Philosophy Discussion Forums

The length of some threads on this forum is ridiculous and unhelpful.

The one on consciousness has 175 pages!!!! ?? Seriously. LOCK THE THREAD.'

The whole point of a forum is that people can join a topic and read over the discussion. If the topic is 175 pages long you'll just find the same things repeated over and over. Lock the thread and provide links for further discussion instead of drowning the useful parts of the discussion with the tirade of repetition.

It would be to everyone's benefit to restrict the number of pages in a thread. 20 seems to be MORE than enough. The point is not to stop the discussion by doing this, but to progress it with links to threads that lead on from it.

As an example we may be discussing X and then unearth certain conflicting opinions about Y and Z in regard to X. Other things may be agreed upon more readily so no need to have someone join the discussion 50 pages later going over the same argument (if they do mention such things you can refer them to the previous links presented in the OP following on from the original discussion ... from which they may decide to refute the argument and make their own branch from said thread.) Then each party uses the original link as a reference leading into a branch from it, discussing Y and Z in reference to, leading on from, X.

This just seems like common sense to me yet its not present on this forum at all from what I can see. Some thread simply meander into a meaningless dead-ends and dull repetition instead of progressing the discussions and expanding into other areas that can be linked back by to other discussions by the perusing members.

Burning ghost wrote:The length of some threads on this forum is ridiculous and unhelpful.

The one on consciousness has 175 pages!!!! ?? Seriously. LOCK THE THREAD.'

Your solution has advantages and disadvantages. The advantage is that people actually could be forced to observe and obey the rule to read all posts in a thread. A 20-page long thread is already too long; but it's humanly manageable (by some). A 200-page-long thread, or moreover a 200000-page long one is not.

The disadvantage: On the other hand, there is the rule of "do not start threads with topics that are discussed elsewhere already". This rule must be broken if a 20-page cap is placed, and people want to revisit the topic after a 20-page long thread has been filled.

In my opinion it does not matter. People come here and to other opinion forums to hear their own selves. Whether what they want to say has been said or not by someone else, they want to express anyway, just for the joy of being able to express the self's opinion. It is very important for humans. There is another important thing, to get one's opinion accepted by others, but that seldom if ever happens. At least the ones who accept it are not vocal (kudos to such beautiful exceptions as Ranvier, who is ready to say in a complimentary way if he agrees with someone, especially when R gains new insight by the poster's post.)

-1- wrote:

Burning ghost wrote:The length of some threads on this forum is ridiculous and unhelpful.

The one on consciousness has 175 pages!!!! ?? Seriously. LOCK THE THREAD.'

Your solution has advantages and disadvantages. The advantage is that people actually could be forced to observe and obey the rule to read all posts in a thread. A 20-page long thread is already too long; but it's humanly manageable (by some). A 200-page-long thread, or moreover a 200000-page long one is not.

The disadvantage: On the other hand, there is the rule of "do not start threads with topics that are discussed elsewhere already". This rule must be broken if a 20-page cap is placed, and people want to revisit the topic after a 20-page long thread has been filled.

In my opinion it does not matter. People come here and to other opinion forums to hear their own selves. Whether what they want to say has been said or not by someone else, they want to express anyway, just for the joy of being able to express the self's opinion. It is very important for humans. There is another important thing, to get one's opinion accepted by others, but that seldom if ever happens. At least the ones who accept it are not vocal (kudos to such beautiful exceptions as Ranvier, who is ready to say in a complimentary way if he agrees with someone, especially when R gains new insight by the poster's post.)

I would adjust your comment slightly. True, folks like to see themselves in print, but more so they like to see where their ideas are in the greater community. Thus acceptance and conflict are equally valuable. It is my experience that if you can defend your position logically then your understanding of the issue is greater than if you cannot.

LuckyR wrote:
I would adjust your comment slightly. True, folks like to see themselves in print, but more so they like to see where their ideas are in the greater community. Thus acceptance and conflict are equally valuable. It is my experience that if you can defend your position logically then your understanding of the issue is greater than if you cannot.

That is true. But I see this forum mainly as a means of self-expression, and as a steam-whistle to let the pressure out (the pressure of needing to talk to a group), and only secondarily as an information exchange.

I appreciate that there are others with different considerations in this group, like you, LuckyR, who seek clarity and honing of ideas via mutual criticism. That is extremely valuable, too. But to me, personally, it is secondary. Not to downplay its importance, only to cast a light on how I relate to that.

There is no "disadvantage" because I am not saying don't talk about X or Y. Only make the discussion more accessible even if it doesn't go anywhere or progress much.

With a thread of 175 pages the person who posted it may very well be dead by now.

It is common sense and practiced across many forums. Given that this is a "philosophy forum" it makes a great deal more sense to create an environment where communication and discussion are paramount.

Burning ghost wrote:There is no "disadvantage" because I am not saying don't talk about X or Y. Only make the discussion more accessible even if it doesn't go anywhere or progress much.

With a thread of 175 pages the person who posted it may very well be dead by now.

It is common sense and practiced across many forums. Given that this is a "philosophy forum" it makes a great deal more sense to create an environment where communication and discussion are paramount.

I can't see how eight different threads of twenty pages each and with the exact same topic is more accessible than one thread with 160 some odd pages.

Whoever is dead or alive is immaterial. Their opinions survive.

The only advantage I see with capping a page number is to circumvent the cheating on the rule that everyone who posts must have read all the posts in the thread.

I'll be first dead before I am able to follow this rule in a 160++ page thread.

I am a... rebel. By force of limited abilities and limited resources.

I've been in this place so long that I seriously suspect many of the posters who were here when I started are in fact dead. A sobering thought. But I do quite like the idea that a long, long, long, long list of pointless and inane comments to strangers in various parts of the world will be my legacy when my time comes.

Another thought: How would you enforce the rule that one must read all previous comments before commenting oneself? A test perhaps? "What was the 21st word in post #345? No peeking!"

-1- wrote:

Burning ghost wrote:There is no "disadvantage" because I am not saying don't talk about X or Y. Only make the discussion more accessible even if it doesn't go anywhere or progress much.

With a thread of 175 pages the person who posted it may very well be dead by now.

It is common sense and practiced across many forums. Given that this is a "philosophy forum" it makes a great deal more sense to create an environment where communication and discussion are paramount.

I can't see how eight different threads of twenty pages each and with the exact same topic is more accessible than one thread with 160 some odd pages.

Whoever is dead or alive is immaterial. Their opinions survive.

The only advantage I see with capping a page number is to circumvent the cheating on the rule that everyone who posts must have read all the posts in the thread.

I'll be first dead before I am able to follow this rule in a 160++ page thread.

I am a... rebel. By force of limited abilities and limited resources.

Well, it's more of a guideline actually...

Steve3007 wrote:Another thought: How would you enforce the rule that one must read all previous comments before commenting oneself? A test perhaps? "What was the 21st word in post #345? No peeking!"

That would exclude the Briton who can cast his water the farthest from the source out back when the patrons are ushered out of the pub at closing time.

Same with "I have read the privacy statement and agree to the terms and conditions". Well, eff u, mr. or ms. legal department. (Not of this site, but of any downloaded software.) Show me ONE person who has read and understood your gibberish, and I show you yourself.

So the software could include a little tic box before each new entry, "I've read all previous posts on this thread, or else small pox on my first born."

-1-

I can't see how eight different threads of twenty pages each and with the exact same topic is more accessible than one thread with 160 some odd pages.

Okay, lets just take all the "metaphysical" threads and lump them onto one page? Are you being purposefully stupid or doe sit come naturally to you?

example:

Abortion: Is it good or bad?

Split into two categories of how life is defined and differing religious attitudes. If it goes further then we could even start talking about children's rights and the rights of religious groups to implement their own rules.

Their is abortion and legal dilemmas, abortion in terms of ethics (aborting if the child is believed to have mutations or a disease, or virus.) What about rape victims? Underage children who are pregnant and their rights?

If you don't see the sense in splitting threads when certain issues within the topic become prominent in and of themselves then you have very little sense. Some topics simply need to be recycled. On another forum I am on you'd NEVER see threads going on for so long.

The point is we can make this forum be whatever we want it to be. That is a great thing. We can create order and make improvements, or simply stumble on as usual. I can tell you the format at the moment is pretty bad. On the other forum I am on, there is certainly room for improvement (the main difference there being there are no so many active members, so there is little immediate value in change.)

If no one cares but me I guess I'll just have to continue to use this forum as I was before and look elsewhere to fill my other wants and needs.

-1- wrote:

Steve3007 wrote:Another thought: How would you enforce the rule that one must read all previous comments before commenting oneself? A test perhaps? "What was the 21st word in post #345? No peeking!"

That would exclude the Briton who can cast his water the farthest from the source out back when the patrons are ushered out of the pub at closing time.

Same with "I have read the privacy statement and agree to the terms and conditions". Well, eff u, mr. or ms. legal department. (Not of this site, but of any downloaded software.) Show me ONE person who has read and understood your gibberish, and I show you yourself.

So the software could include a little tic box before each new entry, "I've read all previous posts on this thread, or else small pox on my first born."

There are those who are more interested in reading and those who are more interested in writing. The former gravitate to books, the latter to Forums. This is a Forum.