Recent versus thread locks

[Selrahc]

So why have these threads been locked? Far as I can see they're not violating any forum rules, and they're not even violating any of the guidelines for creating versus threads.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=88911
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=88677

I mean I was having fun discussing on these threads, and theres no explanatory note from the mods. Is something else going on? :smallconfused:

[Emperor Tippy]

Because they were pretty stupid vs. threads? I mean I wouldn't have closed them but it's not like they were exactly meaningful. One had a bunch of god characters in it and without a clear definition of their power or abilities (Sauron, Charby, Lich King, Sephiroth) and the other had a bunch of powerful, named, characters against mooks.

[Selrahc]

Well versus threads aren't exactly ever massively meaningful, but for these we got some set up, and it was an actual match.

I mean I thought the guidelines were set up to stop the *really* stupid ones. Spongebob versus Cthulhu, Toast versus your Grandma or Smurfs versus Space Marines.(Actual threads).

They did seem to me like genuine non humorous match ups.

[Emperor Tippy]

Oh, I agree that they weren't humorous but one of the unstated criteria for a Vs. thread is that it is debatable, another is that it isn't one sided.

The first one really isn't debatable. We just don't know what Sauron can do. Or the Lich King. Or Charby. Or Sephiroth. Without being able to define their abilities we can't really debate who would win.

And the second one (with Samus) is completely one sided. It came down to a debate about whether or not MC could *solo* the space hulk. There was no debate that the named team wouldn't win easily.

[chiasaur11]

Oh, I agree that they weren't humorous but one of the unstated criteria for a Vs. thread is that it is debatable, another is that it isn't one sided.

The first one really isn't debatable. We just don't know what Sauron can do. Or the Lich King. Or Charby. Or Sephiroth. Without being able to define their abilities we can't really debate who would win.

And the second one (with Samus) is completely one sided. It came down to a debate about whether or not MC could *solo* the space hulk. There was no debate that the named team wouldn't win easily.

Not only that, but it was so obvious, the Orks kept getting bonuses.

That sort of thing tends lead to "But could the Bears win against the raiders if they had no arms and were on fire?"

[Rawhide]

I could argue that the guidelines are just that, guidelines to prevent such lockings, and don't cover every scenario. But it is covered.

Being a genuine matchup includes contestants being on a relatively even footing with clearly defined power and who would reasonably work together. We don't particularly want people going "oh, lets throw these random characters together and unleash them on the forums", please only consider starting a vs thread if it's based on a genuine discussion you have already had.

P.S. Additionally, both threads were reported by members of the forum.

[Moff Chumley]

I don't play lots of games involving Samus, I just blanked on her power level. ONE HOUR after I posted the thread I tried to correct it.

[LordVader]

Actually, Master Chief can be considered a fair combatant there.
I play both games, and people in that thread are overestimating the Chief and underestimating Orks.

Samus, on the other hand, was a mistake.

Thanks for explaining, though, Rawhide. :smallsmile:

[Emperor Tippy]

Actually, Master Chief can be considered a fair combatant there.
I play both games, and people in that thread are overestimating the Chief and underestimating Orks.
Not really. The game MC is significantly weaker than the book MC.

[Sholos]

Game MC < Book MC? Book MC can barely flip a Warthog, and loses his shield in only a few hits from plasma. Though he does have much better reflexes and Cortana is actually useful.

Anyways, I agree with the lockings. The threads were just turning into a "he can do this!" "No he can't!" match.

[Steven the Lich]

Again, more threads closed. While I'm not opposed to the idea that the threads could be badly made and in that case be blown to pieces and tossed in the ocean (and if salvaged from the deeps, be blown to pieces again and tossed back), I think explanations should be provided for closing the thread within the same thread. Because it really gets under one's skin to find out a thread they were posting in gets closed and theres no Mod to explain why, I can imagine.

[Lord Herman]

I agree. Most of those locks were justified (in fact, I reported some of those threads myself), but I do think a mod should make it clear why a thread is locked. Even if it's just a short post like 'Silly vs. thread. Locked.'

[NerfTW]

If it's a versus thread, and there's no "posts were removed for swearing/real world discussion/whatever" explanation, do you really need to be told the reason why it was closed?

[puppyavenger]

If it's a versus thread, and there's no "posts were removed for swearing/real world discussion/whatever" explanation, do you really need to be told the reason why it was closed?

we don't need to be, but it does stop people from starting threads asking why the threads were cloesed.

[WalkingTarget]

Maybe they could just insert something like
{large image spoilered}
http://a14.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/128/l_f084da1749703ff8b2de80d687bfa875.jpg

Edit - oops, sorry about that.

[alexeduardo]

Maybe they could just insert something like...{large image removed}

speaking as a fan of the show that has nothing to do on sunday afternoons but watch its reruns
thank you
that made me lol

[alexeduardo]

and, since we're on the issue, what would be necessary to open my own Vs. Thread?

[chiasaur11]

and, since we're on the issue, what would be necessary to open my own Vs. Thread?

A pre-existing argument in need of settling, fair and reasonable conditions, two or more combatents, and a basic grasp on the english language.

[Rawhide]

and, since we're on the issue, what would be necessary to open my own Vs. Thread?

You see, this is exactly the attitude we want to curtail. A vs. thread is not something to 'have' and people should not be making them because they want to have their own. This results in very silly, poorly thought out and/or otherwise unwanted vs. threads.

[Inhuman Bot]

If you actually have an VS you want to make, then Rawhide's guidehttp://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=70661 (http://http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=70661)661 Should help.

Hmm... that didn't work..

[Nychta]

If you actually have an VS you want to make, then Rawhide's guide (http://http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=70661) should help.

Hmm... that didn't work..
I think this is what you meant.

[Admiral_Kelly]

You see, this is exactly the attitude we want to curtail. A vs. thread is not something to 'have' and people should not be making them because they want to have their own. This results in very silly, poorly thought out and/or otherwise unwanted vs. threads.What? There are people out there who want to make versus threads so they can have them?!? :smallfurious: How dare they! How dare they want to have fun! :smalltongue:

[Occasional Sage]

What? There are people out there who want to make versus threads so they can have them?!? :smallfurious: How dare they! How dare they want to have fun! :smalltongue:

I think that was a reference to The Giant's comments on When Threads Go Feral (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4725536&postcount=78).

Fun is encouraged and applauded, and encouraged to be had in ways that won't spiral out of control (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=70661).

[Rawhide]

What? There are people out there who want to make versus threads so they can have them?!? :smallfurious: How dare they! How dare they want to have fun! :smalltongue:

Fun is alright, as long as it doesn't ruin things for everyone else. There is a silly message board games section where many of these vs. threads should go instead.

This is not to say that vs. threads should be in SMBG, only that some of them are just that, games.

[Inhuman Bot]

I think this is what you meant.

Yeah, that's what I wanted.... But I can never get it to work right.

[Admiral_Kelly]

I think that was a reference to The Giant's comments on When Threads Go Feral (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4725536&postcount=78)No, I was making a joke while establishing a point - I never read that post of Burlew's before. To me, it sounds like the mods have a case of 'Complaining About Threads You Don't Like'. But to me, this is just a pet issue. If they want to hammer down on VS Threads then fair enough. I have grown to learn they are all rather silly.

[Rawhide]

Actually, no. It's not us complaining about them. You don't have to go back very far in the archives to see the complaints people have had about them in the past.

We looked at the situation and decided that we don't want to eliminate vs. threads entirely, as they do have their place (despite the number of people who wanted them gone or moved to SMBG entirely). However, the sheer number of silly, ridiculous, poorly thought out and "me too! me too!" vs. threads was really out of hand. We have done our best to make an environment that is suitable and fair for everyone.

P.S. That post by Rich is actually out of context and doesn't have anything to do with vs. threads.

[NerfTW]

No, I was making a joke while establishing a point - I never read that post of Burlew's before. To me, it sounds like the mods have a case of 'Complaining About Threads You Don't Like'. But to me, this is just a pet issue. If they want to hammer down on VS Threads then fair enough. I have grown to learn they are all rather silly.

You've been around long enough that you should remember when media discussions was over run by the most ridiculous "VS" threads, just being started so that the poster could say "Look, I started a discussion!".

[Shhalahr Windrider]

I think this is what you meant.
The URL itself is still busted. It has a redundant "http://"

Rawhide's guide (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=70661)

That's better.

[Steven the Lich]

I can understand the reasons the threads are being locked. However, I think that that a quick explanation should be provided upon closing the thread. Otherwise, some people are left in the dark. A very good example of this is the SLS Vs. MLC Thread. It actually did have a purpose that GoC provided near the beginning (Were three guys with bigger fan clubs stronger than three guys with smaller fan clubs, answer being in my opinion, no). I was confused on why it was closed at first.
I'm not saying stop closing threads because they're stupid, I understand your motive behind it. I'm just saying perhaps you should provide the reason within the thread in a post. That is probably what started this thread in the first place, not the number of threads being closed. I mean, there are four threads recently that have been closed with no explanation provided. To me, it seems a bit uncalled for without further exploration into the issue.

[Admiral_Kelly]

You've been around long enough that you should remember when media discussions was over run by the most ridiculous "VS" threads, just being started so that the poster could say "Look, I started a discussion!".The same can be said about every other thread in the OotS forum. Complaining About Threads You Don't Like, indeed. Again, pet issue.

[Closet_Skeleton]

The same can be said about every other thread in the OotS forum. Complaining About Threads You Don't Like, indeed. Again, pet issue.

Yeah, but complaining threads have never reached the terrible apathy inducing depths that the versus thread craze reached.

If I open up the media forum and there are 10 vs threads and a discussion about a 10 year old TV show that hasn't been posted in for a week I tend not to bother checking any threads.

[NerfTW]

The same can be said about every other thread in the OotS forum. Complaining About Threads You Don't Like, indeed. Again, pet issue.

Except that posting a VS thread with some ridiculous match up, like Galactus VS Too Much Coffee man (which is what usually gets closed) is pretty much just posting spam. There's no discussion to be had, because one is ridiculously powerful, and the other is shown to be both a normal person and unlimited in power. There's literally no way to have a rational discussion. It would be like posting "Let's all shout 'Go Belkar!'". It's clearly spam, and shouldn't need an explaination unless you're just being pedantic.

[Admiral_Kelly]

I disagree. You know what a rational discussion would be? Finding a plausible way for the underdog to win. Now that kindof versus thread would be fun and challenging.

[Rawhide]

I disagree. You know what a rational discussion would be? Finding a plausible way for the underdog to win. Now that kindof versus thread would be fun and challenging.

But not a Media Discussion. You've made the thread into a game, "How can the underdog win?".

[Lord_Asmodeus]

But not a Media Discussion. You've made the thread into a game, "How can the underdog win?".

If it involves on character from media versus another or one character versus a group, and you're discussing how the less advantaged/powerful party could win, isn't that a media discussion?

[Rawhide]

Basically, Media Discussion is for just that, discussion about media. While it is reasonable to expect that people will wonder about the relative power levels of say, Starfleet and The Empire (to take an old classic) and discuss how they feel they might measure up, Media Discussions is not a place to take various random characters and battle them against each other.

We need to cater to and do our best for everyone that visits and uses our forums. These threads were reported by members of our forum and we agreed that they did not belong in Media Discussions.

[Moff Chumley]

A pre-existing argument in need of settling, fair and reasonable conditions, two or more combatents, and a basic grasp on the english language.

Excuse me, I'm failing to see how my thread didn't satisfy those conditions, especially the english one. There isn't any need to be rude. :smallmad:

[Admiral_Kelly]

But not a Media Discussion. You've made the thread into a game, "How can the underdog win?".But I would be posting it as a discussion - not a game. And where do you draw the line on that? Is 'Spidey versus Supes' a SMBG or a genuine discussion?

[Lord_Asmodeus]

One point I'm confused on is, are we allowed to make a vs. thread because we want to actually discuss a certain 1 side versus another or 1 guy versus another situations (and have thought it through first) or do we actually have to have a discussion that its based off of?

[Om]

But I would be posting it as a discussion - not a game. And where do you draw the line on that? Is 'Spidey versus Supes' a SMBG or a genuine discussion?Which is the problem with such selective moderating (not that this isn't a huge improvement over the previous 'no moderating'). In such cases the line being drawn is not clear and only really exists in the heads of the moderators. Any poster (assuming they are aware of this discussion) is going to have to make a judgement call as to what constitutes a "genuine matchup" and this could well differ from Rawhide's, or any moderator's, understanding of the term

Now I fully applaud the mods for locking even some of these threads but to my mind this uneasy compromise is not the best solution. Rules work best when they are clear and with minimal scope for confusion or misunderstanding. A straight ban on versus threads, or a restriction to SMBG, would shift the responsibility from the mods (who have to evaluate such threads) back to the posters themselves

[Admiral_Kelly]

or a restriction to SMBG,I think this would be best for everyone. In fact,I was take it a step further; create a new subforum in SMBG, move Rawhide's previous guidelines there, have a mod check up every once in a while to curb the crappiest of crap, and call it a night.

[Lord Herman]

SMBG is not a rubbish bin. It may not be the most serious forum on these boards, but it does have a specific purpose - as the name says, it's for Silly Message Board Games. Silly games, not spammy discussions. I can understand you don't like silly vs. threads and you want them to go away, but you can't just toss them in a forum you don't visit and make them someone else's problem.

[Admiral_Kelly]

Actually, I do visit said forum. Simply put? I do not have a problem with versus threads, but other do, and since they are rather game-like this would be a good solution to the 'problem'.

[DraPrime]

SMBG is not a rubbish bin. It may not be the most serious forum on these boards, but it does have a specific purpose - as the name says, it's for Silly Message Board Games. Silly games, not spammy discussions. I can understand you don't like silly vs. threads and you want them to go away, but you can't just toss them in a forum you don't visit and make them someone else's problem.

Gotta agree here. SMBG is not where we throw all of our crap.

[Selrahc]

So Rawhide, is it not enough to make a versus thread simply because you think it would be a fun discussion? It really has to have some deeper purpose.

It just kind of seems... overzealous I guess. It seems that versus threads are being judged on some wierd criteria that other threads aren't subject too. Because before this month it looked like versus threads were only being closed if they were spammy, and now it seems like they're being kind of singled out as somehow less worthy of existence. I enjoy them, and I'm sure others do(Because theres a good group of regular posters on those threads, so unless they're internet discussion board masochists, they must be having some enjoyment). If theres genuine discussion taking place, can't we be a little more relaxed?

[Rawhide]

We are not about to dump all the vs. threads into the SMBG. At most we will prohibit vs. threads entirely, but this is something that we do not want to do and is to be considered an absolute last resort.

It is true that some of the vs. threads created should exist in the Silly Message Board Games forum (which is a bit of a misnomer, because there are many games that are far from silly), but certainly not all of them. Media Discussions is about discussing media, and while you are certainly welcome to enjoy doing so (why else would you want to participate?), threads that are games or 'just for fun' shouldn't go there. We are enforcing it more readily because it is having a detrimental impact on others who use the same forum.

[Fan]

We are not about to dump all the vs. threads into the SMBG. At most we will prohibit vs. threads entirely, but this is something that we do not want to do and is to be considered an absolute last resort.

It is true that some of the vs. threads created should exist in the Silly Message Board Games forum (which is a bit of a misnomer, because there are many games that are far from silly), *snip*.
I myself am guilty of running a game that actually caused like three of my players to go insane in the SMBG.(IC that is.)

[snoopy13a]

Why have any versuses threads at all?

Most seem to be comparing apples vs. oranges. I'd consider the classic Starfleet vs. Empire to be in that category as different explanations for weaponry, faster-then-light travel, basically everything makes a comparison extremely difficult. I see how joke versus threads are not tolerated as they were abused so I understand why a Ditka vs. God thread isn't allowed (BTW it is a trick question as Ditka=God).

Also, would an unpopular versus thread be allowed? For example, suppose I compared a baseball player who has a great batting average and power but no defence (like David Ortiz) versus a player with great batting average and defence but no power (like Joe Mauer). While this would theorectically be appopriate, it probably wouldn't be a popular topic (sports doesn't seem to be a popular topic here).

[Rawhide]

Also, would an unpopular versus thread be allowed? For example, suppose I compared a baseball player who has a great batting average and power but no defence (like David Ortiz) versus a player with great batting average and defence but no power (like Joe Mauer). While this would theorectically be appopriate, it probably wouldn't be a popular topic (sports doesn't seem to be a popular topic here).

Not in Media Discussions, the forum you would be looking for would be Gaming (Other Games). However I would hope the thread creator would make it a discussion about who is the better baseball player rather than calling it 'vs.'.

[chiasaur11]

Not in Media Discussions, the forum you would be looking for would be Gaming (Other Games). However I would hope the thread creator would make it a discussion about who is the better baseball player rather than calling it 'vs.'.

Because few of us like watching real people beat each other senseless with baseball bats.

[Rawhide]

Because few of us like watching real people beat each other senseless with baseball bats.

Oh, as an actual fight? Yeah, that might not belong in either of those...

[Fan]

though it would be rather comical.
Meh, I support whatever the mods decide to do.
Its not like I can change what they have decided anyway.

[Admiral_Kelly]

We are enforcing it more readily because it is having a detrimental impact on others who use the same forum.Excuse me, but how the does this affect them? These people sound like a bunch of surely sirs who need to stop worrying about this kind of stuff. Why should they really care when you get down to it?

[Jibar]

We care because we don't want to have to go a couple pages in to find all the dicussion that we actually value.
And that happened. Vs Threads were at one point just pushing everything out of the Media front page and so nobody visited. Nobody tried posting proper threads. It was for all intents and purposes the Vs Thread forum.
Some of us like the discussion of books and films and TV that goes on in there, and when we can't get any of that because somebody is once again stating that Link is truly unbeatable we're understandably miffed.
I don't like Vs Threads. Most of those posted have a clear victor from the start and the whole thread is an excersise in futility. The threads that actually have a clear challange between two characters end up as popularity contests and can end divuldging into bitter arguments.
However, I also understand that we can't just ship them all off somewhere or ban them totally. What we have currently is a good compromise. They get their Vs Threads while the rest of us get Media back.

[Anteros]

I don't understand people pretending like the VS threads are filling up all their time or space, or are some onerous burden to them. If you don't enjoy a thread, just don't read it. It takes your eyes about a milisecond to skim past it on the page. Heck, locking them doesn't even remove them from the list. So effectively it achieves nothing at all except to tweak the noses of the people posting in said thread. I understand you don't want your forums full of junk, but pretending that these vs threads are some huge burden is simply laughable.

[NerfTW]

I don't understand people pretending like the VS threads are filling up all their time or space, or are some onerous burden to them. If you don't enjoy a thread, just don't read it. It takes your eyes about a milisecond to skim past it on the page. Heck, locking them doesn't even remove them from the list. So effectively it achieves nothing at all except to tweak the noses of the people posting in said thread. I understand you don't want your forums full of junk, but pretending that these vs threads are some huge burden is simply laughable.

It wasn't a matter of simply skipping them, though. Before the rule was instated, it was a massive WALL of VS threads, making any thread with an actual discussion next to impossible to find. Someone would make a silly VS matchup, and every "me too!" poster would make thier own silly VS matchup, until you had to carefully pick through the topics to find one that wasn't essentially spam.

The same thing happened with fan clubs. One person made one, and soon there was nothing but "so and so's fanclub" topics consisting of posts saying "signed!".

[Selrahc]

We are enforcing it more readily because it is having a detrimental impact on others who use the same forum.

How so? I understand some people don't like versus threads, but I don't really see the detriment to others. I mean over the last few months you've not had more than 5 or 6 versus threads on the front page. And that shouldn't make anything hard to find.



It wasn't a matter of simply skipping them, though. Before the rule was instated, it was a massive WALL of VS threads, making any thread with an actual discussion next to impossible to find. Someone would make a silly VS matchup, and every "me too!" poster would make thier own silly VS matchup, until you had to carefully pick through the topics to find one that wasn't essentially spam.

And that isn't happening now, and hasn't been happening for months. So why the crackdown?

[Rawhide]

While your number there is slightly underestimated, don't forget that a) these locks should have been happening and b) without them they quickly grow.

[Emperor Tippy]

I'm sorry but I personally find the moderator policy on vs. thread's to be so much crap.



Talk about books, movies, TV, or music here, safe from the judging eyes of the outside world.

The above is the description of the Media Discussion forum. Vs. threads are talk about books, movies, and TV. So I find all of the mods policies towards them to be disingenuous.

Whether or not most of the community likes them is irrelevant, its where they belong and they don't break any of the rules as a type. Whether or not they fill the forum entirely is irrelevant, it doesn't stop anyone from making any other thread.

They are not games, they are discussions (why they shouldn't be dumped in SMBG). And they are discussions about allowed topics of discussion on these forums.

I might find Spongbob vs. Sauron to be outrageously stupid (in fact I do), but that doesn't mean it should be locked. The only thing that you can get vs. threads for is spam (under the pointless topics category). And if that is what they are classified as, why hasn't anyone been banned over them (spamming being an instant ban)?

EDIT: The ones that are actually spam, ban the OP. Or perhaps a nice infraction.

[Rawhide]

First, lets not forget that there are two different kinds of spam. Advertising spam, usually propagated by robots, and otherwise unwelcome/unwanted spam, such as 'spammy' posts with no content, completely off-topic, etc.

Advertising spam robots get an instant ban, someone making a 'spammy' post doesn't.



Now, at least on these forums, as soon as you post a thread with 'vs' in the title, you are immediately eliciting a certain type of response, one of taking a certain character or characters and battling them against another. It's a peer-judged game of who can come up with the best argument. They even require rules and conditions.

There have been a few threads with 'vs' in the title that have had good discussions and are not the same as other 'vs' threads. There was one where someone asked which of two video games people prefered and for what reason, it immediately got a whole heap of replies the original poster didn't want simply because it was titled as if it was a 'vs' thread (it was also in the wrong forum), there was another that seemingly pit two characters not only from the same universe who had indeed met each other, but had fought each other in mortal combat. It too was not your traditional GitP 'vs' thread, but was a discussion on why one of the characters was just extremely lucky every time they dueled.

We're trying to weed out those threads that are just jokes/silly or otherwise 'spammy' and/or in the incorrect forum. We also want to reduce the number of unwanted replies caused by the confusion and to foster more real discussion.

[Rawhide]

Ok, so we've been mulling over the situation with vs. threads and have come up with an idea we hope will satisfy everyone.

The main problems are that many vs. threads are not really discussion suited for Media Discussions and most are more of a peer reviewed/judged game of who can be the most convincing as well as a considerable number of them that all seem to appear around the same time, some in the wrong forum. (Woohoo, run-on sentences!)

Our idea is to create a home for vs. threads that will be:

Totally community driven (moderators will only step in if necessary)
Allow people to have serious as well as slightly more humorous match ups
Not take up considerable space in any forum (particuarly ones where they don't belong)


I've spoken to several people with the idea, including the two moderators (Roland and Alarra) of the gaming area (SMGB, Structured Games, The Town) and so far the idea seems to be well received.

The idea is to create either a chairperson or committee which will be voted on at a predetermined interval (suggested: every 3 months).

There will be two main threads (other than the chairperson/committe vote). In one, people will suggest and vote on the next vs match, in the other, the vs match will take place. The current vs match will be rotated to the next chosen match after a period of time (suggested: every week).

Due to the voting required for the organisers and nature of the threads, this would most likely take place in Structured Games. We also feel that Structured Games will allow all forms of vs. matches to take place, from media, through games and from serious through more of a 'just for fun' approach.

[Emperor Tippy]

So we are allowed 1 vs. thread every 3 months? Please, most of the non silly ones end up with a consensus decision inside of 2 weeks.

And since you are willing to term discussions as game's, can you cram all balance discussion's in there as well? They just rehash the same old things time after time, at least vs. threads tend to use new participants.

Why not just create a subforum (like structured games or the town) in media dicussion for vs. threads? Make it so posts in said subforum don't count towards post counts and then say "Post whatever vs. thread you want, however silly, in this subforum.".

Or make it another subforum in SMBG and do the same thing.

[NerfTW]

So we are allowed 1 vs. thread every 3 months? Please, most of the non silly ones end up with a consensus decision inside of 2 weeks.


I think he means the chairperson is replaced every 3 months, not that there's one thread every 3 months.


The current vs match will be rotated to the next chosen match after a period of time (suggested: every week).

[Emperor Tippy]

I think he means the chairperson is replaced every 3 months, not that there's one thread every 3 months.

Oh, that makes more sense.

[Roland St. Jude]

I think the idea is a new vs. thread weekly with the match-up to be chosen by popular vote. The vote would be overseen and tallied by a vs. chairperson who would serve three month terms and themselves be replaced by popular vote.

Creating new subforums for things, which is often suggested and does make some logical sense structurally on many individual occasions: 1) apparently adds more problems with server load or back up or something and 2) doesn't make sense in the aggregate - we can't feasibly give everything it's own subforum. I'm told the fewer subforum the better from a technological standpoint.

[Selrahc]

So... versus threads are getting their own forum or are the technical problems too much hassle.

If it is happening, thanks mods. I would love the idea of somewhere to do all the discussions, including the ones that aren't really "Media" (Historical match ups, or gaming related, or heck, animals).

[Om]

So... versus threads are getting their own forum or are the technical problems too much hassleAs I understand it they'll be getting two threads in the SMBG forum. Correct?

[Roland St. Jude]

As I understand it they'll be getting two threads in the SMBG forum. Correct?

Correct - in the Structured Games section of SMBG. One thread for actually running the versus match-up of the week and one for choosing the next week's match-up by popular demand. Every three months, it'll get a third thread for the purpose of selecting the next quarter's chairperson.

[Rawhide]

Well, vs. threads are definitely not going to get their own forum (sorry people). That's where this idea comes in, it gives them a home, unclutters the forums and allows the people to decide what should and shouldn't be in a match.

[Tirian]

I'm delighted to hear about this decision. I have long felt that these "debates" were suitable for being structured as a game which would be more about making convincing arguments than simply outlasting anyone who disagreed with you. Kudos to Roland and Alarra for seeing the notion as more than simply a chance to "dump the forum's garbage" on SMBG.

The pacing of the game seems a little slow, though. I don't think it takes anywhere near a week to explore all of the nooks and crannies of even a well-balanced fight. And if all vs. threads in the Playground have to stand in line now, it seems only just that the pace be picked up over what we're seeing "in the wild". It sounds like something that the mods will be able to control from the ground, but still I'd suggest starting with three days and tweaking it from there.

[Emperor Tippy]

Meh, if we are voting on them then I almost guarantee that about 80% of the vs. threads will never get made. God fights are out, the outrageously stupid ones are out, and the impossible to decide ones are out. Remove all of those and we really end up with only 1-2 vs. threads a week.

And they have mostly tapered off, most of the actual debatable and interesting ones have already been done.

[Om]

Meh, if we are voting on them then I almost guarantee that about 80% of the vs. threads will never get made. God fights are out, the outrageously stupid ones are out, and the impossible to decide ones are outFrom what has been said in this thread those 'debates' are now going to be locked anyway. Removing these pointless threads allows for a healthy compromise - the Media Discussion forum is 'liberated' while those who enjoy versus discussions will have a more conductive forum* in which to indulge

*"Forum" in the non-technical/internet sense

[Shhalahr Windrider]

I don't see how the "impossible to decide" ones are necessarily useless. Seems that kind of thing makes a good thought exercise and get you thinking about certain characters in ways you've missed before. Seems to me to be a shame that the point always has to be about making some conclusive agreement.

Have there really been no versus threads where that was the case?

[Lord Herman]

I think the weekly vs. discussion as a structured game is a brilliant idea. It both keeps the Media forum free of pointless vs. threads, and it doesn't clutter the SMBG/Structured Games forum so much since it's only one thread per week, and the really pointless ones will be voted down anyway.

[Artemician]

I don't see how the "impossible to decide" ones are necessarily useless. Seems that kind of thing makes a good thought exercise and get you thinking about certain characters in ways you've missed before. Seems to me to be a shame that the point always has to be about making some conclusive agreement.

This.

Most of the fun I ever had in these threads was from threads that weren't resolved eventually. WH40K vs Discworld, Sauron vs Lich King, etc.

The thing about stuff that are easily resolved is that it means that there isn't much room to debate in the first place; that's why it's easy to resolve. You'll never see Debate societies set topics that have conclusions immediately evident.

[Dallas-Dakota]

I think the weekly vs. discussion as a structured game is a brilliant idea. It both keeps the Media forum free of pointless vs. threads, and it doesn't clutter the SMBG/Structured Games forum so much since it's only one thread per week, and the really pointless ones will be voted down anyway.
Just a stickied discussion thread. Which go's on for a week. Then there will be decided what to discuss(also giving people time to prepare arguments) and then for two weeks the actual argument?

[Lord Herman]

I don't see why it should be stickied. None of the other games' discussion threads get stickied.

[Dallas-Dakota]

I don't see why it should be stickied. None of the other games' discussion threads get stickied.
Because its one thing, to be used forever and ever and ever......

Instead of new threads popping up every 1/2 weeks.

And it'd less confuse new people if they see one stickied thread about it, rather then multiple ones going around(created by various users). And less chance of mistakes made.

Dunno, was just a suggestion.

[Griever]

Of all the areas, I think Structured Games would probably be the best. It is free from the constant posting of the general SMBG area as it is mostly filled with WW games. And seeing as the current games only take up about half the page, adding two threads would barely be noticeable.

[GoC]

When is this idea going to be implemented?
I've got a few ideas for vs. threads and don't want to anger the mods with a media discussion thread.

[Om]

When is this idea going to be implemented?Ditto. Has there been an official announcement or similar yet?

[Selrahc]

No, I don't have a timeline. But soon-ish.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=90997 is the closest to an official announcement.

[Atreyu the Masked LLama]

What??? We're having new guests over? Gah!! I gotta start cleaning.

Shadow, update Werewolf Central! Alarra, go dust the threads. Lord Herman, make sure your contests are in alphabetical order. We want everything to look nice for the newcomers.

[Stormthorn]

You see, this is exactly the attitude we want to curtail. A vs. thread is not something to 'have' and people should not be making them because they want to have their own. This results in very silly, poorly thought out and/or otherwise unwanted vs. threads.

I think 90% of any threads on a forum like this were created just for the heck of it. Do we really need the (insert topic or minority here) thread XIV? No. But why do we get rid of Versus and not the entire General and Silly boards?

[Roland St. Jude]

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=90997 is the closest to an official announcement.

I am putting the finishing touches on the language for the Chairperson selection thread first post and Ideas thread first post. So, still soonish. :smallwink: I'll post here when they go up.

[Rawhide]

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=90997 is the closest to an official announcement.

Selrahc, I'm pretty sure that it wasn't me that said that :smallwink:.

[Griever]

Selrahc, I'm pretty sure that it wasn't me that said that :smallwink:.

Rawhide: The Power Behind St. Jude!

[Selrahc]

Selrahc, I'm pretty sure that it wasn't me that said that :smallwink:.


Sorry :smallredface:

[Rawhide]

Rawhide: The Power Behind St. Jude!

Roland Roland Roland Rawhide! (http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=2LEY9E_W5sw&feature=related)

[Stormthorn]

Roland Roland Roland Rawhide! (http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=2LEY9E_W5sw&feature=related)


For the first time ever in my life a mod has made my day a happier one. Perhaps...perhaps they arnt all evil.

[chiasaur11]

For the first time ever in my life a mod has made my day a happier one. Perhaps...perhaps they arnt all evil.

Nah.

They're lawful good. If maybe a little we bit {{scrubbed}}.

I remember one time {{scrubbed}}

And we never did find the moose afterwords.