Best Ever Albums

Re: Auto-locking/archiving old threads

albummaster — Tue, 27 Mar 2012 12:25:43 GMT

Author: albummaster

Posted: 03/27/2012 16:25

Vote will take place on this thread:
http://www.besteveralbums.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=3588&highlight=

Re: Auto-locking/archiving old threads

Anonymous — Tue, 27 Mar 2012 12:18:19 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 03/27/2012 16:18

sorry 😜

Re: Auto-locking/archiving old threads

albummaster — Tue, 27 Mar 2012 12:02:51 GMT

Author: albummaster

Posted: 03/27/2012 16:02

Jhereko wrote:

FWIW, I voted 'yes' last time as well. Maybe a new vote is a good idea, since things have changed since the poll was created. If the results of that vote are the same as this one, then an auto-archive will happen (set at 18 months). Unfortunately, I'll have to create *another* new thread to do this!

Re: Auto-locking/archiving old threads

Anonymous — Tue, 27 Mar 2012 11:53:31 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 03/27/2012 15:53

albummaster wrote:

Now, I think the issue with duplicate topics which this overlaps with, has now been sorted with similar topics now shown when a thread is created. Therefore, in theory, there should be less of a need to archive old topics if these are being re-used and kept active by new posters, so I see less of a need to change things now (I stand to be corrected if anyone disagrees).

I can see that point but I guess I personally never had a problem with users creating new threads for things (unless the thread that's being rehashed is fairly recent). But I don't like old threads being rehashed because I think it clutters and confuses the forums. And clearly considering how many people voted 'yes' they think that old threads should be locked - I'm not the only one who thinks it should happen.

However given the new rule (which to be honest has seemed to have had it's fair share of problems) and new opinion perhaps a new vote should be taken where everyone (including the slew of members we've gotten since this vote) takes all this into consideration?

Re: Auto-locking/archiving old threads

RFNAPLES — Tue, 27 Mar 2012 11:48:57 GMT

Author: RFNAPLES

Posted: 03/27/2012 15:48

Jhereko wrote:

ahahahahaha

this isn't the US congress. Democracy actually works here.

What you're proposing is for the decision to go in favour of the minority? (who have 7 votes less) dats crazy 😲 :shock:

The US congress and parliamentary procedure require a quorum. Even in a democracy where the mob rules (if unchecked by the constitution, bylaws, rules of order, etc.), 11 votes would not cut it. Would work OK in totalitarian system but then who needs a vote?

Re: Auto-locking/archiving old threads

RFNAPLES — Tue, 27 Mar 2012 11:42:17 GMT

Author: RFNAPLES

Posted: 03/27/2012 15:42

Agree

Re: Auto-locking/archiving old threads

Facetious — Tue, 27 Mar 2012 11:42:04 GMT

Author: Facetious

Posted: 03/27/2012 15:42

albummaster wrote:

Hey, did I ever tell you that you're awesome?

Re: Auto-locking/archiving old threads

albummaster — Tue, 27 Mar 2012 11:40:41 GMT

Author: albummaster

Posted: 03/27/2012 15:40

Jhereko wrote:

So is this a go? :D

I've been back through this thread, and the other one that this thread spawned from, and the comment that sums things up for me came from Mr. Shankly:

Mr. Shankly wrote:

Either new members make new threads, which might repeat past topics, or new users add to old threads? Which is it gonna be? Or do we just keep it how it is?"

Re: Auto-locking/archiving old threads

Facetious — Tue, 27 Mar 2012 11:24:58 GMT

Author: Facetious

Posted: 03/27/2012 15:24

Shouldn't be. Bad idea.

Re: Auto-locking/archiving old threads

Anonymous — Tue, 27 Mar 2012 10:44:09 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 03/27/2012 14:44

ahahahahaha

this isn't the US congress. Democracy actually works here.

What you're proposing is for the decision to go in favour of the minority? (who have 7 votes less) dats crazy 😲 😲

Re: Auto-locking/archiving old threads

RFNAPLES — Tue, 27 Mar 2012 10:35:32 GMT

Author: RFNAPLES

Posted: 03/27/2012 14:35

No, since only 11 members want it, a far cry from a majority.

Re: Auto-locking/archiving old threads

Anonymous — Tue, 27 Mar 2012 10:23:00 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 03/27/2012 14:23

So is this a go? 😁

Re: Auto-locking/archiving old threads

albummaster — Tue, 7 Feb 2012 00:13:47 GMT

Author: albummaster

Posted: 02/07/2012 05:13

The forum re-organisation combined with this proposal are just two things that needs to happen to make the site more usable as it grows bigger. There are also a hell of a lot of other changes to do as well.

To be honest, I don't even think this is the biggest issue on BEA right now, but nothing will happen if the vast majority of people don't want it.

Re: Auto-locking/archiving old threads

Fergenaprido — Mon, 6 Feb 2012 17:19:25 GMT

Author: Fergenaprido

Posted: 02/06/2012 22:19

I support the idea of archiving in the sense that it removes clutter from the forums. Since you will still be able to access, open, quote, and general see them, I don't see it as a form of censorship.

Perhaps a better solution would be the sub-forum idea that has already been floated, but I'm not sure of the best implementation.

As much as we may wish it was, this is not a democracy, and albummaster, as site founder & owner, does have the final say. I believe that he does consult us on a large number of changes, as ultimately if we don't like them, we'll leave, but he still has the final say.

Re: Auto-locking/archiving old threads

GARY — Mon, 6 Feb 2012 16:40:56 GMT

Author: GARY

Posted: 02/06/2012 21:40

Jhereko wrote:

Loveless, you should know that that is some of the most effective and simultaneously most reasonable arguing I've seen on this forum. I salute and thank you.

There is one born every minute 🙄

Link

Re: Auto-locking/archiving old threads

Anonymous — Mon, 6 Feb 2012 16:36:18 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 02/06/2012 21:36

Loveless, you should know that that is some of the most effective and simultaneously most reasonable arguing I've seen on this forum. I salute and thank you.

Re: Auto-locking/archiving old threads

GARY — Mon, 6 Feb 2012 16:15:58 GMT

Author: GARY

Posted: 02/06/2012 21:15

19loveless91 wrote:

RFNAPLES wrote:

19loveless91 wrote:

4. Politics & Religion section IMO turned out to be to be a good move, because those kind of discussions are completely different to what is being discussed in Lounge. Not censored, just separated.

Quote:

1. It is mob rule, to hell with the minority and the silent majority.

I'm taking it that you don't like democracy much? Any better ideas for a political system?

Keep studying loveless, obviously you need it.

You might even learn facts like

Democracy = Mob rule

America is a constitutional republic, for example.

And, NO CHEWING GUM IN CLASS 🤬

O.k. dismissed 😁

.

Re: Auto-locking/archiving old threads

RFNAPLES — Mon, 6 Feb 2012 14:12:09 GMT

Author: RFNAPLES

Posted: 02/06/2012 19:12

LOL and LAY

Re: Auto-locking/archiving old threads

19loveless91 — Mon, 6 Feb 2012 14:08:34 GMT

Author: 19loveless91

Posted: 02/06/2012 19:08

I feel like I'm feeding a troll + I have to study, but whatever...

1) Which minority's rights are being violated again? The anarchists and conspiracy theorists'?
2) Again... You will still be able to see them.. That's what archives are for you know...
3) Isn't it ridiculous to argue with dead?
4) So you'd like to have everything in one big giant clusterfuck... Fine, have you checked /b/ already? I bet you'd love it.

Re: Auto-locking/archiving old threads

RFNAPLES — Mon, 6 Feb 2012 14:01:53 GMT

Author: RFNAPLES

Posted: 02/06/2012 19:01

19loveless91 wrote:

RFNAPLES wrote:

19loveless91 wrote:

1. We're having a vote on it, so it's not "dictatorship"
2. Archiving means you'll still be able to see it, but not contribute to it by adding new posts.
3. The intent behind it is completely different than what you describe it. The threads will be closed because no one had commented on them in 18 months - if people still want to discuss the topic, they can by opening a new thread. So it's not "inconvenient to the general body" and it's not being done to influence your thoughts (which is what the point of censorship is)
4. Politics & Religion section IMO turned out to be to be a good move, because those kind of discussions are completely different to what is being discussed in Lounge. Not censored, just separated.

Quote:

1. It is mob rule, to hell with the minority and the silent majority.

I'm taking it that you don't like democracy much? Any better ideas for a political system?
In a democracy, republic or parliament the rights of the minority are protected by the bylaws, standing rules, and a quorum.

Quote:

2. Archiving: Out of sight, out of mind.

Those threads are already out of sight, the difference is that they're being put in another section (archived section)
Further hidden and marked not worthy and unable to be opened.

Quote:

3. Why be forced to rediscover the wheel? Why is starting over, repeating the same arguments, better?

They rediscover it either way, they're new members, they'll have something new to say. People who contribute to the archived threads will likely be gone from the forums, so why bring those threads up, no reason to discuss the subject with them
So the thoughts of the dead are no longer important? Why study history?

Quote:

4. The ghettos are great, the bourgeois are not inconvenienced and forced to use self-control.

Removing those topics from Lounge makes as much sense as separating the Music and Lounge forums.
Which made no sense then or now!