Aye carumba...

RunningMn9 · Post by **RunningMn9** » Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:10 am

The more I think about it - considering that the audience will probably be a good deal smaller than the GG community at the end - it would have been nice to discuss the proposition of making EBG, really EBG.

Is that a done deal? If the answer is yes, I won't bring it up again.

Exodor · Post by **Exodor** » Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:14 am

Uh oh...

rrmorton · Post by **rrmorton** » Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:15 am

First thing I thought of when I got here.

My vote? Lose the R&P and let's f*ckin mix it up OLD SCHOOL!

Peacedog · Post by **Peacedog** » Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:17 am

Is that a done deal? If the answer is yes, I won't bring it up again.

No. But, you're going to need to make a good case. I'll ahve some thoughts on that subject, but later. I'm too tired for that kind of thing right now.

RunningMn9 · Post by **RunningMn9** » Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:20 am

Sorry I jumped the gun a little. I hadn't read the threads in the metaforum yet that said that lots of things are still negotiable. Although it won't be the end of me. I adjusted to opening two tabs in Firefox for each forum well enough.

Plus, I want to go back to participating in all the forums like I used to. When GG started adding "RE:" to all the thread names in the recent posts list, I couldn't deal with it and stopped jumping around.

Kratz · Post by **Kratz** » Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:28 am

(Is saying something going to get me yelled at? I think I'll risk it.)

So what exactly is the argument for mixing them together?

Think of it as a normalized database - a large number of smaller tables. The main point: With the volume that both EBG and R&P got individually, separation is just more convenient. I figure taking people more specifically to what they are interested in is a good idea.

I'd support even further differentiation - it works pretty well at QT3.

rrmorton · Post by **rrmorton** » Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:59 am

I'm operating under the assumption that volume won't be a big issue, at least initially. Heck, mixing it up worked great in EBG until very recently. IMO.

Smoove_B · Post by **Smoove_B** » Wed Oct 13, 2004 1:00 am

Is it negotiable whether or not we have to wear pants while posting?

Because I'm not budging on that one.

Kratz · Post by **Kratz** » Wed Oct 13, 2004 1:04 am

You fuckers just want me to read your right wing lies!

hitbyambulance · Post by **hitbyambulance** » Wed Oct 13, 2004 4:34 am

keep them separate.

setaside · Post by **setaside** » Wed Oct 13, 2004 8:05 am

Kratz wrote: The main point: With the volume that both EBG and R&P got individually, separation is just more convenient.

This actually was one of the big reasons, to me at least, to keep them separate. I initially wanted to try mixing them together again for now at least but Blackhawk I think it was, pointed out that once things got rolling, it just made sense to split them apart as both forums were generating plenty of traffic to justify it.

Of course things are going to be slow here at the start but in planning ahead for what we think/hope will happen, we've already prepared for it by having the split in place now. Not to mention that we won't have to mess with that extremely ugly scenario of the split when it happened at GG. <shudder>

But as Peacedog has said, it's all open for negotiation.

freelunch · Post by **freelunch** » Wed Oct 13, 2004 9:15 am

<retconned>

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Wed Oct 13, 2004 9:38 am

MODS!!!!! I demand you swipe this off to Metaforum discussion <harumph!>

I'm torn on this. I never wanted the switch and as we a bunch that digress in and out of topics it's nice to move back and forth. But when the body politic gets rolling, I hate seeing the front page of EBG being one thread after another of "your side did this! your side did that!" knocking everything else right off of the front page for what could largely be one thread IMO. In R&P 17 GWB and Kerry threads in a new day on the front page doesn't feel nearly so spammy. But then, like IR feels, simply breaking that chunk off seems to break off all almost all matters of conscience and consciousness raising.

What is a poor boy to do?

The Meal · Post by **The Meal** » Wed Oct 13, 2004 9:44 am

Buncha damn flip-floppers at first hating the split then growing to appreciate it. That's all you kids are! FLIP-FLOPPERS! Now go find your new web forum to register on today, wouldja?

CATT

BUTT

Peacedog · Post by **Peacedog** » Wed Oct 13, 2004 10:40 am

I promised some commentary and it will come, but not until later (I'm doing some studying right now, among other things).

this does belong in the Meta Forum though.

Blackhawk · Post by **Blackhawk** » Wed Oct 13, 2004 10:50 am

setaside wrote:
Kratz wrote: The main point: With the volume that both EBG and R&P got individually, separation is just more convenient.
This actually was one of the big reasons, to me at least, to keep them separate. I initially wanted to try mixing them together again for now at least but Blackhawk I think it was, pointed out that once things got rolling, it just made sense to split them apart as both forums were generating plenty of traffic to justify it.

Yep, that was me. What I said, I believe, was "Hope for the best, but plan for the worst". Right now it really wouldn't make any difference, but if the site takes off like we're hoping it will, then the shelf life of a thread in the Complete EBG will be about an hour, like it was on GG there for a while.

The thing I liked about EBG on Gone Gold was that you could make a post asking for advice on nearly anything, and you would get an educated response within a day or so. With a high volume of threads being posted and bumped, though, new threads like that might only stay on the first page for an hour or two, and by the time somebody gets on who knows the answer, it'll be on page three.

As someone mentioned, it isn't an issue right now, but if (when) things pick up, I think we should be ready for them. If we combine now and then try to split them later when it becomes more necessary, it will create chaos comparable to the original split.

Kratz · Post by **Kratz** » Wed Oct 13, 2004 11:40 am

I think maybe how fast this place is going to get truckin' is being underestimated a bit... I wouldn't be surprised to see a GG level of volume within... well, today.

rrmorton · Post by **rrmorton** » Wed Oct 13, 2004 11:48 am

Last night I voted to mix it up old school, but I'm perfectly happy the way it is. It makes sense to just pick up where we left off and avoid all the disagreement on the topic, of which there was plenty.

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:03 pm

Kratz wrote: So what exactly is the argument for mixing them together?

Let me say up front that I respect whatever you guys want to do about it. Who wants to fight this battle again? Here is my rational case for removing or changing that distinction.

1. Cross-fertilization. You are more likely to stumble across something interesting if you don't have to visit a special forum for it. Normally I would never enter a place called R&P, because I'm neither religious nor very political. I would have missed out on the best discussions at GG just because of those biases. I may not care for partisan politics, but most weighty topics do have a political dimension.

2. Stigmatization. The implication behind a separate forum is that the subject is either offensive or uninteresting to most people.

3. The value judgment. Why single out R&P? I hate sports; should that be in a separate forum? I don't like consumerism; should product opinion threads have their own forum? I don't like pop culture; should tv and movie discussions be spun off? Where does it end?

4. The value judgment, part deux. Why group religion with politics? I'm not at all interested in the former. Most of my discussions end up touching on the later. Am I the only one who doesn't understand the equivalence? They appear to have been grouped only because they both offended somebody's sensibility. Politics is as worldly as things get, while religion is just the opposite.

5. The unbearable lightness of EBG. I think the Meal will understand what I mean by this. I enjoy the humor and light banter in EBG, but it was very hard to have a serious discussion there. If I wanted to talk about science, I posted in R&P. When I only had time for one forum, I went to R&P. Consequently I'm sure that I missed a lot of interesting science posts in EBG.

The main negative effect of having a separate R&P forum at GG was that all serious discussions took place there, while EBG was relegated to frivolity. It was very difficult to discuss anything serious outside of the R&P forum because that's where the gravitas was. I found that frustrating.

If you do decide to keep the forums separate, may I suggest at least coming up with a different name, along the lines of News & Current Events, or something less loaded than R&P?

The Meal · Post by **The Meal** » Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:16 pm

Actually, I strongly disagree that it was hard to hold a serious conversation in EbG. I had a great five-page astronomy thread going, for instance. To some extent I still resent the idea that there was a serious/frivolous chasm between the two forums. I never did see it that way, although I definitely heard your claim that it was the case.

~Neal

Little Raven · Post by **Little Raven** » Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:16 pm

Well said, Ironrod. I know I had to apply the Ironrod Technique ® on several economics posts, because topics of any weight at all went nowhere in EBG. Yes, I enjoyed your astronomy thread Meal, but it was exception rather than the rule. Several times Ironrod posted the exact same thing in both forums, and the EBG version inevitably sunk like a stone. I know R&P got a reputation for being all partisan mudslinging, and I admit that became more true as the election approached, but the election will be over in a few weeks and it will be 4 years before we have to worry about that again.

EDIT: At least consider the name change. As anyone who actually hung out in R&P can tell you, there was way more than religion and politics in there. Economics, philosophy, sustainability, science, health care...there were all sorts of topic discussed.

Kratz · Post by **Kratz** » Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:25 pm

With no offense, Ironrod, that seems to be making something out of nothing - we have different forums to differentiate between the content - PC games, Console Games, Hardware, Trading, Bargains... I think sports aren't split because there isn't the (especially in an election year) sheer volume of posts on that one subject that we see w/ Politics. We all know how fast EBG moves - mix those two forums together and it gets cluttered. Now, maybe there were justifications made for the split at the time that stepped on some toes (well, obviously there were, and I suppose that is where the issues come from), but without those reasons, isn't it just more convenient to know where to go to get X or Y? I suspect we're all smart enough to know that there is another forum section to go into to read and post about R&P - it's not hidden - and people don't need to be forced to read R&P threads... R&P obviously did quite well for itself on GG - I doubt there is much real cause for concern.

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:35 pm

With no offense

???? Someone stole Kratz handle!!!! Boy is he gonna be pissed.

Kratz · Post by **Kratz** » Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:37 pm

Fuck you, dick.

That better?

Kadoth Nodens · Post by **Kadoth Nodens** » Wed Oct 13, 2004 2:21 pm

I'd say keep them separate. It is easier to find "serious" pics of politicos' hot daughters that way. 8)

Dirt · Post by **Dirt** » Wed Oct 13, 2004 2:26 pm

If the split between R&P and EBG was about R&P causing so much enmity, that means that once the PSP and XBox2 comes out, you guys will have to create a new Forum just so people can argue which is better.

Koz · Post by **Koz** » Wed Oct 13, 2004 2:27 pm

Let's just have one forum.

And just put the whole thing on one page.

and put HUGE images on the index page.

That would rock.

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Wed Oct 13, 2004 2:49 pm

Fuck you, dick.

That better?

Thank you

Peacedog · Post by **Peacedog** » Wed Oct 13, 2004 6:20 pm

Sorry I'm late.

Traffic, Overcrowding

Firstly, I think that before Gonegold went away, traffic in both EBG and R&P was up from pre-split (and by that, I mean more political threads, repeats nothwithstanding, and more non politcal threads, ditto). Two of the main reasons to consider splitting a forum are 1) is that forum getting too much traffic and 2) will the sub forums justify being in existence?

I think the answer to both of those was a yes. I do not have any hard numbers to back up traffic in either forum - UBB didn't even keep them (and that's going on the eventual "things we'd like from the forum software list", but it isn't high priority). So, take my observations as you will.

If we think discussion of subject will be stimulated by the change in scenery, that's a very good thing. If we think things are too crowded in a single forum and splitting it up will benefit the subforums, that's a good thing.

I'll say that the number of triplicate (not to mention duplicate!, and Quad-shots weren't exactly an endangered species) threads was way on the rise. Part of it was this community's rather charming fascination with irony, sarcasm, and wit that manifested itself in thread titles (or failed to manifest itself

). And I wouldn't take that away for a second. But I think we kept growing, and that factor was being outpaced by the sheer volume of threads in EBG.

And I do think there was a problem with some snippiness at times spilling over into random threads, for seemingly no reason (I'm coming back to this, I'm sure some of you can't wait, oh yes).

Scale

One of the important issues for a community like ours is managing scale. People are attracted to, and become long time members of, communities for a vatriety of reasons. One is intimacy. As you get more people, you sacrifice intimacy. It behooves us then to find a way to fight that.

We could limit the number of people in the community. That's an easy and efficient approach, but not one I find effective. And that doesn't leave us with a hell of a whole lot. I think one way to combat scale is through forum setup. By dividing up broad areas of discussion into more concentrated topics, you can really help users focus on the things they want to discuss.

Of course, there are issues here. There's a tradeoff, and if you go too far, you're almost making people work to hard, and frankly you are going to make a mess of things ("oh look, I have 500 new messages in 300 forums today. Joy"). I know some of you like the cacophony of a united EBG. Frankly, that could easily work with the size we are right now (assuming for a moment that everyone registered suddenly wants to post here 20 times a day). I have *no* idea how big we are going to grow, either.

However, I think that as a community grows bigger, you're hurting more people than you are helping by keeping something like pre-split EBG alive. Now, I don't know what the real threshold for that situation is, but I do think we had crossed it.

Combating scale remains important. And we want to make it easy for people to avoid certain kinds of topics they don't want to read. To a degree. Of course, we don't have a scale issue right now, though I think there might be some sentiment on staff to try and hit the "sweet spot" with forum layout as best we can, just in case we get significantly bigger (wishful thinking, perhaps).

And this leads nicely into my next section:

Nuking a comfort zone & Putting up some partitions

Personally, I think Qt3 has a very attractive setup for "non gaming/PC" talk. Maybe you disagree (I see Kratz doesn't). In keeping with above, I think there are plenty of benefits.

Pushing aside the actual execution of the forum split, if Gonegold had been like that from the get go (that's EBG + R&P), would you really have a problem with the setup? Was the chaos of EBG something you came looking for? How much of it do you think was attributed to a pretty significant alteration in a daily routine that was not initiated willfully?

Also, yes, we've taken away that circus like feel of one particular locale. But we haven't taken away all the individual elements. It's a couple of extra clicks, depending on how you browse the forums (and if you do it in that freakish manner Smoove_B did, it's no extra clicks).

On cess-pools, mean people, and the road to hell

If you'd like, I'll begin composing poetry on how bad of a screwup the split was, speaking from an execution standpoint. We dropped the ball. Since my poetry isn't any good, it's for the best that I don't (but I will).

We did think temperature in EBG would drop a little when R&P moved out and got it's own apartment. And I think we were right (and I think that's a fairly easy assertion to make, and one that does not speak poorly of the people who love the R&P talk) - but by no means was it pristine (nor did we expect that). We also thought there was a risk that R&P would be too hot. I think results were inconclusive. There were so many variables at work. I do think that is a testament to you guys in general (despite the occasional outbirsts and bad seeds).

I do hope we can put the nastier elements of the "for vs against the split" stuff behind us, and dispel the idea that some group or another is somehow deficient. You aren't, I love you all, let's move along.

On the choice of subject matter for R&P (that being the R & the P)

Bill made that decision, but it is an idea we wrangled with, and I think everyone continued to wrangle with in their heads. Finding the right sweetspot was/is difficult (include all general news postings? Just ones that weren't movie/sports/book/entertainment related? What about Science? Philosophy?).

R&P were chosen in part because they're fairly easy topics to judge in a thematic sense, I think. I'm not sure if, left alone, we'd have expanded the scope of the forum, or by how much. Or by how much we might do it now. There's plenty of philospohical discussion that seems to neatly fit in there, to be sure.

And lastly, it certainly is arguable that there are other topics that make better reading next to politics - so that's something else to think about.

EBG, post Split

I definately disagree it was "relegated to frivolty" (to borrow your words Ironrod, not trying to single you out; it is a sentiment we are familiar with). One man's frivol is another mans shizzle.

Ironrod, I do want to ask you a quesiton:

Why did it take "longer" to browse both forums separately than when they were together?

***********************

Anyway, like a number of things, this isn't a done deal. We won't just change the name without reconsidering the scope of the forum, of course. So before asking for a name change, we should be asking for a scope change (though I think both name change requests were hinting at such).

Remember, we have to consider "modability", and it isn't just dealing with ornery posters (though that can be unpleasant). Nobody wants to have to make 20 judgement calls on where threads go, a day. Or even 10. 5 probably means we're not ideally setup (Excepting a situation where the community is getting a "feel" for a setup, like the one we have now, or new members are doing the same thing like the one we'll potentially get once we find a forum setup, and then someone new comes along after that).

Dirt · Post by **Dirt** » Wed Oct 13, 2004 6:30 pm

Gonegold (RIP) is dead. As a 'spiritual' successor, it's important (IMHO) to keep some aspects of what made Gonegold (RIP) great, but, this isn't Gonegold (RIP). It's a new home with the same family. Do we really need to bring up or continue with unpleasant memories from the old home? EBG and R&P works as seperate entities in this new home.