|
|
Can we stop closing Intel threads please
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Toronto
Status:
Offline
|
|
Forgive me, but this is silly. After the initial flurry of interest had died down there's been a number of civil, informative and interesting threads in the lounge that have been locked.
This doesn't make sense. The Intel scenario affects us as Mac users and I for one would like to be as well informed as I possibly can be. And with macnn being a Mac forum these are perfectly legitimate threads.
So, please can we stop with the over-zealous moderation for a while. Tooki, calm down. The internet isn't Switzerland.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Chicago
Status:
Offline
|
|
No.
And there is alreay a thread about this in here.
|
Barack Obama: Four more years of the Carter Presidency
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status:
Offline
|
|
I don't know why people can't just post the information in a already existing thread.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Admin Emeritus
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Zurich, Switzerland
Status:
Offline
|
|
I won't pander to people too lazy to use an existing thread -- there are tons of them.
tooki
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status:
Offline
|
|
I don't even see how laziness would be put into play. It takes a lot less effort to post in an existing thread than to post a new one.
I guess some people think their question, or statement is so important that it deserves it own thread.
The redundancy in the lounge has gotten silly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Admin Emeritus
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Zurich, Switzerland
Status:
Offline
|
|
I just did a search, and in the past 7 days, there have been over 30 threads with "intel" in the title.
About half of them are open, and few of them contain any content that hasn't been duplicated elsewhere.
I didn't even do a search for "x86".
tooki
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Toronto
Status:
Offline
|
|
This simply isn't true. With new developments coming up, like the leaking of the dev build, new threads are perfectly legitimate.
While they all deal with Apple on Intel, they do also deal with different facets.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status:
Offline
|
|
There is one that isn't specific that other people have been posting new info in it for about a week.
And it seems to be working.
Take wik for example. When talking about the SAME subject you don't start a new page.
You add to the one already there.
Even though I love arguing with tooki, I can see the redundancy there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Toronto
Status:
Offline
|
|
I don't want to argue with Tooki, I just want him to stop stifling discussion. Which is what he's doing right now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status:
Offline
|
|
He isn't stopping any discussion. You can have the SAME discussion in a thread that already exists about the subject.
Go ahead. Try it. I dare ya.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Toronto
Status:
Offline
|
|
No you can't. When new stuff develops it's almost impossible to make that relevant to an old thread.
That's why people are posting new threads.
This is a Mac discussion forum. SWG and you can bicker all you like, inane "which sport produces the best female bodies' threads are allowed yet god forbid we'd be discussing Mac related issues.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Mastrap
No you can't. When new stuff develops it's almost impossible to make that relevant to an old thread.
Even when said thread isn't about a specific thing? Just Mac and Intel? Yes, yes I think you can. It's real easy. Again, I dare you to do it.
DOUBLE DOG DARE YOU.
That will really show tooki!
god forbid we'd be discussing Mac related issues.
No one is stopping you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: zurich, switzerland
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by tooki
I just did a search, and in the past 7 days, there have been over 30 threads with "intel" in the title.
About half of them are open, and few of them contain any content that hasn't been duplicated elsewhere.
I didn't even do a search for "x86".
tooki
You LOCKED all of the threads except for three of them. Have you ever read Kafka's "The Trial"? You should.
|
weird wabbit
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: South of the Mason-Dixon line
Status:
Offline
|
|
word up, theo
Spliffdaddy's truths:
If Intel were switching to PPC architecture - there wouldn't be a single thread being locked.
If a Democrat had been elected in 2000 & 2004 - there wouldn't exist a "political" sub-forum.
I find it laughable (and totally in character with liberal ideology) that the admin staff's personal beliefs are the dominant controlling factor in the administration of these forums.
By the way....the "political" sub-forum was promised to be temporary.
'Temporary' meaning "until a Democrat becomes President".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy
If Intel were switching to PPC architecture - there wouldn't be a single thread being locked.
Eh ? I don't think any of the mods esp tooki care about the Intel switch.
If a Democrat had been elected in 2000 & 2004 - there wouldn't exist a "political" sub-forum.
By the way....the "political" sub-forum was promised to be temporary.
'Temporary' meaning "until a Democrat becomes President".
Hey, it's not NNs fault that anti-Bush zealots have no self control.
They said temp, because they thought Bush was going to lose in 04.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Admin Emeritus
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Zurich, Switzerland
Status:
Offline
|
|
I'm not even a liberal. I'm libertarian! (FWIW, I had absolutely nothing to do with the political forum.)
Frankly, the Intel/PPC thing is just not the big deal people think it is, for one thing. Second, I have made NO effort to quash one side or the other of that argument. My goal has been to keep the forum rolling. If the entire freaking front page of the lounge has nothing but Intel posts on it, that reduces the value of the forums. The thing is, if people didn't post the same things over and over (such as three or four separate threads people posted to link to an article that had already been linked to in another thread!), or ask the same questions over and over, there would have been no need to enact a ban.
The fact is, when apple announcements happen and people are posting hundreds of posts on the subject in multiple threads in multiple forums, we do not have the time to cross-check to make sure that a given new thread is or is not original. The only fair way to do it, given our resources, is just to make a hard cut off. Once the topic has settled a bit, we can stop the moratorium.
tooki
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2002
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by tooki
I'm not even a liberal. I'm libertarian! (FWIW, I had absolutely nothing to do with the political forum.)
Frankly, the Intel/PPC thing is just not the big deal people think it is, for one thing. Second, I have made NO effort to quash one side or the other of that argument. My goal has been to keep the forum rolling. If the entire freaking front page of the lounge has nothing but Intel posts on it, that reduces the value of the forums. The thing is, if people didn't post the same things over and over (such as three or four separate threads people posted to link to an article that had already been linked to in another thread!), or ask the same questions over and over, there would have been no need to enact a ban.
The fact is, when apple announcements happen and people are posting hundreds of posts on the subject in multiple threads in multiple forums, we do not have the time to cross-check to make sure that a given new thread is or is not original. The only fair way to do it, given our resources, is just to make a hard cut off. Once the topic has settled a bit, we can stop the moratorium.
tooki
I can see your point about signal to noise and redundant threads. but just locking them outright? Don't you have the option to at least merge threads?
How about the staff compile a quick and dirty FAQ on the subject, place it in a sticky. Then if a redundant thread is started you direct people to the stickied discussion and THEN lock the thread.
You are as much a part of this community as we (the poor underlings) are. Your heavy handedness does as much (if not more) damage to this community as a few redundant threads which would fall of after a few days anyway.
I give it six months before you're complaining about existing threads being derailed and that we should start new threads.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Rules
|
|
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|