superrific
Iconic Member
- Messages
- 1,015
Maybe each poster can have one catch-all thread for topics that aren't particularly timely, but they want to discuss. I'm fearing that there's a big thread explosion waiting to happen. Yes, I know, I'm creating a thread to talk about fewer threads, but bear with me.
1. For instance, I created a "super's legal discussion thread." It's by no means only for me, but it's a place to discuss various legal topics in some depth. For instance, that might be a place to discuss the Supreme Court's odd ruling in the recent shadow docket case about Biden's Title IX gender equality rule. Has the court overturned Bostock? It's potentially interesting but not quite the same impact as, say, whether Project 47 can actually destroy the US civil service by executive order.
That wouldn't preclude me from starting another thread on a particularly timely legal topic -- if, for instance, the Supreme Court were to issue a very bad voting rights decision in a way that would f with the election. Or if there are particular important cases of general interest (e.g. Dobbs, Bruen, Loper Bright that overturned Chevron), I would start the thread if nobody else has. But I don't the board would want separate threads from me on each legal topic that might be of interest.
2. So maybe don bosco could have a thread for his stories. CF can have a thread for celebrity gossip and discussion about what he had for lunch or dinner. I think one collective music thread would be enough. Maybe a couple of them to account for different genres (nobody wants to hear my take on country or bluegrass, and few posters would care about the rise and fall of death metal). Plenty of other examples. I'm not going to try to be board police about this. It's just an idea.
3. One thing that I didn't like about the old ZZL was the way that high-response threads would push down lower-response threads. And my high response, I don't mean "popular" -- I mean the threads that by design invite lots and lots of short posts, like the "type the first word," threads. My sense was that those threads weren't necessarily more popular than others; it's just that participating in the thread required 20 posts in the time one might take for one post on another thread. In this way, the more mindless threads would stay pinned near the top, which is sort of perverse. Not all threads have to be highly intellectual, but I don't know if we want a structural bias in favor of threads that aren't timely or of general interest.
Just my thoughts.
1. For instance, I created a "super's legal discussion thread." It's by no means only for me, but it's a place to discuss various legal topics in some depth. For instance, that might be a place to discuss the Supreme Court's odd ruling in the recent shadow docket case about Biden's Title IX gender equality rule. Has the court overturned Bostock? It's potentially interesting but not quite the same impact as, say, whether Project 47 can actually destroy the US civil service by executive order.
That wouldn't preclude me from starting another thread on a particularly timely legal topic -- if, for instance, the Supreme Court were to issue a very bad voting rights decision in a way that would f with the election. Or if there are particular important cases of general interest (e.g. Dobbs, Bruen, Loper Bright that overturned Chevron), I would start the thread if nobody else has. But I don't the board would want separate threads from me on each legal topic that might be of interest.
2. So maybe don bosco could have a thread for his stories. CF can have a thread for celebrity gossip and discussion about what he had for lunch or dinner. I think one collective music thread would be enough. Maybe a couple of them to account for different genres (nobody wants to hear my take on country or bluegrass, and few posters would care about the rise and fall of death metal). Plenty of other examples. I'm not going to try to be board police about this. It's just an idea.
3. One thing that I didn't like about the old ZZL was the way that high-response threads would push down lower-response threads. And my high response, I don't mean "popular" -- I mean the threads that by design invite lots and lots of short posts, like the "type the first word," threads. My sense was that those threads weren't necessarily more popular than others; it's just that participating in the thread required 20 posts in the time one might take for one post on another thread. In this way, the more mindless threads would stay pinned near the top, which is sort of perverse. Not all threads have to be highly intellectual, but I don't know if we want a structural bias in favor of threads that aren't timely or of general interest.
Just my thoughts.
I'm just glad to have you on board (or is it, "on this board"?), my brother.