Divide off topics further

[Gillipig]

Divide off topics further

Off topics is currently divided into "Forum games", and then the rest is clumped together in one big soup.
No part of the forum is as poorly structured as the off topics. I suggest dividing it further into; "Politics" and "Science and Religion". It's immensely hard to find what you're looking for in the off topics, more structuring is needed.


How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:
Provide us with a more user friendly forum and making it easier for us to find what we're looking for. (And avoid what we're not looking for)

[Neoteny]

No..

[Gillipig]

No..

I just assume "No" means "Yes" to you, otherwise you'd never get any.

[greenoaks]

off-topics is anarchy.

do not force order upon it.

[nietzsche]

[Neoteny]

off-topics is anarchy.

do not force order upon it.

Indeed. BBS will go all free market on your ass if you try to muck with his freedom.

[chapcrap]

I like the idea.

Who will be in charge of sorting all of the threads that are already there?

[Gillipig]

I like the idea.

Who will be in charge of sorting all of the threads that are already there?

I was thinking either you or funkyterrence

[chapcrap]

I like the idea.

Who will be in charge of sorting all of the threads that are already there?

I was thinking either you or funkyterrence

If you are thinking I'm going to do it, then I don't like it as much.

Ain't nobody got time for that.

[Gillipig]

I like the idea.

Who will be in charge of sorting all of the threads that are already there?

I was thinking either you or funkyterrence

If you are thinking I'm going to do it, then I don't like it as much.

Ain't nobody got time for that.

Off topics isn't really your forum, whoever is in charge there would be doing it.

[agentcom]

Isn't the point of OT that it's "off topic"? This isn't a politics, news, current events, etc. site. It's a gaming site.

I rarely, if ever, happen over to OT, so I don't really know/care, but it seems to me like OT is and should be just an area for whatever people want to talk about. I like this:

off-topics is anarchy.

do not force order upon it.

[chapcrap]

Isn't the point of OT that it's "off topic"? This isn't a politics, news, current events, etc. site. It's a gaming site.

I rarely, if ever, happen over to OT, so I don't really know/care, but it seems to me like OT is and should be just an area for whatever people want to talk about.

I don't disagree with that, but it could be organized a little more.

[Gillipig]

Isn't the point of OT that it's "off topic"? This isn't a politics, news, current events, etc. site. It's a gaming site.

I rarely, if ever, happen over to OT, so I don't really know/care, but it seems to me like OT is and should be just an area for whatever people want to talk about. I like this:

off-topics is anarchy.

do not force order upon it.

In case you didn't know it's already separated into "forum games" and the rest. So that's why I said dividing it further. Also, mafia games are not cc related, they're an off topic forum, they probably should be sorted under forum games, because that's what it is, a forum game. If OT would be completely unsorted, you'd have mafia games, other forum games, and all other topics mixed together in one big pile. I don't think anyone would like that, so clearly there's need for division of different topics there as well.

[rdsrds2120]

Exactly -- it's already sorted pretty well ;D

BMO

[Gillipig]

Exactly -- it's already sorted pretty well ;D

BMO

agent was arguing that it wasn't sorted at all and should stay that way, if we've already started sorting the forum we might as well do it properly. Which would mean that politics should get a subforum of it's own and probably the same with religion and science. So hah..... I'm right again !

[Dukasaur]

Exactly -- it's already sorted pretty well ;D

BMO

agent was arguing that it wasn't sorted at all and should stay that way, if we've already started sorting the forum we might as well do it properly. Which would mean that politics should get a subforum of it's own and probably the same with religion and science. So hah..... I'm right again !

We don't want to be running a public library over there. Forum games is seperate as a convenience to people who play them, so they don't have to search the whole forum for their thread. Other than that, leave it alone.

[chapcrap]

I haven't really heard a good argument for leaving it alone and I believe there is a good argument for changing it.

[greenoaks]

Exactly -- it's already sorted pretty well ;D

BMO

agent was arguing that it wasn't sorted at all and should stay that way, if we've already started sorting the forum we might as well do it properly. Which would mean that politics should get a subforum of it's own and probably the same with religion and science. So hah..... I'm right again !

OT is sorted into discussion threads and games. that's enough.

[greenoaks]

I haven't really heard a good argument for leaving it alone and I believe there is a good argument for changing it.

then you should vocalise your belief because no one else has provided a good argument for changing it.

[Gillipig]

Exactly -- it's already sorted pretty well ;D

BMO

agent was arguing that it wasn't sorted at all and should stay that way, if we've already started sorting the forum we might as well do it properly. Which would mean that politics should get a subforum of it's own and probably the same with religion and science. So hah..... I'm right again !

OT is sorted into discussion threads and games. that's enough.

Tell me, have you ever even visited the off topics? Or is this just another thing you comment on without knowing anything about?

[chapcrap]

I haven't really heard a good argument for leaving it alone and I believe there is a good argument for changing it.

then you should vocalise your belief because no one else has provided a good argument for changing it.

I rarely go to OT, because there are way too many threads to try to keep track of. If it were sorted more, I think I would go more. Because of that, I also believe that others may find it a place they go more often as well. So, if more people are wanted in OT, then it's good. If more people are not wanted, then it's bad. That's my take.

As for the opposition, the reason is that change is bad. At least, that's what I've gathered so far. Here's an actual good argument for the opposition: It would take a crap ton of work to sort all of those old threads. That's a great argument for the opposition. However, all you need is a volunteer and then that argument falls through as well. For the record, I will not volunteer for that.

[rdsrds2120]

Here's a good set of reasons for not dividing the Off-Topics forum Further:

1) It's not very active as is. Debanding a low-activity forum into multiple, smaller forums, could result in more and less active forums.
2) I posit that there is a direct correlation on how the number of clicks needed to get somewhere affects the activity of that area. A 3rd level subforum further dividing something that isn't very big seems to be work for the sake of being work
3) The volunteerism required to sorts many, many pages of threads into their appropriate forum, many of which count as both, since threads take directions and go off-topic from the original post.
4) In junction with 2, a sort of "one-stop shopping" approach is arguably better than forcing users to look in different places.

BMO

[chapcrap]

Here's a good set of reasons for not dividing the Off-Topics forum Further:

1) It's not very active as is. Debanding a low-activity forum into multiple, smaller forums, could result in more and less active forums.
2) I posit that there is a direct correlation on how the number of clicks needed to get somewhere affects the activity of that area. A 3rd level subforum further dividing something that isn't very big seems to be work for the sake of being work
3) The volunteerism required to sorts many, many pages of threads into their appropriate forum, many of which count as both, since threads take directions and go off-topic from the original post.
4) In junction with 2, a sort of "one-stop shopping" approach is arguably better than forcing users to look in different places.

BMO

Is it not active? I always feel like it's really active when I go in there. Maybe that's a perspective thing.

[Gillipig]

Here's a good set of reasons for not dividing the Off-Topics forum Further:

1) It's not very active as is. Debanding a low-activity forum into multiple, smaller forums, could result in more and less active forums.
2) I posit that there is a direct correlation on how the number of clicks needed to get somewhere affects the activity of that area. A 3rd level subforum further dividing something that isn't very big seems to be work for the sake of being work
3) The volunteerism required to sorts many, many pages of threads into their appropriate forum, many of which count as both, since threads take directions and go off-topic from the original post.
4) In junction with 2, a sort of "one-stop shopping" approach is arguably better than forcing users to look in different places.

BMO

Is it not active? I always feel like it's really active when I go in there. Maybe that's a perspective thing.

It's way more active than general discussion. Several times more active. Check the number of threads that have been posted in the last week in GD and compare it to OT.
GD has about half a page of relatively active threads, OT has two pages, four times as many as GD. And that's not counting in the forum games.
So no, I highly doubt OT would be killed by more division of it's threads.

[rdsrds2120]

It's not active enough to sustain activity upon division. Or, most accurately, the benefit of being a little more organized isn't worth the trade-off.

BMO