DeRailing / Topic Discussion

[DazzlinDino]

I just found it interesting a couple of posters have been debating about Sam Bennett worth to the team, and just as things start to get positive they start to talk about Sam Bennett's hit. I think Jiri got caught in the middle of that. I agree, which I think is Jiri's point, that the type of hits he is concerned about should be in a different thread.

[calumniate]

Actually I had no idea about the Bennett thing until now. Honestly I never checked the Bennett 'mega' thread.. I guess it's one of those defacto mega threads that was framed negatively, and thought it was the place to simply trash on on the player.. haha

[CaptainYooh]

I don't like megathreads. The only legit ones are "Edmonton Is No Good" and "Vancouver Is No Good", just because of their overall nogoodness. Even the new arena mega-threads become stale and irrelevant at some point. I don't see anything detrimental about new threads being started on topics that have been discussed at some point and some time. This is not a research site, it's a hockey forum.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I think that's unfair, and certainly not necessary.

Concussions in sports is a big issue, and it's very much on topic on a hit where a guy is now missing time with a head injury.

If you don't like that you're not going to enjoy the next few years of pro sports.

That's my point, Bingo. It *is* on topic, both in that specific thread, and as a potential separate discussion on that particular hit. So why, really, would someone feel bad about expressing an on topic opinion?

[Royle9]

I don't care either way but get what users are saying from both sides of the spectrum. Fortunately I seem to always dig into threads new and old so anything is good with me.

I took a guess and voted for which one I thought we have the least amount of voters and succeeded!

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I think we as Moderators could probably help things out a bit by altering thread topic titles occasionally to reflect where the discussion is moving. The “too late to trade Bennett” thread has moved beyond that talking point, and would probably feel more accessible if it were identified as a more general Bennett discussion thread.

I think this vote is showing we don't need to change subject titles as much as allow more topics.

Bennett and his play this year
Trade Sam Bennett
Who Should Bennett Play With
Bennett injures Compheer

could all be different topics.

[HUSKER4FLAMES]

I totally missed the Bennett hit also. I avoid the mega threads and look daily and pick a thread and try to read through it. One that thread has derailed I will not go back unless the headline changes with a news update. I come a few times a day. Pop in for a bit and don't want to try to play catch up in a mega thread that has four pages of two or three posters rehashing the same post. No complaint. Not addressing anyone. Just how I use the forum. Thank you

[Redlan]

I find that if I pop into a mega-thread and the present discussion has little value to me (i.e.: derailed), I have a tendency to not go back in unless there seems to be a lot of activity, but by then I missed some good discussion or am too late to the party.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by btimbit

I probably miss a lot of news because there's megathreads I don't bother going into anymore

On the other hand, small news threads also fall off the main page so quickly sometimes its easy to miss them. Especially if it's a busy time like trade deadline or start of UFA signing season.

I also often really enjoy when someone bumps an old thread to look at it from a new perspective.

I guess generally I feel pretty good about how things are. Mostly I think there should be some policing to keep some topics in their megathread. Like the neverending Sam Bennett debate.

Like, could we just have a rule of "no Bennett talk in the PGT, take it to the megathread."

A [mega] marking on the megathreads (or something) might also help casual users to understand what's what.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Itse

On the other hand, small news threads also fall off the main page so quickly sometimes its easy to miss them. Especially if it's a busy time like trade deadline or start of UFA signing season.

I also often really enjoy when someone bumps an old thread to look at it from a new perspective.

I guess generally I feel pretty good about how things are. Mostly I think there should be some policing to keep some topics in their megathread. Like the neverending Sam Bennett debate.

Like, could we just have a rule of "no Bennett talk in the PGT, take it to the megathread."

A [mega] marking on the megathreads (or something) might also help casual users to understand what's what.

Well, we could limit it to discussion of what Bennett did in the game.

At one point last year I suggested that people should just post about the game in the GT and PGT and not generalities about the coach or players. Did I ever get cranky responses ("don't you tell me what to post").

[_Q_]

Megathreads are terrible.

Nothing on this site is worse than the necrobump of a thread from 5 years ago with a title that had little to do with the new topic being discussed (sometimes the discussion is the complete opposite of the title).

There's nothing at all wrong with starting a thread to discuss one particular idea or event, then letting it naturally fade when the conversation dies down.

[troutman]

Specific topics will disappear off the first page quickly.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

I voted more topics, but obviously only to a point. I think the mods do a good job locking duplicate threads and it doesn't seem like too many threads are a problem. I do recall some overzealous posters creating multiple threads, but that gets sorted out soon enough.

[ResAlien]

The issue with megathreads is that while they’re an easy catch all they’re also bad because they’re an easy catch all. There’s no need to say “keep it OT” because outside of the vague topic of (for example) Bennett there is no real topic. So you get meandering conversations that vary wildly and give no real incentive to follow them. They lend themselves to bickering and whining. Specific threads on actual topics lend themselves to discussion.

Maybe some of us are just old now and these kids today love their megathreads but I wouldn’t mind more specific threads from time to time.

[Scroopy Noopers]

I have an overwhelming urge to derail this thread.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by troutman

Specific topics will disappear off the first page quickly.

Yeah, that's a feature, not a bug (which you may have intended).

[Split98]

First, I absolutely love this site and the people who contribute to it. The content and discussion here always seems to be a good precursor to what the talking heads discuss - if they ever bring the Flames up. It's a well-educated group here that knows their stuff.

As someone who constantly has a tab open (and depending on what the week's looking like... I'll refresh every 10 mins) - I have a much better understanding of what the mega threads are talking about. If you're popping in and out throughout the week, I can't imagine you're reading the 10+ pages of each mega-thread to see if something you're interested in is being talked about.

But I wish every major item was it's own thread for 2 reasons.
1. You can talk about that topic with people who are also interested
2. I don't have to read a side-discussion in a thread I am interested about
I think we lose a lot of valuable discussion when it has to compete linearly with everything else being discussed.

The larger threads will grow if there's ongoing interest in the OP, and the rest of the news will just find their way off the front page once discussion dies down. I love the practice threads as an example, as it is normally great discussion that sometimes fuels very interesting GDTs. It may grow to only 2-3 pages, but the content was relevant and interesting.

TL;DR: I like threads

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

A couple things
- Certainly I'm not afraid of facing criticism for my view. The debate is happy in many threads and I'm happy to continue that conversation
- There are some posters that indeed beat the drum in numerous threads, and given that the debate about hits and fighting is happening in other threads, I didn't want to be one of those posters that takes numerous threads in that directions, after I made my initial point

But I take exception to the notion that I don't what to face criticism for my view, when I have been having the debate, and I would say it a pretty respectful way with several posters, in numerous other threads.

It's rather absurd to say that you didn't want to take a thread in a certain direction after taking a thread in that direction, don't you think? That's the issue I have here: you basically said "this is my opinion, and now further discussion on it is off topic and it is not respectful to respond to it". That doesn't sit well with me. But if your reasoning was more benign than I took it, fair enough. I apologize.

[Enoch Root]

I'm torn.

I don't like mega threads with multiple conversations going on in them, and 200 posts to rummage through to catch up every time you open them.

Conversely, I don't like having multiple threads simultaneously discussing the same thing.

So I guess status quo.

Also, I think Jankowski is not getting enough credit here!

[Resolute 14]

On a far more general, but related topic: the implied preference for re-using threads results in those truly irritating necrobumps of old threads. Sometimes, even decade old threads. Enouraging people to create more new topics should help mitigate that issue as well.