[SO META] On the current format of General Chat threads.

'sup.

So over the past few months Andy and (the now remodded) Dipu and I have been engaged in on-off discussions about this forum, what posts in it are like, etc. We noticed a while back that conversation in the forum wasn't really flowing very well, being stunted by replies that were simply too in-depth and all that, so discussed some ways around that which didn't involve jumping into the other end and outright allowing spam. I personally feel like the general environment in that regard has improved, but could certainly use some work.

Conversation flows somewhat better... some of the time. And it's a definite improvement and that's notable. But I do still feel like there's a major underlying issue with threads here, and what I'm referring to as their "format" - despite every thread being about a different thing mostly, they all feel... kinda the same.

To go into that in more detail, I sorta feel like I can look at a thead's title and know exactly how that thread's going to be before I start reading it (although by absolutely no means does that mean to say that I want more inventive titles; thankfully, those mostly appear to be behind us now d:). There'll be a first post with perhaps a short opening statement and then four or five questions relating to the topic in hand. And that's a sort of tried and tested way to present a thread but the issue's arisen that it's too tried and tested. It's rare that I see original (or hell, even abnormal) threads deviating from this format at all. And what results from this is a forum full of predictable questions with predictable answers. It makes the whole thing feel stagnant, slow and repetitive.

I feel like this is the next issue to address in what I see as a revival of this section from its OVP (Other Voting Polls, for the newer of you) days. Threads were posted without these 'stock' questions or just with a couple as guidelines. In fact I think that shortly after when I joined the section started taking this swing towards the "answer this stuff" attitude that I see around so much now. You used to construct a reply based on the statements made by and opinion of the original poster, then you replied based on that along with some questions as thought points, and now you just... answer those questions. And to me that limits the range of discussion that can be had in a thread and how free-flowing it is. I think that this phenomenon is what's lead to the stagnant, predictable replies we see in the threads today.

It'd be easy to say at this point "well, maybe that's just how it works" - especially if you're a newer member more used to the current format. I'd like to give you a bit of a history lesson here. Ages ago, back when this forum was still known as OVP, it sort of co-existed with a second forum called OC (Other Chat) which held the more discussion / debate-ish type threads. We had some major problems with ambiguity between those two forums, what would go in one as opposed to the other, the fact that they were very similar to each other (in fact, OC used to be home to Celebrations, the Picture Thread and the DCC), etc. Despite what OVP's old name would suggest, it wasn't strictly just polls. It was what I described before - a much more freeform version of what we've got in GC right now. And as I say a big issue between OVP and OC was crossover between the two very similar sections, despite the intended difference in conversation topics. That old forum, OC, is now what's known as Discussions & Debates. There is absolutely no similarity between the two forums today, despite them both being cut from the same cloth, and I don't refer to the forums in terms of the matter of the discussions, but in the conduct of those discussions. Despite both GC and D&D being pulled from a melting pot of similar discussions, we've got two polar opposite forums here; and I firmly believe that D&D is the more free-flowing, varied, and ultimately interesting and lively of the two sections. Like D&D or not, and I know a lot of people here don't, I thoroughly believe that id you take a look into its threads you'll see what I mean. It's a firey place at the best of times but its quality of communication is powers better than that found in GC.

I am not for a second, mind, suggesting that we make GC into D&D v2. But I do think that this forum could do with a kick in the direction of D&D; threads less pre-formed from the off leading to a greater potential for conversation and a less certain thread outcome, ultimately making things more interesting. If we stop defining parameters for posts in a thread and give only a topic instead we have so many more things to explore in our posts. I think it's really imperative that we do this since as it stands, I just see people answering a limited set of questions presented to them, and... honestly I don't see the point in a lot of posts here. That sounds harsh and I'm aware that it'll probably offend a number of people who post in such a manner and are aware of it (or even enjoy it), but it's just my thoughts on it.

Don't get me wrong, I love this section. I'm not trying to slam it here or have a moan; indeed, if there's ever been a forum on PC that I've always wanted to mod, it'd be this one. I nearly proposed modding myself in here a while back when hstaff were discussing if it needed more help or not. It's the forum I've constantly come back to since I joined on PC and I want it to remain that way for years to come, but in its current state, I just don't see the spark. I don't see the same interest I saw when I joined originally, and I want to bring it back to that. Which brings me to why I'm posting this thread at all. What I've written above is just my take on things and my proposal. What I want to know now, and what the mods of this forum want to know, is what yours is and what you think should (if anything) be done. I feel like in this case it's important to get your guys' opinions. Not just because more opinions could be seen as better, but because in a near-reform situation such as this, I think it's important that you guys are made aware and are actively involved in whatever's changing. So I've posted this here rather than the staff sections or discussions with Andy and Dipu privately.

So... have at it, guys. And bear in mind that I'd like this to be kept as civil and all that as possible; it's not usual that a thread such as this shows up in public and, while I'm not trying to be patronising or anything here, I don't want this situation where you're being given such a direct say in how things might change to be abused. Also do remember that this is not a run-of-the-mill GC thread. If I wanted that I'd have just said "what do you think of gc" and posted some pointers and left. I want to know what you really think and what, if anything, you think the way forward for this section would be. What you say here matters. It's not just a "what's your opinion on x" post-and-go style thread. What comes of this thread could help change one of this community's most active sections, and one that could be argued to be the heart of the community in itself. Post wisely [/dramatic].

First, I'd just like to outline I was only infrequent during the times of OVP/OC, so I don't know or remember much about either of those – likely because of that the POV I have below will not be from any significant bias of how this place ever was before.

I definitely see what you're talking about Alex, and it made me realize what Nick was itching so bad about in some post or blog or something a while back. Personally I've just kind of morphed with this apparent post-and-go style myself, and at a glance it's hard to judge whether that's for the better or worse from my standpoint without a good bit of thinking. Looking back on what I do remember of OVP, the sorts of threads I recollect were a lot more open-ended than anything is now, and I think that's what attracted me here to begin with (although my activity boost happened in transition of that, it's a little odd but w/e). I remember a thread asking about if one became a moderator and how not only the thread was open-ended in its approach but the responses were filled with a lot more creativity compared to a somewhat recent "if you were a mod" thread buried somewhere in my memory of this place.

To me, I think that both formats function, yes, however the place's welfare and prestige would benefit a lot more from the old approach of OVP. Remembering what little I do from then, I remember being a lot more motivated to read responses of others as opposed to how now I just skim over the interesting parts and then post mine.

Another thing behind how this new post-and-go thing may have come to be—and it's something I've noticed in my own behaviour (possibly even collectively contributing to it)—is that it's a lot more gratifying in the short term to answer direct questions as it provides the same feeling of sharing your person but with less effort and creativity that an open-ended approach would. I don't think folks around here consciously fell into that; instead it was kind of like a too-slow-to-notice creep that kind of just… happened by nature. It can definitely be fixed, but it's not going to be all that easy considering the current status quo is easier to function in (regardless of whether it's better or not or w/e blah blah opinion this that etc). Slow for sure, but far from impossible.

:V



Aha, oh wow… the thought in this post and it being in GC is really nice to read, gets at my point :D

Honestly I don't really see what you could do to change it. I agree that this forum has gotten extremely boring. Back when the forum was still ovp I remember it being way more exciting to come here, but there were also many different members then compared to now. Tbh I just think the member base at the moment is dull as ♥♥♥♥.

Well, it's called 'General Chat' for a reason. The only thing that's distinuishing it from a real chat is the 24 characters/4 words limit.

I've noticed that, whenever I made a more complex topic, I only got like 2-3 replies and the thread slowly vanished into nothingness, but if I made a more generic thread at least there were a couple more replies (and that's not only in GC, but also in a couple other sections as well). Since the PC community is so big, there are a lot of people opening threads and in order to make people reply, the threads have to be answered quite easily, or your thread won't be there for long, being pushed to page 2 (and nobody cares for page 2). So there has surely been a shift from quality to quantity; I won't say that it's neccessarily bad, because a lot of threads and a lot of replies means that the community is still alive, but of course with every new thread it gets a little bit more boring.

I guess Generation Facebook's slowling taking over the forum culture...

R.F. said:

I've noticed that, whenever I made a more complex topic, I only got like 2-3 replies and the thread slowly vanished into nothingness, but if I made a more generic thread at least there were a couple more replies (and that's not only in GC, but also in a couple other sections as well). Since the PC community is so big, there are a lot of people opening threads and in order to make people reply, the threads have to be answered quite easily, or your thread won't be there for long, being pushed to page 2 (and nobody cares for page 2). So there has surely been a shift from quality to quantity.

Click to expand...

Gonna address this first because it was going to be something that I was going to bring up in my post. Honestly this is a HUGE issue here that I don't think anyone has been paying much attention to. There are quality threads here that are like the more free flowing discussion based threads like Razor Leaf is outlining, but they go highly unnoticed because they are drowned in 5 pages of active threads. Is General Chat too active? In a sense, yes. Is that a bad thing? No. It just creates an effect that is very confusing and makes the best of threads get lost in a sea of "easier to reply to threads" such as: "what color socks are you wearing today" or "what is your favorite pizza topping". I am by no means saying that these are bad topics, but rather generic and lead to no discussion and that is the type of threads that lately people thing General Chat is for. I think a lot of people view it as a +1 post count forum which it is not.


One solution could be to bring back OVP and make it a sub forum of General Chat. This is where your "post and go" threads like "what is your favorite fruit" go. These threads are still fun to have and respond to but take up too much of what General Chat could and should be; a more free flowing discussion based forum. These type of threads just cannot achieve that. By doing this, this would allow the main forum of General Chat to be home to the more complex/critical thinking style discussion threads such as this one.(just using one of my own as an example). In the end this isn't the best solution mind you but would help give the threads that made the forum what it once was more spotlight without getting lost in 5 pages of threads.


Just a small other solution that is easier said than done is, simply change the way that we format our original post. RL brings up how every thread seems so structured and limited by how we as a range of questions and everyone follows by replying to just those. This simply makes every thread and response the EXACT same in a sense while all being different. Maybe just when we make these threads just ask the question in the topic, and lead off in the original response with our opinion of the topic after a brief explanation if needed?




I will be posting more here when I can as this forum means a lot to me and anything to make it better is certainly something I am going to help achieve.

I'm a little confused. Is the issue present that you are addressing that threads have become too monotonous and generic, as well as the fact that they're not engaging between users? Because the problem with that was when the threads did become "engaging" and people started discussing it more in depth, those threads were automatically moved to Discussions & Debates (like that thread Andy posted a few months ago about a teenage girl being pregnant or something along those lines.)

The problem with General Chat and Discussions & Debates being separate is that you will have that difference in engagement. A few months ago wasn't the goal for General Chat to be more laid back, which isn't that the result that we now have? Maybe it's just me, but it sounds like we keep flip flopping on how General Chat should be represented and done by the people - or rather we've now become too laid back. I don't know, that's just my take.

This is weird because I feel like it's way more free-flowing than when I joined. When I joined, I can't find the rules thread from then because I guess I'm a derp but I remember there being a rule against starting conversations in threads. Now there's at least a little of it, so I don't feel we're going backwards. Of course, that's "we haven't backslid over the course of 3 years" so grain of salt.

The real question is how you motivate the memberbase to make threads the way you think threads should be in the section. You basically have 3 options:

1. Make rules and punish those that don't do what you want
2. Make emblems and reward those that do what you want
3. Get a taskforce together to change the culture of the section so when people go to make threads they see the majority in the style you want

I think 3 would probably be the best option here - kind of like a street team in advertising. If a lot of the regulars agree to make their threads open-ended and reply to people within them, then it will become the norm. Of course, it has to be active members or a lot of them (or both), but I can't imagine anyone wants to punish anyone and this can be rolled into the reward idea - emblems for street team members that are actively changing the forum culture into one you like.

That may not necessarily be the best way, but just throwing it out there.

edit: el's post came up while I was gone so I'm replying to it here because I spend a lot of time in both sections. That thread became a debate. Most people can tell the line between a chat and a debate; interaction wasn't why that thread was moved, but because it had become a serious debate where people were refuting the arguments of others and etc etc. There's a difference between that and three people discussing how they can't stand fast food because it ruins their skin back and forth. That's not a debate, that's chatting.

I have never been a proponent of poll-like threads, and while Other Voting Polls' name had the very term in its title, it never felt that way. In fact, this section right now feels like exactly what OVP should have been based strictly on its name. And that's... pretty weird, when you think about it. The various changes the section has gone through don't seem to cascade, but are actually a rather linear progression if not regressive, opposite to what Oryx has said though I don't completely disagree. The switch from OVP to what was essentially CCC was more effective than anything, in my opinion, not because of the name but the quality of threads that were present. There was more discussion than ever and I personally advocate light chat within each thread over the broad topic than silly one-post answers that the poster leaves and never returns to see the responses.

But General Chat has just reverted to the former. I can't bother to read a couple of the longer posts in this thread but I will say that I would love to see Discussions & Debates become strictly a debates section, leaving all the general, off-topic discussion thread potential to whatever the new "gc/ccc/ovp" section would become. I just have never felt that mitigating intelligent discussion - but then again, who's to say that the discussion that occurs in General Chat isn't intelligent? - away from General Chat and into the debates section where, quite frankly only 1/100 debates actually happen, made much sense at all. If anything it's just more destructive to GC because leeway for chat topics is even slimmer, since a lot of what could be thoroughly discussed as opposed to answered surface level has been shoved into D&D.

Oryx said:

edit: el's post came up while I was gone so I'm replying to it here because I spend a lot of time in both sections. That thread became a debate. Most people can tell the line between a chat and a debate; interaction wasn't why that thread was moved, but because it had become a serious debate where people were refuting the arguments of others and etc etc. There's a difference between that and three people discussing how they can't stand fast food because it ruins their skin back and forth. That's not a debate, that's chatting.

Click to expand...

Makes sense. So what kind of style is it that we are currently looking for in a General Chat 2.0? I'm assuming it's a middle ground between what we have and Discussions & Debates, but having concrete examples or a thorough explanation would probably help a lot of users - including myself - try to figure out the direction we want to go in.

The problem I find is that people either go super in-depth (which is great) or just leave 2bit replies. The OP may or may not have enough sustenance to keep different opinions and ideas flowing; if it does, then the members are typically too lazy to actually write out their ideas and opinions, instead reverting to "I'll deal with that later" or "It'd be too long to type" mentions. Some members are very thorough and give wonderful replies, but others not so much.

When I make posts here, I try to ask as many questions as possible to really try and get the gears moving for people. I'd like them to think about ideas in different ways (ethical, political, etc.) and through different perceptions (anthropological, sociological, etc.) so that there are more chances that someone will quote them and start a new, relevant discussion within the thread, while others continue to add their input. Some people just don't read the already-posted replies and "post and go," as we've seen. It's really harming the quality of the section. I'm thinking that maybe people are concerned it'll turn into a debate, and therefore it's not really in the correct section.

If Discussions & Debates becomes more "Are you for x or for y?" and less "So this just happened in the news; what do you think?" we'd see more quality threads in General Chat. Right now, all the "chatting" is absorbed in D&D because people are under the impression that anything that could cause debate or topics in the news, etc. that promote in-depth responses belong in D&D. This doesn't leave much for General Chat. It's basically the spam folder: whatever doesn't fit elsewhere goes here. This ends up generating more poll-like activities because there really is no other place to talk about community statistics, favourite foods, etc. It's not really a discussion that can go in-depth (so no D&D) and it gets dropped into GC instead. Then people just post and go.

D&D should be purely "X vs. Y" content and anything news-related i.e. ebola scare, etc. should be moved to General Chat. As for the other generic threads, Oryx mentioned maybe starting threads with a format that's intended for the section so that people have a foundation to go by. That might be a good start.

I also like emblem excuses

So stuff like:

"Abortion: Yay Or Nay?" - D&D
"Abortion Clinic Bombed in USA" - News, General Chat instead
"Laxer Immigration Laws: Good or Bad?" - D&D
"Studies Find 100% Increase In Illegal Immigration in USA Since 19xx" - News, General Chat
"Should x Country Change Their Health Care From Cost to Free, and Why?" - D&D
"Norway To Introduce Free Post-Secondary Education" - News, General Chat

but sometimes people use the news to justify a debate, so it's really quite fuzzy.

Belldandy said:

If Discussions & Debates becomes more "Are you for x or for y?" and less "So this just happened in the news; what do you think?" we'd see more quality threads in General Chat. Right now, all the "chatting" is absorbed in D&D because people are under the impression that anything that could cause debate or topics in the news, etc. that promote in-depth responses belong in D&D. This doesn't leave much for General Chat. It's basically the spam folder: whatever doesn't fit elsewhere goes here. This ends up generating more poll-like activities because there really is no other place to talk about community statistics, favourite foods, etc. It's not really a discussion that can go in-depth (so no D&D) and it gets dropped into GC instead. Then people just post and go.

D&D should be purely "X vs. Y" content and anything news-related i.e. ebola scare, etc. should be moved to General Chat. As for the other generic threads, Oryx mentioned maybe starting threads with a format that's intended for the section so that people have a foundation to go by. That might be a good start.

I also like emblem excuses

Click to expand...

I really like this. The only issue I find with this is that bolded part; if we were to go into that direction, then Discussions & Debates would be strictly debate-based, meaning either the "discussion" part should be dropped or reworded into a new form entirely. Or just rename the forum Debates. Just my two cents.

I mean, I don't know what everyone else is looking for, but in my head threads would be something like this:


@Belldandy: I disagree that threads like the ebola scare should go in GC. I mean, I put it in D&D for a reason, not due to the rules - because I wanted a thread where people thought about the issues more deeply. I didn't want people to chat about it, I wanted people to give it thought and discuss more deeply. I honestly hate the idea of removing all discussions that aren't inherently adversarial from D&D because people already whine so much about how it's so heated and everyone's so mean and wah wah wah even when a lot of the threads are about things that are being intellectually studied from a distance (discussions) instead of heatedly debated. I like the idea of being able to put my post in a section where people will generally think of the topic in a more intense way. I can tell when people jump over from only posting in GC to D&D because the difference is very marked.

(Clearly I have feels on how people see D&D)

edit: also it kind of bothers me to hear people that post in D&D maybe once a month talk about how D&D should be changed. :/ If we actually go through with gutting half the D&D section can we at least get input from people that post there instead of just people from GC?

elheroeoscuro said:

I really like this. The only issue I find with this is that bolded part; if we were to go into that direction, then Discussions & Debates would be strictly debate-based, meaning either the "discussion" part should be dropped or reworded into a new form entirely. Or just rename the forum Debates. Just my two cents.

Click to expand...

And that would be OK. We would have "Debates" and then "General Discussion."

Problem solved, except if people start turning discussions into debates, using news stories as the foundation.

If discussions were based more about "why did this happen?" "what could've prevented this?" "what do you think caused this?" "who do you think was involved?" that would be good.

Leave the "I feel that..." to Debates.

@Oryx,

Did not realize the ebola was your thread lol nothing personal intended; it was just the first one I remembered XD

It would still fall under the General Discussion scenario listed above:

"What caused this outbreak?" "Do you think it can be contained?" "Do you think bringing infected persons back to the USA is OK / manageable / reasonable?" "When do you think they'll find a cure for ebola?" "Had you ever heard of ebola before this outbreak?" "How long do you think it'll take for the outbreak to subside?" "Do you think it's fair to quarantine returning, potentially-infected citizens?" "Are you personally afraid of ebola?"

And D&D if it were more like "Ebola: Do You Believe It's a Conspiracy?" where people would be arguing the "I feel"s part of the scenario. It might have some overlap, but people wouldn't be as aggressive in the above ^ scenario because there wouldn't really be any sentimental opinions.

It was just an example thread lol

I just have a few things to say, I'm a little tired and I read through the replies and OP and it all just started to jumble together in my mind and a lot of what I'm about to say may have already been said but.

I do find that in the past couple of months at least I've seen a considerable change in GC, for the worse. It wasn't perfect before but there were some more open ended questions rather than just a list of questions for someone to answer with no real opening in them for a reply by anyone. But I don't think it's necessarily only the way the thread is made that is to blame.

I don't think that this should be entirely open ended, there should be some guidelines as to what to post in the thread but then there should also be questions in the thread that induce more thought about the subject instead of just what the OP could think of. And then you would also need for the OP and other members to get into the habit of looking at a thread after they've posted in it to see what people have said. I have a bad habit of posting in a thread and then never going back to it again, but I want to say that I do that because there's not really anything that you can reply to. Everyone's posts are monotonous and nobody says anything different or more except for the more outgoing and quirky members who will say "weird" things in their posts.

I do think that we need a more concrete and explained guideline as to what goes where and then a rough draft of a thought inducing thread, because not everyone picks up on or understands things so well and then it would be good for people to have something to reference besides the hundreds of threads that are more or less just polls. I second what Oryx said about getting a task force together to flood the forum with threads that are to your standards and liking, but also maybe throw in something else to stimulate people into wanting to post threads a certain way so that they don't just die in a week. Emblems could work or you could just do something like custom user titles, if people think they're getting rewarded for doing something then they're more apt to actually go out and do that.

What I see as the problem right now is that we have too many threads and have had too many threads for too long that don't necessarily require people to think about them so when they are told to think when they reply to a thread they brush it off and anything new just dies off and gets buried after a couple of days.

Sorry if anything I said is redundant or just plain doesn't make sense. I don't know where I am right now and my mind is going too fast for my hands.

The fake post conversation about eggs is pretty much exactly the culture I've been trying to create ever since OVP changed its name the first time. I'm not opposed to taking the news threads from D&D either but I'm scared that'll rob the section of half its remaining activity haha.

But yeah, most of my posts these days are just replying to something someone has said off-hand in a thread, with the hope that if they see me doing it they will too. It has worked to some degree but still not where I'd like it to be. I don't see it so much as a matter of the quality of the thread itself but more how we use it.

Belldandy said:

The problem I find is that people either go super in-depth (which is great) or just leave 2bit replies. The OP may or may not have enough sustenance to keep different opinions and ideas flowing; if it does, then the members are typically too lazy to actually write out their ideas and opinions, instead reverting to "I'll deal with that later" or "It'd be too long to type" mentions. Some members are very thorough and give wonderful replies, but others not so much.

When I make posts here, I try to ask as many questions as possible to really try and get the gears moving for people. I'd like them to think about ideas in different ways (ethical, political, etc.) and through different perceptions (anthropological, sociological, etc.) so that there are more chances that someone will quote them and start a new, relevant discussion within the thread, while others continue to add their input. Some people just don't read the already-posted replies and "post and go," as we've seen. It's really harming the quality of the section. I'm thinking that maybe people are concerned it'll turn into a debate, and therefore it's not really in the correct section.

If Discussions & Debates becomes more "Are you for x or for y?" and less "So this just happened in the news; what do you think?" we'd see more quality threads in General Chat. Right now, all the "chatting" is absorbed in D&D because people are under the impression that anything that could cause debate or topics in the news, etc. that promote in-depth responses belong in D&D. This doesn't leave much for General Chat. It's basically the spam folder: whatever doesn't fit elsewhere goes here. This ends up generating more poll-like activities because there really is no other place to talk about community statistics, favourite foods, etc. It's not really a discussion that can go in-depth (so no D&D) and it gets dropped into GC instead. Then people just post and go.

D&D should be purely "X vs. Y" content and anything news-related i.e. ebola scare, etc. should be moved to General Chat. As for the other generic threads, Oryx mentioned maybe starting threads with a format that's intended for the section so that people have a foundation to go by. That might be a good start.

I also like emblem excuses

So stuff like:

"Abortion: Yay Or Nay?" - D&D
"Abortion Clinic Bombed in USA" - News, General Chat instead
"Laxer Immigration Laws: Good or Bad?" - D&D
"Studies Find 100% Increase In Illegal Immigration in USA Since 19xx" - News, General Chat
"Should x Country Change Their Health Care From Cost to Free, and Why?" - D&D
"Norway To Introduce Free Post-Secondary Education" - News, General Chat

but sometimes people use the news to justify a debate, so it's really quite fuzzy.

Click to expand...

I'm going to have to mightily disagree there. The news threads in D&D, at least the good ones, are still meant to become in-depth and people are still meant to take and critique opinions, it's not "chat". The tags for [Discussion]'s and [News] were originally intended to clean things up, aesthetically speaking, so people could sort through the kinds of topics you'd see in D&D. News threads are still kind of a foil to the discussion threads, but they're supposed to be just as in depth and thought provoking - people need to get away from the formula of "link to thread topic + a "do you agree?" statement = discuss!" and add some questions or take a position on the effects of that particular news event.

Think of it this way, D&D is your Social Studies/Political Science/Debate Club class and Chit-Chat Cafe is your creative writing class. Some formalized structure on what to discuss, but freedom to choose how you talk about it. What separates them isn't so much the types of content being discussed, it's the ways in which they're being talked about. But I agree, CCC needs to get away from "bold the question + answer below = leave" formula and get back to just being about raw, light discussion of ideas and other chatter not covered in D&D. But pilfering more from D&D is not how you fix that.

Also, lets make sure that the issues are actual structural problems and not because of some other variable like the user-base, moderation, types of topics being made, etc, before we try and tinker with how things are set up. Best way to start fixing that would be to re-enforce our regulation of SPAM policies, 4/25 rule, etc, because I think that the care-free attitude when it comes to those things helps promote the lazy posting styles that I believe are the real culprit here.

I feel like CCC has some of the best activity this section's ever seen; it was lively and not so two dimensional. OVP was very boring, from what I remember, because it was exactly what Alex in the OP mentions is wrong with this section right now, which we for whatever reason seem to have fallen back to. It wasn't necessarily the name change that killed off GC, but I feel like it might have something to do with the memberbase, in all honesty. You can't have a nice chat if the people chatting are as interesting as grass growing, not to rip on anyone.

I can see your points, that you are making here. The only thing that may be a problem is just that if we have more informed debates, rather than "Hello, what is your Favorite Food?", then the boundaries, between General Chat and Discussions and Debates, will be grayed.

The things that set apart D&D and GC is more along the lines of a structered and uniform debate, with opposing arguments. So when we post something along the lines of "Tax: Doing More Harm Than Good?", then members will have a clearer idea, of what to expect. Just by looking at the first post of a thread from D&D, you are already acknowledged that:

A) The thread calls for a more intellectual response.
B) That you should prepare to state a position, with civil reasons.

This sets itself apart from GC, mainly because, in GC, you can be as stupid and layed-back, as you want, as long as it remains within PC rules and the GC rules themselves(the DCC, is a good example). I wouldn't now how much more exciting this was when it was Other Chat and so on, because I've only been here, 5 months is it? If you start making GC, like D&D, by allowing topics from the News to appear, then we start having a bit of confusion.

When a newcomer comes to D&D, and compare that to GC, then what would clearlg set apart this from D&D? How am I supposed to know, what goes where? The sub-forums, in a way, will begin to merge, kind of. Right now, if you showed me the two sub-forums, assuming I have no prior knowledge on the two, I could easily tell the differences. But GC is sort of a repetitve sub-forum of "do you like this?" etc. So how do we fix this?

Well like Castform said above, we could give the threads with a "post and go" style, its own sub-forum and bring back OVP. Of course, another reason could be that we aren't really doing much with the threads. We could respond, but unless we are on the DCC, we do not carry on conversations. We would respond, and hopefully, someone could quote our reply and carry on a discussion, but that's rarely the case. It's a primary reason, why threads die so quickly here.

So we could always give a more clearly defined rules for the main section of GC, restricting it a bit, and have some sub-forums within the GC, which doesn't have these restrictions. Some things from D&D can make headway over here. Probably not the news, but maybe the Help & Advice Thread, since it would go nicely with Dear Anonymous, but I don't see it happening.

Simply put it, we need to define what goes where between D&D and GC, while at the same time, removing repetitve thread styles, we have been seeing lately, by defining more things in GC, and giving it more things, like a Poll sub-forum or something.

Other sub-forums do well because, there is little to no confusion between what goes where. You want to talk Pokémon Anime, go there. ROM Hacking Idea threads, go straight to Beginner's Thread. And if a reason is that the more "newer" members are duller, well sorry you feel that way, I'm not the most intresting person ever xD

Hope this will sorta help this issue. But again, I haven't been here as long.

My personal idea that I've actually had for a while now is that the threads in GC need to be a little more general, much like the thread I just made on fashion. I didn't create any guidelines to follow; I just let everyone loose, on the hope that without something to work on, posters will work off other posters, which creates a chat. Yeah, sure, by that logic we can have stuff like "The Fashion Thread" and "The Hobbies Thread" or whatnot, but I don't think that's even a bad thing. As for an OVP style subforum, I don't think that's a bad idea, really. At first I didn't like it, but after thinking, I figured not including those threads would be impossible, and a subforum seems to be the simplest way to fix that.

I feel like this is the next issue to address in what I see as a revival of this section from its OVP (Other Voting Polls, for the newer of you) days. Threads were posted without these 'stock' questions or just with a couple as guidelines. In fact I think that shortly after when I joined the section started taking this swing towards the "answer this stuff" attitude that I see around so much now. You used to construct a reply based on the statements made by and opinion of the original poster, then you replied based on that along with some questions as thought points, and now you just... answer those questions. And to me that limits the range of discussion that can be had in a thread and how free-flowing it is. I think that this phenomenon is what's lead to the stagnant, predictable replies we see in the threads today.

Click to expand...

This is as far as I got into your post, because as soon as I read this, I needed to reply.

I don't want to take credit for making that format of just adding a ton of questions, because I'm sure I wasn't the one who started it, but they did rise a lot in frequent uses after I started doing that when I was a mod here. I never intended for them to be something that other people did, but it caught on really quickly, and soon that was how everyone posted their threads here. And if you look back to 2008, you can see that that's where it really picked up in popularity and the way it's sort of morphed into being.

It always bothered me how people just replied by listing the questions, and answering them and that's that. They'd bold the questions and respond to them all individually. And that honestly pissed me off. I did not, and do not, put questions in my thread for you to only answer. I used them for possible points to include in your post, and if you wanted to branch out on it, you should have. They don't need to be super intricate replies, but they should at least say something. They were just guides on how you should try to reply to a thread. Because before those questions came around, people would only respond to the immediate topic. They would reply with one liners, and I hated that more than I hate people listing the questions and only replying to them individually.