode discussion thread. At least I have taken the initiative to create something useful to help start discussion. I mentioned previously that it I couldn't stand someone bumping a thread of say House episode 2 to talk about episode 17.

Or as someone else mentioned....."House 3/14/09" and the 1st post would say....."Anyone seen it? Loved it."

When I create a 24, House, Gossip Girl thread at say 7:00am on the day the show airs and it gets no response yet, that's because the episode hasn't aired yet. I helps alot of the TV Talkers get a headsup that a new episode is airing that night. It's not because I want to pad my thread count as you seem to be insinuating. Have you seen how many hits/comments one of my 24 threads gets? Anywhere from 80-100 comments? Just because you visit the forum at 1pm and there still isn't any comments on it, it doesn't mean the thread is useless and isn't worthy of being there.

I'd say your offense is justified. I think it's clear through your actions that you aren't attempting to dominate the forum.

Yes.

Just to address this one part of your post, it doesn't seem like you really want to discuss what you post. You usually leave it to other people to discuss it, you just do the TV Guide listing. The same situation we had with dx23 in the DVD Talk Forum. However we don't want to have to evaluate the "worthiness" of people's threads, it would be totally subjective. That's why we try to use a number of threads that we've found to be reasonable instead.

If people really want to discuss a show they can start a thread about it. A reasonable solution to your situation might be that if you want to be TV Guide, you can put a listing of all shows for a particular day in one thread and anyone wanting to discuss any of them can start a thread about it. That is the way it works in the DVD Talk Forum.

http://forum.dvdtalk.com/dvd-talk/55...on-thread.html

If nobody cares enough to bother to start a thread, it's probably not worth your starting one.

We were trying to save bullet points and combine things. I did not mean to imply that you were playing posting games. The second clause of that rule applies to this situation though, including "forum domination" when almost half the posts on the first page of a forum are frequently yours. Attempted or not.

In order to avoid future offense we'll see about making two bullet points out of that rule.

Your seem to be implying that I love creating TV episode threads just for the sake of creating them and not even bothering contributing. Again, that's not true. I understand where your coming from, which I have pointed out to you, when I have created an episode thread for say "The Mentalist" with a synopsis and noone bothers to contribute to it. Then yeah, I think creating those threads are a waste of time.

Just because I put a synopsis and picture for my 1st post for a show like 24 that gets alot of comments, it doesn't mean that I don't care about the show and I'm just posting for the sake of posting. After the episode airs and I watch it, I will 1000% contribute and post my thoughts and comments.

Speaking specifically in regards to the TV Talk subforum... I've started a South Park thread once or twice, but any other time I've come in to talk about a show and haven't seen a thread already started about it, I just don't bother starting one. I'd wager most of the TV Talkers are like this.

TV Talk seems to do a good job of ignoring shows no one wants to talk about. It's not as if thread after thread after thread is being created week after week after week where no one is contributing.

The things I hate about the series-long threads is, take the current Hell's Kitchen one for example. I don't watch this live, but usually the next night. However since I post in there when I do watch it, I'm subscribed to the thread. And then because I'm stupid, every Friday morning when I check my email I accidentally glance at one of the forum notices and wind up reading exactly who got thrown out and ruining the show for myself. Yes I know I can turn off email notifications, but still...

I guess all I'm saying is that I don't see DJ's posts as him trying to extend his e-penis or anything. Someone's gotta start them... might as well be someone who is organized. And if they never get talked in, I'm sure he doesn't start one the next week...

Have you seen how many posts that thread, created at the beginning of March has? 5. Do you see how many views that thread has had in the same time? 698. Almost no one visits that thread because is a list that can be found everywhere else on the Internet. A thread I started 2 days later has 35 posts and 708 views. That's how you measure the worthiness of a thread and you can measure the impact of how things are posted. That is the reason why those numbers are there.

And for the record, just because I start a thread for Gossip Girl episode 18 and I haven't contributed a comment on it right away, it doesn't mean I don't care and I am expecting others to start discussion.

And yes as dx23 has pointed Sticky's are almost worthless in the TV Talk forum for discussion. People just don't contribute to them.

That example you pointed out about a general release date discussion thread would be horrible in the TV Talk forum.

I mean do you really think people will respond to:

"2008-09 TV Season Discussion thread" to discuss every show on every network?

or a

"2009 Summer Shows Discussion thread"

I don't mean to sound rude, but I think you are seriously out of touch with how the TV Talk forum has been functioning recently.

Count me among those who vote for quality, not quantity. You can say posts that simply include the basic facts--series, episode title, airdate and synopsis--aren't substantive enough to justify starting threads, but I disagree. I think having the first post in any thread deal strictly with the basics is helpful. Let discourse follow--that's the very nature of threads.

As for "thread domination," I for one don't care in the least who starts a thread, as long as it's appropriately placed. One thing that might help would be sub-forums in the TV section dedicated to each series--obviously, though, this would quickly become a nightmare of navigation and probably counterproductive. So, we're left with the current format and you know what? I think it works fine, DJaryia's leading posts and all.

Also, I can give you another example of a positive regarding my threads.

2 years ago, the USA show Burn Notice premiered. Someone created a thread called:

"Is anyone going to check out the new Bruce Campbell series on USA?" or something like that. It got sporadic bumps, but noone was going to search for that thread to talk about Burn Notice.

I decided to start specific episode discussion threads for the show late last season and yes, I contributed to them. They got anywhere from 25-40 comments per thread and people started to notice and care about the show. I don't want to overestimate my value, but IMO doing that has helped increase fanbases for shows in that forum.

I think you could take a look at which particular shows don't get much discussion on an episode by episode basis and turn those into season threads.

Looking back at the last 5 pages of TV, there are a few shows that are only getting 5-10 responses per episode. Er, CSI, Brothers and Sisters, Reaper, etc. Those could probably be consolidated into a whole season thread.

Agree with everyone else that I don't care who starts a thread and it's nice to have them there for discussion. I don't see what the big deal is either when absolutely no one else is complaining about it or using it as a defense for posting gibberish in other forums.

There are certainly a few cases where some weekly threads can be consolidated, but I don't see a big deal whether it does or not, let alone who starts them.

I'm not arguing with the logic about giving others a fair shot to create threads. I'm also not arguing about the threads that I have created that have gotten zero/little traffic that probably could be eliminated. Then, that's cool I have no problems with not doing those anymore. It seems to me that X doesn't want me to be proactive anymore to help initiate discussions in the TV forum on particular episodes of popular shows that do get alot of traffic. I mean someone has got to start the weekly Terminator tonight. Why do I have to sit back and expect someone else to do it? I know you have set up rules and I'm not saying that I won't honor them. I'm just saying that in order for discussion to be initiated on a TV episode, someone has got to be proactive and start it.

Let me ask all of you. Would you rather have me create a thread for an episode of 24 or Castle this Monday with a synopsis pertinent to that episode or have someone bump up a thread from 4 weeks ago and start talking about Monday's episode? Some people have actually done that believe it or not.

I'm trying to be respectful to this web site, but noone has brought this issue to my attention saying that what I am doing is negative or that I am some type of ego-driven hoarder who loves attention in the TV Talk forum. I feel in a way that I'm being unfairly stigmitized as someone doing something that is harming this forum, which is so not the case.

We should just have one thread for all shows.

The Comprehensive TV Show Thread (1945 - )

That'll do it.

It appears from all of X's remarks that's what he prefers.

or maybe I should do:

24: The Complete Series Thread (2001-Present) and have Jadzia make that as a Sticky.

How would you all like that huh?

I'll make one final point and say that I don't have to be here. I choose to be here because I enjoy reading the forums about movies, TV shows and DVD's. I also like having intelligent and insightful discussion with my fellow TV fans. I could be doing other things with my time, like paying bills, going to the movies, watching my backlog of TV shows on my DVR or hanging out with friends. I've devoted alot of my free time contributing to that forum and it appears that it's been appreciated by my fellow TV Talkers.

I find it insulting/hurtful that you have editorialized my TV show threads with a picture and synopsis as my 1st post and deemed them worthless as discussion initiators unless 10-15 comments appear right away. It takes me alot of time to do those you know? To basically say that I need to stop being proactive because I'm doing way too much is ridiculous IMO.

Finally, I've never tried to imply that me creating 8 threads for shows that air on Monday is more valuable than someone who creates a thread wanting to talk about Colbert on Comedy Central or a program on National Geographic.

Seems to be the case of the Admins looking to create a problem where it doesn't exist. The TV episode threads provide reliable structure to the forums and encourage more posting by already being in place. People are more likely to contribute to an existing thread then create one of their own. How many posts are from one particular person on the first page is of no concern. I'm not an idiot and know how the click to see the 2nd page of threads. Maybe you need to create a special member type for people that post threads like this that allows them within the rules to do so. Basically you're providing them a legitimate role in the site if you can't reconcile their actions otherwise.

The whole idea of forum domination is just stupid if they're useful threads. Was anyone complaining? If legitimate complaints can be substantiated then maybe you have something, but the only people apparently bitching really are the admins, otherwise the feedback forum would be filled with these complaints. The problem with black and white rules is they don't really apply to sites with a wide range of discussion topics like this one does. Sure, you need rules, but certain things that benefit the site that no one is complaining about should be allowed as beneficial exceptions.

I think part of the problem with this site that people have been discussing lately in other threads is there seems to be a division between the admins/mods and the members in regards to what constitutes a problem. The admins/mods seem to be playing the dictator role a little too seriously with some not very serious subjects and are resulting in more animosity then if they just left things well enough alone. Then if the actions of admin/mod are questioned they're usually met with the attitude, of this is the way it is... tough. There's no accountability. This is a community that should be defined by the people it consists of.

Now, maybe I'm reading too much into things, but this is the general feeling I have whenever I see an admin/mod action lately. DVDTalk didn't used to have this feeling. People didn't try to stifle participation in the forums. No wonder people continue to discuss not feeling welcome here when the people who are major contributors who've been around for much longer than many are being made to feel unwanted.

I can't even count the number of times that I never would have commented on an episode of a TV show if the thread hadn't already been created and up and running.

This is one of the most nitpicky things that I've ever seen board mods/admins put their foot down about.

It's painfully obvious how different this type of helpful act is from the idiot spammers who post on other boards just trying to get their name everywhere. To even compare the two at all doesn't make sense. A member tries to something helpful for the community and they get blasted for it.

Yeah I appreciate his threads and it usually serves as a reminder if an episode is new or not (I do normally during the day before primetime starts) so I don't accidentally forget about it.

I don't know if this is comparing Apples and Oranges, but what makes what I have contributed in the TV Talk forum any different than what Speedy did in the Bargains forum when he was an active poster there? I know for a fact that in some instances there were definitely more than 4-5 threads started by Speedy in certain times on the 1st page. Just because he posts threads talking about $4.99 DVD's at Best Buy, does that make them any more valuable than me posting 6-8 threads on Monday if it were season finale week and a bunch of key characters on several shows were either leaving or dying?

There were rarely over 5 threads of Speedy's on the first page of Bargains. I know because I paid attention that that wasn't a normal occurrence. You had 16 when I PMed you and that was a normal occurrence, dx23 had 11 when I initially emailed him over 2 years ago and later started working his way back when I again informed him of the guideline. That's why we really didn't want to have to quantify number, because it can sometimes happen. But there have been constant demands for a number to refer to and it's not one number for one forum and one for another.

Enthusiastic posters in at least a half dozen forums have been reminded to keep the number of their threads down when it becomes evident that it's not just a one time thing. Only you and dx23 have had such a problem with it, the other people worked out other methods to get their information out there.

The mods and admins will be discussing this in conjunction with the final cut of the forum rules. Since the opinions and comments in here have been noted and this has reached the inevitable point of "but he did it too" (which is just the reason it's virtually impossible to allow different behavior in one forum from another, particularly when exact rules are demanded) I'm closing this up.