Seperation of SD&N?

[T*]

It seems, to me, that it would be logical to seperate Serious Debates and News into a subforum for Serious News and a subforum for Politics & Debates...
I think it'd be more beneficial because I use SD&N mainly for serious new stories - like say, the paris attacks etc. because it's a HUGE story- but it seems like it's being super diluted by random debates about Kactosophobia and, obviously not so random- politics.
So I'd be alright if I put in my preferences that I would rather not see the debates subforum but still be able to see the Serious News forum~ Rather than them being combined.

Would anyone else like them seperated?
(please keep this a civil discussion btw~)

[Crimson Dynamo]

no

[T*]

It'd still keep everyone happy- it's just Itd be more refined

[MB.]

I've thought this would be a good idea for a while (well, a re-separation)

[Will.]

Could we maybe have one for general news instead of SN so all news can go in one sub forum.

[T*]

I've thought this would be a good idea for a while (well, a re-separation)



It could be easily done too (I think?) - just archive SD&N and move any current, still discussed topics to the respective new subforum and there wouldn't be any major complaint

[Cherie]

How difficult is it to scroll through the threads there aren't that many an average if 3 a day if that

[Crimson Dynamo]

How difficult is it to scroll through the threads there aren't that many an average if 3 a day if that

I know

:joker:


Tom why do you want this?

[T*]

How difficult is it to scroll through the threads there aren't that many an average if 3 a day if that



No it's not just that- It would keep people who don't want to see the debates or vice versa happy and also keep the more important news topics at the top of the respective subforum rather than, e.g. a thread about an important train crash being buried under a thread about a 14 year old being told off by their school for having a certain haircut and the parents run to DailyMail- a thread like that could go in Politics and Debates due to it being something clearly to divide opinion.

[T*]

I know



:joker:





Tom why do you want this?



Read :hee:

[Marsh.]

No it's not just that- It would keep people who don't want to see the debates or vice versa happy and also keep the more important news topics at the top of the respective subforum rather than, e.g. a thread about an important train crash being buried under a thread about a 14 year old being told off by their school for having a certain haircut and the parents run to DailyMail- a thread like that could go in Politics and Debates due to it being something clearly to divide opinion.

But that's Cherie's point, it wouldn't be "buried" as there are not that many new threads created in that section.

It doesn't move as quickly as other sections on the forum.

[Crimson Dynamo]

No it's not just that- It would keep people who don't want to see the debates or vice versa happy and also keep the more important news topics at the top of the respective subforum rather than, e.g. a thread about an important train crash being buried under a thread about a 14 year old being told off by their school for having a certain haircut and the parents run to DailyMail- a thread like that could go in Politics and Debates due to it being something clearly to divide opinion.

Members may be more interested in a home related story than a foreign train crash.

[T*]

But that's Cherie's point, it wouldn't be "buried" as there are not that many new threads created in that section.



It doesn't move as quickly as other sections on the forum.



It bloody does during off season! You won't notice it now due to the influx of BB threads and posts...

[MTVN]

IMO the merging of debates and news was one of the most sensible decisions this forum ever took

[MB.]

My main issue is how threads about major news stories - e.g. mass shootings - always seem to devolve into various and in-depth arguments that often aren't pretty for the people who just want the news without the potential for it also being a false flag for a pansexual European Union ISIS conspiracy, or a debate over whether black lives matter more than those of the Liberal Democrats when the thread's about a lion being shot

In other words, there's become a conflict of interest that shows to me that Serious Debates and News aren't as exclusively linked as they probably appear to be

[T*]

My main issue is how threads about major news stories - e.g. mass shootings - always seem to devolve into various and in-depth arguments that often aren't pretty for the people who just want the news without the potential for it also being a false flag for a pansexual European Union ISIS conspiracy, or a debate over whether black lives matter more than those of the Liberal Democrats when the thread's about a lion being shot

In other words, there's become a conflict of interest that shows to me that Serious Debates and News aren't as exclusively linked as they probably appear to be



^^^^

[Crimson Dynamo]

So what responses do you want in a news item

because I dont want "my thoughts are with the families of the victims" and bollocks like that?

or "omg RIP"

[MTVN]

My main issue is how threads about major news stories - e.g. mass shootings - always seem to devolve into various and in-depth arguments that often aren't pretty for the people who just want the news without the potential for it also being a false flag for a pansexual European Union ISIS conspiracy, or a debate over whether black lives matter more than those of the Liberal Democrats when the thread's about a lion being shot

In other words, there's become a conflict of interest that shows to me that Serious Debates and News aren't as exclusively linked as they probably appear to be

I think that will always be the case though - we're not a news site and most of us would rather talk about the news than purely report it so I can't imagine a thread where the only thing being posted is information and news links. That can happen too but people are always going to want to discuss the issues that arise from a news story.

[Jamie89]

I don't see the harm in separating them. I get some people don't see the point in it, but there's no actual reason not to do it... is there?

[T*]

So what responses do you want in a news item

because I dont want "my thoughts are with the families of the victims" and bollocks like that?

or "omg RIP"

That's usually the civil response when an influx of innocent people are killed tragically in an attack or an accident...
There's nowt wrong with going in depth with news but a lot of the time it's too stupidly deep and mostly nitpicking and clutching at straws.

[MTVN]

I don't see the harm in separating them. I get some people don't see the point in it, but there's no actual reason not to do it... is there?

They did used to be separated but that didn't really work because people weren't sure which one to post in and it felt like there was enough crossover to just have one section. I would say the reason not to do it is that it works quite well having them merged and it did not work so well having them separated, don't see the point in changing how it is for the sake of it.

[T*]

I don't see the harm in separating them. I get some people don't see the point in it, but there's no actual reason not to do it... is there?

Exactly. It still keeps everyone happy if it happens...

[Crimson Dynamo]

That's usually the civil response when an influx of innocent people are killed tragically in an attack or an accident...
There's nowt wrong with going in depth with news but a lot of the time it's too stupidly deep and mostly picking at straws.

incorrect. it is copying faceless insincere politicians who say it on tv.

[T*]

incorrect. it is copying faceless insincere politicians who say it on tv.



It's not incorrect, it's my opinion.

[Crimson Dynamo]

It's not incorrect, it's my opinion.

Lol I just heard a politician on Radio 2 say the very thing about that train crash (not lol at the crash you understand)

Its a mantra that they feel they must say now.

[Marsh.]

So what responses do you want in a news item

because I dont want "my thoughts are with the families of the victims" and bollocks like that?

or "omg RIP"

This tbh.

Those posts are fine but naturally threads will evolve into full on discussions. That is the point of the forum, yes?

[T*]

This tbh.



Those posts are fine but naturally threads will evolve into full on discussions. That is the point of the forum, yes?



As I said in my post...
There's nowt wrong with going in depth with news but a lot of the time it's too stupidly deep and mostly nitpicking and clutching at straws.

[Crimson Dynamo]

As I said in my post...
There's nowt wrong with going in depth with news but a lot of the time it's too stupidly deep and mostly nitpicking and clutching at straws.

So really its all about your personal critique of the way some posters use the forum and posting style?

bye

[T*]

Stop twisting my words loov

[Marsh.]

As I said in my post...
There's nowt wrong with going in depth with news but a lot of the time it's too stupidly deep and mostly nitpicking and clutching at straws.

In your opinion. There's lots of discussions I don't enjoy partaking in or I don't agree with, doesn't mean they shouldn't take place. :hee:

[arista]

It seems, to me, that it would be logical to seperate Serious Debates and News into a subforum for Serious News and a subforum for Politics & Debates...
I think it'd be more beneficial because I use SD&N mainly for serious new stories - like say, the paris attacks etc. because it's a HUGE story- but it seems like it's being super diluted by random debates about Kactosophobia and, obviously not so random- politics.
So I'd be alright if I put in my preferences that I would rather not see the debates subforum but still be able to see the Serious News forum~ Rather than them being combined.

Would anyone else like them seperated?
(please keep this a civil discussion btw~)


No I already Asked James on
another Section
He said NO.


Respect Admins Words