Inconsequencial Threads

[Emil Miller]

I have nothing against the General Chat Forum as a bit of fun, but would it not be possible for the web site owners to divide the "fun" site from a genuine non-literary site for those members who have no interests in what others are wearing, thinking, doing etc etc, but who are concerned with genuinely interesting matters outside of literature that concern us all.
There have been two recent threads that, outside of the "What are you eating, thinking, dreaming" type of thread, generated a genuine response from some forum members; one of which was closed because of disagreement over the seriousness of input from one contributor that led to an argument. And another that simply sank beneath a wave of "Please help me to increase my posts to....whatever. If, however, we could hive off the genuine questions on another forum, then the addicts of the inconsequencial could be accomodated with those who are concerned with genuinely interesting questions. ,

[LostPrincess13]

An interesting point Mr. Bean. It would make the forum more organized.:)

[The Comedian]

Hey Brian,

I don't mean this in a sarcastic way, honestly, but why don't you start some more consequential threads in the general chat forum? I'd happily participate in them. And, I'm with you, that I'd like to see some more meaty subjects there. Of course, I like the flippant ones too, but there is, as you note, an abundance of those, and few threads whose consequences are outside of mirth.

[Emil Miller]

Hey Brian,

I don't mean this in a sarcastic way, honestly, but why don't you start some more consequential threads in the general chat forum? I'd happily participate in them. And, I'm with you, that I'd like to see some more meaty subjects there. Of course, I like the flippant ones too, but there is, as you note, an abundance of those, and few threads whose consequences are outside of mirth.

If you go into my profile page and click on statistics you will see that I have posted some threads on the General Forum, but unfortunately some of them sank pretty rapidly beneath the sea of trivia that seems to be the its raison d'etre. Yesterday, someone revived the thread on The Global Economic Crisis but already it is sinking fast. The fact that this thread has been relegated to an obscure site shows that even the moderators are on the side of the purveyors of pointlessness.

[Scheherazade]

Brian,

Every discussion, after reaching a certain point, dies out as the participators run out of things to contribute. So, we cannot expect such topical discussion to carry on for months. You can, of course, always revive any threads you are interested in or start new ones (and ignore the ones that fail to pique your interest).

While doing so, however, I will urge you not to use inflammatory language towards those who do not share your interests or who do not come to the Forum for the same reasons as you do.

Moderators of this site do not take any sides. They do not promote or favour certain types of threads over others. They are all very hard working and dedicated people who only aim to create a welcoming atmospher for all our members and respect their needs and wishes.

[wessexgirl]

Er, that's inconsequential, with a 't' :).

[Admin]

If you want to advocate more participation in a thread, try linking to that thread in your signature. Others do it.

[Emil Miller]

Er, that's inconsequential, with a 't' :).

You are right of course. Nice to know you are keeping an eye on things.


If you want to advocate more participation in a thread, try linking to that thread in your signature. Others do it.

Do you mean carry on the discussion via visitors messages or is there some other way to continue a thread?

[Scheherazade]

Do you mean carry on the discussion via visitors messages or is there some other way to continue a thread?What Admin means that if you put a link in your signature for the threads you would like to promote, then more members might become aware of them and post.

[Logos]

.... The fact that this thread has been relegated to an obscure site shows that even the moderators are on the side of the purveyors of pointlessness. Just by this comment alone I think you're not quite understanding how the discussion forums here work--how they're laid out and organised. This thread in which you address the "web site owners" was not moved to a "site" it was moved to a forum that is dedicated to site issues; it makes it easy to find for those who can best answer your questions if it is put here.

Just like the General Chat forum is there for anyone and everyone to post "fluff". Your idea of "fluff" or "inconsequence" might differ from someone else's. Scher gave you some good advice on how to keep discussions you like going on but if everybody else doesn't participate then there's not much you can do about it.

[Emil Miller]

Just by this comment alone I think you're not quite understanding how the discussion forums here work--how they're laid out and organised. This thread in which you address the "web site owners" was not moved to a "site" it was moved to a forum that is dedicated to site issues; it makes it easy to find for those who can best answer your questions if it is put here.

Just like the General Chat forum is there for anyone and everyone to post "fluff". Your idea of "fluff" or "inconsequence" might differ from someone else's. Scher gave you some good advice on how to keep discussions you like going on but if everybody else doesn't participate then there's not much you can do about it.


Whenl I looked for a heading of the site and it just said ... General > The Literature Network. There didn't appear to be any indication that it had been moved to a specific forum dedicated to site issues.

With regard to the General Chat Forum, it is worth mentioning that threads such as "We didn't go to the Moon" which require some thinking about will tend to get pushed off the page because the replies to "what are you eating, thinking, drinking, wearing etc" require minimum concentation and are consequently much more numerous. As one of the contributors to this topic has said, there is an imbalance between the two types of thread. That is why the my thread poses the question whether it wouldn't be a better idea to have a seperate forum to accomodate discussion of a more serious nature.

[Zee.]

I agree with Brian and think it's actually a very good idea. However, isn't that kind of what the games forum is for? or no?

Actually, i retract what i said. The "what are you.. " threads should all belong in the games forum, in my personal opinion. And general chat should be more open to more serious discussions. THAT being said, nothing is stopping anyone, myself included, from posting any thread whether it be serious or complete fluff. If it remains "within the company" of fluffy threads, well, what does it matter? it doesn't. Until more serious threads are created, this shouldn't be an issue.

[jon1jt]

I agree with Brian Bean, totally. But that creates more work for the workers, and I'm not going to say a word more. :D

[Admin]

I tell you what, with like 300k posts, General Chat could use more subforums, so here you go:

http://www.online-literature.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=8591

[Emil Miller]

I tell you what, with like 300k posts, General Chat could use more subforums, so here you go:

http://www.online-literature.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=8591

Thank you for reorganising the forum set up along more rational lines. Now there is a place for everyone.

[crisaor]

Priceless, Admin. Thank you. :lol: