Quote:
Originally Posted by DubOverdose
1) Yes, I know that you can click a link and see unread posts. However, if the thread is full of crap I don't want to read, why would I ever keep checking it? Make a thread with the new, relevant information. With the logic of compiling stuff into one thread, we might as well just have a single "Mavericks" thread...or "Life"... Breaking news should get a new thread.
|
There is crap I don't want to read in all threads, no matter if they are a day old or a year old. Makes no difference.
Quote:
|
2) The "standard" is rather recent and has only gotten worse by a few people policing the forums, giving people a hard time whenever they create a new thread.
|
It's really not that recent. We've been having this argument for at least four years.
Quote:
|
3) Missing good conversation? That's fine, I don't have all day to read forums. Let me read about news in a clear, concise way. Making me stumble upon a thread to find out something has changed to the status quo is a mess.
|
Here's where I think we differ most. This is not a news site. This is a conversation site. When I come to this site, I already know that LO has been shipped away. So now I want to talk about it. And I see that there is no new LO thread, but the old LO thread is bumped. I can easily draw the conclusion that new conversation is there. I click on the link that takes me to the first unread post. If they're still arguing about something I'm bored about, I take 10 seconds to skim the thread and then I go start a new thread. But in this case, there was interesting conversation in the thread, so I'm going to read and post where the most interesting conversation is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DubOverdose
Hours afterwards? I don't think I saw the thread until I got home, so it was fresh to me. Not everyone can spend all day on forums and sports websites to find out the latest news. A few hours, when it occurs during business hours, is nothing.
|
My point was that there was already three hours of discussion in the other thread. Making a new one at that point is fine, but it's not going to accomplish anything.
Bottom line for me: The opening of this thread was mocked because of who opened it, and because there was already lively discussion on the same topic in another thread. You are correct that breaking news is perfectly worthy of a new thread, and if someone had felt compelled to start a new thread about LO leaving when it happened, I suspect most would have been fine with that.
But, it should tell you something that it was three hours after the news broke before someone at DM.com felt compelled to open a new thread without seeing if it was being discussed elsewhere. It's not peer pressure, it's the way the board works, because the majority of users like it that way.