Reiraku
-
Posts
1334 -
Joined
-
Quote:I would, but I've lost a lot of my image programs since I rebuilt my system. If anyone wants to do so for me though, I wouldn't be opposed to the idea.Originally Posted by sidney_b
You should really change the background for your avatar. You no longer blend seamlessly into the environment, which is a bad thing for a γγδΈ. -
Quote:Originally Posted by sidney_b
We can't! We don't want to piss off my dear friend Rei, and besides, I need to make 476 more posts here for 8,000!
-
Probably because Tankers, as a whole, are doing quite well, and of all the possible improvements to them, damage is probably pretty low on the list.
-
Quote:Dig, yes. It's the amount of digging needed that I'm talking about. Adding another page or two or three to a search is what I don't care for. Due to the nature of Rookery threads against other threads, it isn't uncommon to see more of them the further back you go. Were they not there, that would be less time spent looking for another thread.Originally Posted by DJ_Shecky
That is the thing though, if you have a thread that is likely to get bumped out then you still would have to favorite it or dig.
If as Mod8 said, we have more threads per day, you would still have to go digging for it.
The fact is that people are not posting as often or as much right now so you see the last x days rook threads sitting there. Of course I can scroll down and see Tuesday's thread, but it hasn't had a response in a couple of days so it is way down.
This has all happened before, and it will again.
As I said in regards to the sub-sub forum idea, it could be one more click, but that one more click is what could stave off interest. -
Quote:In the aforementioned classic, it was just the President. President Ronnie.Originally Posted by BreakneckBecky
I suspect it's because deep down they know they're not bad enough to save the president daughter.
Now let's go grab a burger. -
Quote:Unfortunately, that's the case many of times. As opposed to bookmarking/favoring a thread that could possibly be useful/linked to in the future, I tend to remember the sub-forum it was listed in and go from there. In the case of other sections of the forums (Comic Culture, PvP boards, etc) it really isn't a problem. At least, not as much as it has been within the Virtue sub-section.Originally Posted by BreakneckBecky
I do understand where you're coming from, but in general if you're having to go past multiple rookery threads to get to the thread you were looking for, it's been dead for a couple of days at the least. Of course there's adding a thread to your favorites, but that only works for one you know you'll be looking for and not spur of the moment "where did I see that" situations.
I had two different story threads here that I tried to update regularly. Unfortunately, there isn't much to say short of "bump" posts (which are against the rules to my knowledge, thus I try to avoid them) so they would sink over a period of time. As much as I'd like to keep a thread fresh daily, it wouldn't really be possible to do so. If I didn't have a link to it handily available, I'd have to dig through a number of pages to find it. Same for a number of other threads that I'd read and then try to revisit later. -
Quote:Unlikely at this point. If social groupings worked a bit differently, there could be a Rookery sticky at the top of the Virtue threads with updated links to daily threads in an open social group, but that's still one more hoop to jump through.Originally Posted by BreakneckBecky
An interesting idea nonetheless. It could possibly limit casual visits (downside for the pro-Rookery side) and I'm not sure if the mods/forum admins would even be interested or capable of making such a change.
I honestly don't think that casuals would or should be put off too much by a singular thread. After all, it's not the size that matters. It's how you post it. Still, that's one or two more people that might have posted otherwise. I'd just rather that the alternative didn't come at the cost of having go through that many more threads to find a particular non-Rookery one. -
Quote:I suppose the answer to both of our problems would be to have a sub-sub-forum within Virtue that could house a "Rookery Thread" with subsequent daily threads linked inside.Originally Posted by BreakneckBecky
Indeed, and if the Rookery were a continuing, almost chaptered piece like Soaring Valor (Is it back yet
) instead of a daily check in and overall social club/bar/Fraggle Rock on far too much LSD and Meth then it would make much more sense to centrally locate it in a single thread. Unfortunately the Rookery is almost Sitcomesque in its need to reset...it's not really a place where lasting fiction is left, or if a story is written there it's usually just linked for a more enduring location.
Of course, I'm not sure if that would be as inclusive as is wanted. It might only be one more mouse click, but that can often be enough to stave off interest. -
Quote:I didn't mean to speak for the Rookery as a whole, but rather to list the primary reason given for a daily thread versus a consolidated thread. Listing the reasons in their entirety for both sides would be a rather trying task as people on both sides of the issue don't always agree with one another on why they feel the way they do.Originally Posted by Merry_Mint
You misrepresent the Rookery position. The Rookery uses a daily thread not just for the convenience and organization, but because it's less daunting and more inclusive to newcomers.
-
Quote:Not to contest the content of the threads themselves, but more to the effect that multiple threads can cause. In one example, some of the writers here will put up a new chapter to an ongoing work maybe once a month (sometimes less) in a single thread. When it comes up in discussion in other places, I'll recommend said work to a friend. However, if they are unable to find it and I go to try and provide them a link, then I'd like that experience to be as time consuming as only absolutely necessary. Again, this is just one example.Originally Posted by BreakneckBecky
HI!
Ok, so here's one thing about the Rookery threads...they are indeed fluff, but they are fluff that also involves some in and out of game substance. Inside the Rookery threads we've planned SFs/TFs Teams SGs/VGs the current static team as well as general advice on builds, runs etc...we also use it as a birthday thread, general advice (such as the Dread curse of Pogos poisin ivy a few weeks back, and several different times when those who've had life long insomnia offer advice for those new to not sleeping as examples) all rolled into one place where we meet regularly (in a virtual sense). The reason for a daily Rookery thread is basically to make sur eit's not a 300 page monster and therefore at least a little more welcoming to anyone new who may want to just join in. As for Rookery threads drowning out more useful threads, if the rookery threads are left for dead at the end of the day and new threads are started, they'll fall off the front page...if they're still there (aside from the occasions when someone pops in late to finish off a conversation) then it means not enough new threads are coming along to knock them off the front page and maybe instead of complaining about the Rookery you could add to non-fluff part of the equation. At last check about half the threads on the front page of the virtue forum hadn't been touched at all today (not counting the stickied threads) so worrying about the signal to noise ration on such a stagnant medium seems...odd to me. It's not like anything's rushing off the front page, and it takes a single post to get it back up into the light...so keep what you want alive.
Hope that was relatively comprehensible...a bit overtired and overcaffinated at the moment. Also, Haetron...the pictures were forged of 100% win, especially Cobra Commander stabbing Nick Fury.
Now, if there were just a solitary Rookery thread, I'd have no problem at all. Hell, I'd probably post in it now and again. -
Quote:Again, both are issues of annoyance. On one side, some want daily threads to avoid the annoyance of having to scroll through what could be days worth of posts in order to find the "current topic". On the other, some want a singular thread so that can avoid having to scroll through more pages of threads to find a particular topic. So there is no "hypothetical" situation there. That's the current reality. The only hypothetical I posted was in relation to Heroid or Nadya posting daily threads which was used as an example of how I'd feel about the same issue under a different topic.Originally Posted by YellowjacketX
I said it once before but your annoyance is too low of a bar to limit someone else's enjoyment. If they were insulting your mother in Rookery, you'd have a legitimate beef, but since they aren't YOU CAN JUST IGNORE IT.
So your hypothetical situation, not even close.
Thanks for playing though. -
Quote:Funny you should put it that way. In the same scope we could say that some people like the Rookery and its multiple threads, but their fun is too low of a bar to cause other people the annoyance it does. Group A and Group B in your comparison are interchangeable. Scrolling through an individual thread could be considered just as much of a petty annoyance as going over a list of threads and bypassing the Rookery threads. The difference being that one's annoyance is limited to an individual thread in a server forum versus the server forum as a whole containing that annoyance.Originally Posted by YellowjacketX
I think this "debate" has been framed in the most petty and myopic terms. What this is really about is limiting people's fun because some other people are annoyed by that fun.
OK, so a lot of people don't like the Rookery. Those people who want it put in one thread are advocating limits on people's fun because they are annoyed with multiple threads. I am sorry, but your annoyance is too low of a bar to limit people's fun.
The Rookery is harmless. It's fluff and zany light-hearted intra-day banter that some people enjoy. Since there is no giant flamewar going on in the Rookery, or anything that is outright hurtful or illegal going on there, then the mods should leave it alone. That they have let it exist in peace for so long signals to me that they have decided they are cool with the Rookery in its current, daily incarnation.
If we examine this through that lens, what then, is left of this "discussion" or debate? All that remains is that a certain group of individuals don't like the Rookery and want their will imposed on how those threads progress. That is a limitation on the fun of those who /do/ enjoy it. No matter how you slice this, this debate is about how group A wants to limit the fun of group B over something that is, at its absolute worst, a petty annoyance.
The tools currently exist for people who are annoyed by the Rookery or don't like it or whatever, to completely ignore its existence. Those tools merely need to be implemented by those people who wish not to partake of it. That they choose not to implement those tools is very telling of the attitudes of those people who have vented all this Rookery hate (or hate for "fluff" in general). Sometimes you don't get what you want in life. Sometimes that is for a very good reason.
I would think that if there is anything approaching irony about this whole thread it's that individuals who were so deeply criticized for their fluff are now on some crusade to limit other people's fluff. Absolutely hilarious. What is it about the Internet that turns otherwise intelligent people into such a petty bunch of *******? Why do you want to limit the fun of other people who are not hurting you?
Think on that for a bit.
The Rookery, in its content, doesn't bother me. I'd feel the same if Heroid were to post a daily thread talking about the latest chapter of whatever he was writing, or if Nadya made a daily thread on her new child's birth.
So, in that vein, why would you want to limit others' enjoyment of the forum who are not hurting you? -
Quote:20 out of 106 total if we go with my five page settings.Originally Posted by Flea_Mark_Evil
So, roughly 1/6 of the first two pages is Rookery fluff.
Dear god. And Viv, imagine that on Victory. Hell, I don't think Hamster came anywhere near that with his random day to day posts. Pity it only archives so far.
Edit: Curious.
Now, a proportion of Fluff to Non Fluff (Events, RP, Fiction, LFG posts, New To Server Posts, Queries)...that is the next investigation
Edit: 20 out of 106 Rookery threads, not fluff to non fluff threads. -
Quote:Not so much every thread, just the threads that already took a turn into fluff. The number of threads created is lower, which makes finding older threads that much easier. How many non-rookery threads do you see that have some sort of silliness posted in them? That's what I'm referring to. The general derailment of a thread into whatever it had turned into would be something she would comment on (amongst many others), but she didn't need to make a new thread each time it came up.Originally Posted by Eikochan
So, fluff that pervades every thread on the forum is preferable to fluff cordoned off in its own thread each day?
Inflating it to "every thread" is a bit dishonest though, wouldn't you think? That would be like me saying that every thread for the last five pages are Rookery threads. -
Quote:Far easier to ignore one thread amongst a month's worth of postings than it is to ignore 30 threads within the same time.Originally Posted by YellowjacketX
And one overwhelming, trumping similarity: you can ignore them both easily.
-
Quote:Actually, Sorah kept her fluff to already created threads. If it pertained to her, it would be in the "ZOMG What!?" thread. Otherwise, she'd post in context to whatever the thread at hand had derailed into (which was par for the course).Originally Posted by YellowjacketX
You mean less truth? I am sure I am not the only person who remembers the Sorah threads, bub.
I'll spell it out for you: It's not hard to just ignore Rookery as is right now, but if you did that you wouldn't have a high horse to be on.
There's quite a bit of difference between that and a thread recreated daily. -
Quote:Not so much that I believe it'll solve forum clogging, but that the overall benefit for a single thread is greater than that of daily threads. If one is intent on staying "up to speed" with the current Rookery posts, they'll never be far behind. If they aren't intent, then the idea of staying in touch falls apart and they could skip to the latest page.Originally Posted by Vivace
I believe this is a no-win situation for both sides. One side steadfastly believes that everything Rookery-related should be consolidated into one massive thread, and that will solve the forum clogging problem. The other would like to continue posting daily threads in an effort to stay fresh and keep in touch.
Now, currently I see 3 Rookery threads on the front page of Virtue and 22 non-Rookery threads on the front page. That's about 7.3 regular threads for every 1 Rookery thread. It certainly doesn't seem like that much when put in terms like that, does it?
Oh page 4, I see 4 Rookery threads and 21 non-Rookery threads. That's less than 5.5 regular threads for every one Rookery thread. Again, it doesn't seem like that much, and certainly doesn't seem like you have to scroll through a ton of Rookery threads to get to non-Rookery threads.
However, if one is looking for a particular thread that has fallen off of the main page, the fewer threads there are relates directly to how much time they need to spend looking for said thread. A number of story threads being one example here. -
Quote:It's also less convenient for those that don't participate in the multiple threads to have multiple threads. And since there is no worthwhile reason not to consolidate to a single thread, why not save the other forum goers some time in hunting down individual threads amongst a sea of other topics?Originally Posted by Fedor
It is less convenient to have a single thread. And since there is no worthwhile reason not to have multiple threads, why bother changing? Enjoy being bitter and crabby about it if that suits you.
-
Quote:But if one is checking these threads on a daily basis, as was the example given, then they are already marked from where they've last read. Unless someone went several days without checking on a particular machine, it wouldn't become an issue. Even then, they'd know exactly where they had last read at from on the machines they were using.Originally Posted by DJ_Shecky
It does mean you can ignore the previous day's thread and only look at the current days thread.
And if they skipped a couple days all together and don't care about the prior context, would it really matter if they jumped to the last page of the thread and started from there? -
Quote:But wouldn't that problem still exist even with multiple threads? On a new system, you'd still have to scroll through where you had previously read earlier in the day, then again if you returned to the previous machine in the same day. Having multiple threads doesn't change that.Originally Posted by Attercap
But I thought you were part of the Virtue's Front of Liberation!
Seriously, though; in the past forum incarnation, I'd have been OK to keep any such "fun"/"fluff" threads as a single thread, rather than daily. However, as Shecky pointed out previously, the new forum software tracks a user's last on datetime stamp via a per-system cookie, rather than on the forum server. This means that the "latest post" clicks are not accurate (and often annoying) for those of us who use multiple systems on a daily basis. -
You said it didn't make sense, therefor you did not understand it.
-
He had a point. You said you didn't understand it.
-
Quote:Same hereOriginally Posted by Xanatos_NA
I would not complain if there was one thread.
-
Quote:I agree, which is why I feel that the Rookery posts should be consolidated into a single thread. Barring that, kept to a social group specifically (though I do understand that isn't as inclusive as they would like).Originally Posted by Vivace
Eh, everyone's entitled to fun in their own harmless way. Once you take the harmless out of it, it can get a bit out of hand.
I know I've had more trouble than I'd like looking for a particular thread only to wade through dozens of others, half of which being Rookery threads, to find it. The Rookery is all well and good for what it is, but keep it to a thread. Daily threads are just excessive and unnecessary. -
I don't believe you could hit stealth cap without getting stealth (on your own, that is) before, so your answer is no.