EN World Two potential site upgrades

[Theo R Cwithin]

I'm neutral on threading. Personally I like it, but not being available for some platforms seems a problem.

Blocking can be a nice feature (though I personally can't imagine needing it here), so I support adding that one.
.

 

[Umbran]

As for blocking, as long as it is simply a shield then I see no issue with it.

I am not sure what "simply a shield" means, in board function terms.

As noted, it would not mean people would not be able to see or participate in threads, nor would they get kicked out of threads.

With the current Ignore function, if I want to ignore you, I don't see your posts. But you can still see mine, and respond to them.

This full Block, as I understand it, is two-way. If I want to Block you, I don't see your posts, and you don't see mine. So, you cannot directly respond to my posts, as you can't see them.

...and often as a means to get in the final word...

Well, we cannot control when a person will choose to initiate a block. "Argue...argue... argue. Here's my last point and you are a stinky-head. And now I will block you." would still be possible. Of course, now the blocked person wouldn't see the final declaration, which probably removes some of the point of posting like this.

I think we would keep the policy against publicly announcing blocking.

 

[SkidAce]

Personal Views:

1) No on threading.

2) No on blocking.

 

[Morrus]

So the bear-universal response is generally negative on the threaded posts, and nearly fully positive on the blocks. Thanks for the input guys!

 

[Blue]

Wow, I'm the one different view on threading. We, as a forum, tend to ... wander off topic. If a few active posters get involved in a vigorous and interesting debate over one facet of what's going on, it can take over a non-threaded discussion while in a threaded discussion those interested can follow it while the others can skip past it.

Last month I replied directly after reading the start of a thread (something I occasionally do so my thoughts are not swayed by what has been discussed), and a response I got back was along the lines of "I was about to call you out for going off topic, but then I went back to read what the thread was about." Basically the thread had wandered far from it's original source with a couple of people debating it can completely stolen the thread. It was still an interesting thread, just one only tangentially related to what the OP had posted.

 

[Deset Gled]

Wow, I'm the one different view on threading. We, as a forum, tend to ... wander off topic. If a few active posters get involved in a vigorous and interesting debate over one facet of what's going on, it can take over a non-threaded discussion while in a threaded discussion those interested can follow it while the others can skip past it.

Last month I replied directly after reading the start of a thread (something I occasionally do so my thoughts are not swayed by what has been discussed), and a response I got back was along the lines of "I was about to call you out for going off topic, but then I went back to read what the thread was about." Basically the thread had wandered far from it's original source with a couple of people debating it can completely stolen the thread. It was still an interesting thread, just one only tangentially related to what the OP had posted.

IMNSHO, the problem with threading is that it actually encourages the type of off-topic behavior you describe, by making it more socially acceptable to threadjack. That being said, I'm not entirely against threaded discussions. Many message boards I used in the 90s were set up that way, and it worked fine. Threading seemed to die off in popularity around 15 years ago (I guess I'm old), and has been making a bit of a comeback.

At one point in history, there was a feature on ENWorld to "fork" a thread. There was a button that you could click to essentially reply, but do so in a new thread and modify the title. I like that as sort of compromise option; let conversations wander into new threads, but keep the original topic intact. I would really like it if that option were technically feasible.

 

[Blue]

IMNSHO, the problem with threading is that it actually encourages the type of off-topic behavior you describe, by making it more socially acceptable to threadjack. That being said, I'm not entirely against threaded discussions. Many message boards I used in the 90s were set up that way, and it worked fine. Threading seemed to die off in popularity around 15 years ago (I guess I'm old), and has been making a bit of a comeback.

We are past that point - we already have a culture where threadjacking happens. Or at least large debates that are only about some facet of the point. Threaded reading would at least minimize the damage.

But it's a moot point - there's a strong anti-threading feel and I won't buck it. Just wanted to get my dissenting opinion in.

 

[Eyes of Nine]

I have never really been in a community that uses sub-threads. I'd be interested in seeing how it works. Can you enable it on some sub-forums but not others? Maybe there's a way to test into it? Or perhaps your provider can give you some examples of other forums that do use it so we could see how it works?

Blocking, I have no opinion.

 

[CapnZapp]

1) Please no. Not doing it like Reddit or Facebook's comments plugin is a strength. Proper forum discussion pretty much dies away when discussions branch away; it becomes too hard to stay on topic.

(While I'm writing this on the app, I can understand that you can't be held back by Tapatalk. I'm just happy you'll find some other feature to break app compatibility for)

2) No opinion. That the first post thing doesn't block the entire thread is good though. It was very strange how on one hand the site tells you you don't own a thread, but on the other hand effectively let you as the OP remove other posters from "your" thread, simply because you were the first to post. You could spite-block people. Which, I guess, could be useful to throw people out when they derailed the topic... But no, giving just one guy that power was... not good.

So go ahead and make blocking stronger; but I'm glad that old behavior isn't getting back, there was nothing good about the way poster A could block poster B from seeing poster C's content.

 

[CapnZapp]

We are past that point - we already have a culture where threadjacking happens. Or at least large debates that are only about some facet of the point. Threaded reading would at least minimize the damage.

But it's a moot point - there's a strong anti-threading feel and I won't buck it. Just wanted to get my dissenting opinion in.

About the only constructive way to implement this would be if there was a way to truly fork a thread. As in creating a new second thread.

(Not saying I suggest this or even that it's possible)