OT Has Become the Politics and Religion Forum

[Hamlet]

That's the same thing. The only difference is what you're calling it.

But I don't see any reason to change the existing setup. I'm just defending the current arrangement, really. *shrug.*

If people are complaining about not having space for their own dicussions, then it seems obvious to me to create a new space for them, outside OT, (Which is designed to serve as a Politics board.), rather than uprooting OT.

We've evidently done this before and there's no compelling reason to change the procedure now.

 

[Moss]

So if we create a space for all other discussion for the people complaing, then we'd call that OT 2? No, we'd call that OT, and then call the old OT Politics and Religion. It just makes sense.

Wether you want to create a new forum for Politics and Religion, or create a new forum for everything else...it doesn't matter...in the end result is that you end up with one OT forum and one mainly political and religious forum. There just isn't enough content to create a literature or science forum, thus it would make more sense to create a Politics and Religion forum because you have the content.

 

[Hamlet]

Personally I'd be in favour of not calling either of them OT. OT is a pretty vague title.

Again with what I outlined before with the three boards model. That makes sense to me.

 

[ummmm........]

I think of OT as "everything else"; everything that doesn't get enough threads to justify a separate board.

My logic is this:

1) Right now, OT is too crowded, with 40+ threads getting new posts everyday. This is by far the most of any board. (Most of the other "busy" boards get new posts in about 10 threads, by my observation.) EDIT: This actually may not be true of all boards, just the ones I check, but really, isn't that what's important?

2) A lot of the topics in OT would fall under a general heading of politics or religion.

3) Moving either (or both) of those topics to their own board(s) would move some of the traffic away from OT, making it more manageable for the readers.

4) Moving either (or both) would also create more work for mods, especially at the beginning, moving threads from OT to P&R or vice versa.

5) Moving either (or both) runs the risk of breaking up the community, since some people would still visit both OT and P&R and others would only visit one or the other.

To me, 1-3 outweigh 4&5, but others either disagree or see other facets of the situation which I do not.

 

[Lefty Scaevola]

This is my gripe.
The logic here is wrong; the prime focus of OT is those subjects we have mentioned, and always has been.

Originally, the OT was a mainly social and limited spam forum, when the site had less than a hundred members, It was not very long, however, before it was deliberately transformed into a serious discussion forum by decision of the staff, mainly pushed by AoA and Thunderfall. Separation of the Humor and Sports Forums out were partly because of this trasformation, along with other motivations, while carving out the History Forum was done to give that subject, popular with many of the then posters and staff, a more scholarly venue.

 

[ybbor]

i found 2 old threads with significant discussion about this, in case anyone wants to see them:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=59473

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=62884

 

[Plotinus]

The logic here is wrong; the prime focus of OT is those subjects we have mentioned, and always has been.

They are not some kind of 'peripheral subjects' that are cluttering up OT by foolishly intruding on it; they are the very heart of it. If people have a problem with their non-political discussions being shunted down the page, then they self-evidently need these discussions transfering to another board - they are in the minority of OT, and therefore in the wrong arena for discussion.

Well then, OT is misnamed. I've already said what the name "Off Topic" ought to mean and I see no reason to change that view. If the forum known as "Off Topic" is in fact basically about politics and religion, then change its name to "The Politics and Religion Forum" and create a new "Off Topic" for the other stuff. An "Off Topic" forum should, by definition, be for unclassifiable stuff that doesn't have a place elsewhere, not for two subjects that, between them, generate more activity than all the specialist topic fora put together!

And I say again: if you really think that there is nothing in the world worth discussing other than politics and religion (and that they should be discussed in the tit-for-tat style which characterises much of OT, to boot), then you really need to get out more. Even if it is true that, with politics and religion given their own fora, nothing would ever happen in OT - well, what's wrong with that? OT *should* be the leftover forum for odd bits and bobs, not the busiest forum on the entire site. Where's the logic in that?

 

[Birdjaguar]

Well then, OT is misnamed. I've already said what the name "Off Topic" ought to mean and I see no reason to change that view. If the forum known as "Off Topic" is in fact basically about politics and religion, then change its name to "The Politics and Religion Forum" and create a new "Off Topic" for the other stuff. An "Off Topic" forum should, by definition, be for unclassifiable stuff that doesn't have a place elsewhere, not for two subjects that, between them, generate more activity than all the specialist topic fora put together!

And I say again: if you really think that there is nothing in the world worth discussing other than politics and religion (and that they should be discussed in the tit-for-tat style which characterises much of OT, to boot), then you really need to get out more. Even if it is true that, with politics and religion given their own fora, nothing would ever happen in OT - well, what's wrong with that? OT *should* be the leftover forum for odd bits and bobs, not the busiest forum on the entire site. Where's the logic in that?

Everything you say makes perfect sense, but OT as it currently exists today is not about "perfect sense". It is a community called Off topic. It has a life and vibrancy all its own. Some CFCers never venture here; others thrive; some stay away because it is too seductive and dangerous. Like real world communities, when you send in the "planners" to make sense and organize everyone so it all fits their idea of orderliness, these pockets of life lose all the things that gave them character or sometimes even the community dies. "Orderliness" is not a compelling reason to change a voluntary community of ideas and discussion.

The grid is the structure of death

 

[betazed]

This is my first post in site feedback and after a long time a post outside OT.

Like real world communities, when you send in the "planners" to make sense and organize everyone so it all fits their idea of orderliness, these pockets of life lose all the things that gave them character or sometimes even the community dies. "Orderliness" is not a compelling reason to change a voluntary community of ideas and discussion.

I think this is the gist of the argument for or against splitting OT. Apart from operational reasons (known only to the 'higher ups' ), some people like the chaos of OT and thrive in it, others want structure and order. IMHO, neither is good or bad. It is just a choice. There cannot be a rational/logical conclusion to this.

My personal inclination would be to bring a little order (i.e. follow the middle path). leave OT as it is but just change one rule. Mods can summarily delete threads that they think do not contribute to any discussion. i.e. they delete threads like best bassist threads.

 

[ummmm........]

Les Claypool.

EDIT: Actually, if I leave it like that, I guess it's kinda spammy. My point is that deleting stuff for content is kind of arbitrary. I agree that most of those "Best of" threads would go, but so would all the religion threads, for example. And I know a lot of other people care about the religion stuff.

@Birdjaguar: Order is not my goal. I'd be happy if they just made OT1 and OT2, and didn't define any difference between them. I'd just rather open two boards and have 20 new post threads in each than open one board and have 40 new post threads. Only my personal preference, but I don't see how it doesn't make sense.

 

[Birdjaguar]

What if OT threads were each given a category code by the starter, say 1-5, that represents the "topic" of the thread (politics, religion, best of, etc.). Then set up a way for people to hide categories of threads just like we can ignore posters. Each of us could bring our own order to the chaos. We'd each have our own set rose colored glasses.

This is a technical solution that may not be possible. If someone in the know, someone with a long association with CFC, someone from, say, NYC, someone with initials TF, could respond it would be great. Thanks.

 

[ummmm........]

That'd be good for a lot of people, and would probably solve most of the complaints.

It wouldn't do anything for me, of course, but I seem to be the only person that's bothered by my problem.

 

[Birdjaguar]

That'd be good for a lot of people, and would probably solve most of the complaints.

I thought so too, but this thread's gone dead;
And what once was lively, pooped out instead.

 

[Moss]

Birdjaguar...I don't think that is possible, although it would be a good solution.

And no, this thread is not dying...mainly because this debate never dies.

And one day...TF will respond in one of these threads. Although I think what he feels is already widely known.