Public Message — Page 10

Why are you all talking to an AI bot?

HAHAHAHA GOOD LUCK WITH THAT

In response to oojason: (https://originaltrilogy.com/topic/action/reply/id/61688/quote/1225338)

respectfully, having 8 different people start PMs would be even worse. These things are always best discussed in the open, but you are right in that in can derail threads and make them ugly. That is what this thread (https://originaltrilogy.com/topic/The-New-The-New-Thread-Thread-Thread/id/60401) tries to solve: an open place to discuss the merits of a thread, without cluttering up the real threads.

and guess who has been trying to solve this problem for ages? TV’s Frink.

when you have a forum that has no search, we have to resort to insane organization in order to keep things functional. that is part of why this forum is unique in how much we complain about new threads, and pointless threads.

Don’t get your panties in a wad.

Jay said:

Mrebo said:

It’s mainly Frink who complains. Two or three others pipe up after he’s challenged.

There’s no “problem” in having new threads. The backseat modding is extraordinarily tiresome.

Yes.

oojason said:

dahmage said:

In response to oojason: (https://originaltrilogy.com/topic/action/reply/id/61688/quote/1225338)

respectfully, having 8 different people start PMs would be even worse. These things are always best discussed in the open, but you are right in that in can derail threads and make them ugly. That is what this thread (https://originaltrilogy.com/topic/The-New-The-New-Thread-Thread-Thread/id/60401) tries to solve: an open place to discuss the merits of a thread, without cluttering up the real threads.

and guess who has been trying to solve this problem for ages? TV’s Frink.

when you have a forum that has no search, we have to resort to insane organization in order to keep things functional. that is part of why this forum is unique in how much we complain about new threads, and pointless threads.

The thread creator can always edit his OP to let people know he’s addressed any issues, or adapted their thread to give a clearer insight as to what it is about - if they so wish/think it’s warranted. A bit like Handman did in his thread.

It’s not like there’ll be much call for this anyway - the vast majority of threads are fairly self-explaining by nature. I don’t think there will be situation where 8 (or 12 - which the number Frink used to voice the same concerns shortly before your post) members are going to PM the mods and thread creator with issues as to the make-up of a thread before it is already addressed after the first couple of PMs. For many there may not even be an issue with the make-up of a thread - and just want to participate.

Or we can just carry on… with people giving their opinion as to whether a thread is valid or not, redundant or not etc - and taking it off course, or derailing it, and resulting in another promising thread going by the wayside. It also has an effect of deterring others from creating new threads - or just not participating in the certain sections of the site at all.

This my attempt to try and remedy this - if Jay, Wook or Anchor don’t agree - or come up with a better way/plan (which is more than likely) there well may be a change to it. At present I think we’re all of a mind we’d like to see more quality debate, more threads on specific issues or subjects of interest, and more members participating in them (especially outside The Cantina).

If someone wants to post in a thread something along the lines of - ‘I think we already have a thread on this very subject mate, here - (insert link)’ then great, do so - politely or courteously etc - and leave it at that, or PM the OP & the mods to discuss it further. We’re not going to have debates in-thread as to whether something is redundant or not. If a thread doesn’t interest someone - let it be, if it does interest them - great, nice one.
 

Re the organisation of the forum… yes, there’s no functioning search - yet there are pointers on how to search for threads on here. There are now also About and Help sections, new Feedback & Assistance forums, and also Index Threads for pretty much every section of the site to help members find certain threads too. Some forum categories have been created so topics are more in tune with each other and threads should be easier to locate as well; ie Media, Culture and Cantina. There are also numerous members on here who lend a hand to help their fellow members out in many differing ways - including Frink.

That there is a ‘new thread new thread thread new new’, or whatever the later incarnation is called, is cool - for those that know what it does. It doesn’t really help new members as they likely wouldn’t know what it is or does - or may not have clicked on it. To be honest I didn’t until late last year - and mistakenly thought it was another thread re Frink, and never clicked on it.

For those that do know it’s purpose (and also not)… there is also an issue in Frink stating his opinions whether a thread is redundant or not - it is not for Frink to pick which threads are or not. Nor is it then getting into why - or why not not - a thread is redundant etc, in that very thread which has the action of derailing it / taking it off further topic.
 

As stated in Handman’s thread, Frink has been asked not to derail threads, which eventually lead to a warning(s) for continuing to do so - though for obvious reasons I’m not discussing this matter further in here.

 

If you have any further concerns or questions dahmage, please feel free to PM me - as is anyone is welcome to do and I’ll do my best to provide them with an adequate answer.

Thank you.

 

Also yes.

If a thread doesn’t interest you, don’t post in it. A polite question asking for clarification is fine.

This is not:

TV’s Frink said:

This thread has no reason to exist.

Anyone who doesn’t understand why this post was a problem and triggered official warnings should consult what happened here for clarification.

yay i remember that!

What if I suspect I myself am turning into a spam bot?

If you like instrumental rock be sure to check out my band camp page, my newest album is up there.

See what I mean!?!?

Jay said:

Mrebo said:

It’s mainly Frink who complains. Two or three others pipe up after he’s challenged.

There’s no “problem” in having new threads. The backseat modding is extraordinarily tiresome.

Yes.

oojason said:

dahmage said:

In response to oojason: (https://originaltrilogy.com/topic/action/reply/id/61688/quote/1225338)

respectfully, having 8 different people start PMs would be even worse. These things are always best discussed in the open, but you are right in that in can derail threads and make them ugly. That is what this thread (https://originaltrilogy.com/topic/The-New-The-New-Thread-Thread-Thread/id/60401) tries to solve: an open place to discuss the merits of a thread, without cluttering up the real threads.

and guess who has been trying to solve this problem for ages? TV’s Frink.

when you have a forum that has no search, we have to resort to insane organization in order to keep things functional. that is part of why this forum is unique in how much we complain about new threads, and pointless threads.

The thread creator can always edit his OP to let people know he’s addressed any issues, or adapted their thread to give a clearer insight as to what it is about - if they so wish/think it’s warranted. A bit like Handman did in his thread.

It’s not like there’ll be much call for this anyway - the vast majority of threads are fairly self-explaining by nature. I don’t think there will be situation where 8 (or 12 - which the number Frink used to voice the same concerns shortly before your post) members are going to PM the mods and thread creator with issues as to the make-up of a thread before it is already addressed after the first couple of PMs. For many there may not even be an issue with the make-up of a thread - and just want to participate.

Or we can just carry on… with people giving their opinion as to whether a thread is valid or not, redundant or not etc - and taking it off course, or derailing it, and resulting in another promising thread going by the wayside. It also has an effect of deterring others from creating new threads - or just not participating in the certain sections of the site at all.

This my attempt to try and remedy this - if Jay, Wook or Anchor don’t agree - or come up with a better way/plan (which is more than likely) there well may be a change to it. At present I think we’re all of a mind we’d like to see more quality debate, more threads on specific issues or subjects of interest, and more members participating in them (especially outside The Cantina).

If someone wants to post in a thread something along the lines of - ‘I think we already have a thread on this very subject mate, here - (insert link)’ then great, do so - politely or courteously etc - and leave it at that, or PM the OP & the mods to discuss it further. We’re not going to have debates in-thread as to whether something is redundant or not. If a thread doesn’t interest someone - let it be, if it does interest them - great, nice one.
 

Re the organisation of the forum… yes, there’s no functioning search - yet there are pointers on how to search for threads on here. There are now also About and Help sections, new Feedback & Assistance forums, and also Index Threads for pretty much every section of the site to help members find certain threads too. Some forum categories have been created so topics are more in tune with each other and threads should be easier to locate as well; ie Media, Culture and Cantina. There are also numerous members on here who lend a hand to help their fellow members out in many differing ways - including Frink.

That there is a ‘new thread new thread thread new new’, or whatever the later incarnation is called, is cool - for those that know what it does. It doesn’t really help new members as they likely wouldn’t know what it is or does - or may not have clicked on it. To be honest I didn’t until late last year - and mistakenly thought it was another thread re Frink, and never clicked on it.

For those that do know it’s purpose (and also not)… there is also an issue in Frink stating his opinions whether a thread is redundant or not - it is not for Frink to pick which threads are or not. Nor is it then getting into why - or why not not - a thread is redundant etc, in that very thread which has the action of derailing it / taking it off further topic.
 

As stated in Handman’s thread, Frink has been asked not to derail threads, which eventually lead to a warning(s) for continuing to do so - though for obvious reasons I’m not discussing this matter further in here.

 

If you have any further concerns or questions dahmage, please feel free to PM me - as is anyone is welcome to do and I’ll do my best to provide them with an adequate answer.

Thank you.

 

Also yes.

If a thread doesn’t interest you, don’t post in it. A polite question asking for clarification is fine.

This is not:

TV’s Frink said:

This thread has no reason to exist.

Anyone who doesn’t understand why this post was a problem and triggered official warnings should consult what happened here for clarification.

Warning for my first post, fine.

Warning for my second post, ridiculous. Especially since you continue to insult members in various SW threads, which should be the far greater issue. But it’s your site, so do as you say and ignore what you do. Check.

Jay said:

Mrebo said:

It’s mainly Frink who complains. Two or three others pipe up after he’s challenged.

There’s no “problem” in having new threads. The backseat modding is extraordinarily tiresome.

Yes.

oojason said:

dahmage said:

In response to oojason: (https://originaltrilogy.com/topic/action/reply/id/61688/quote/1225338)

respectfully, having 8 different people start PMs would be even worse. These things are always best discussed in the open, but you are right in that in can derail threads and make them ugly. That is what this thread (https://originaltrilogy.com/topic/The-New-The-New-Thread-Thread-Thread/id/60401) tries to solve: an open place to discuss the merits of a thread, without cluttering up the real threads.

and guess who has been trying to solve this problem for ages? TV’s Frink.

when you have a forum that has no search, we have to resort to insane organization in order to keep things functional. that is part of why this forum is unique in how much we complain about new threads, and pointless threads.

The thread creator can always edit his OP to let people know he’s addressed any issues, or adapted their thread to give a clearer insight as to what it is about - if they so wish/think it’s warranted. A bit like Handman did in his thread.

It’s not like there’ll be much call for this anyway - the vast majority of threads are fairly self-explaining by nature. I don’t think there will be situation where 8 (or 12 - which the number Frink used to voice the same concerns shortly before your post) members are going to PM the mods and thread creator with issues as to the make-up of a thread before it is already addressed after the first couple of PMs. For many there may not even be an issue with the make-up of a thread - and just want to participate.

Or we can just carry on… with people giving their opinion as to whether a thread is valid or not, redundant or not etc - and taking it off course, or derailing it, and resulting in another promising thread going by the wayside. It also has an effect of deterring others from creating new threads - or just not participating in the certain sections of the site at all.

This my attempt to try and remedy this - if Jay, Wook or Anchor don’t agree - or come up with a better way/plan (which is more than likely) there well may be a change to it. At present I think we’re all of a mind we’d like to see more quality debate, more threads on specific issues or subjects of interest, and more members participating in them (especially outside The Cantina).

If someone wants to post in a thread something along the lines of - ‘I think we already have a thread on this very subject mate, here - (insert link)’ then great, do so - politely or courteously etc - and leave it at that, or PM the OP & the mods to discuss it further. We’re not going to have debates in-thread as to whether something is redundant or not. If a thread doesn’t interest someone - let it be, if it does interest them - great, nice one.
 

Re the organisation of the forum… yes, there’s no functioning search - yet there are pointers on how to search for threads on here. There are now also About and Help sections, new Feedback & Assistance forums, and also Index Threads for pretty much every section of the site to help members find certain threads too. Some forum categories have been created so topics are more in tune with each other and threads should be easier to locate as well; ie Media, Culture and Cantina. There are also numerous members on here who lend a hand to help their fellow members out in many differing ways - including Frink.

That there is a ‘new thread new thread thread new new’, or whatever the later incarnation is called, is cool - for those that know what it does. It doesn’t really help new members as they likely wouldn’t know what it is or does - or may not have clicked on it. To be honest I didn’t until late last year - and mistakenly thought it was another thread re Frink, and never clicked on it.

For those that do know it’s purpose (and also not)… there is also an issue in Frink stating his opinions whether a thread is redundant or not - it is not for Frink to pick which threads are or not. Nor is it then getting into why - or why not not - a thread is redundant etc, in that very thread which has the action of derailing it / taking it off further topic.
 

As stated in Handman’s thread, Frink has been asked not to derail threads, which eventually lead to a warning(s) for continuing to do so - though for obvious reasons I’m not discussing this matter further in here.

 

If you have any further concerns or questions dahmage, please feel free to PM me - as is anyone is welcome to do and I’ll do my best to provide them with an adequate answer.

Thank you.

 

Also yes.

If a thread doesn’t interest you, don’t post in it. A polite question asking for clarification is fine.

This is not:

TV’s Frink said:

This thread has no reason to exist.

Anyone who doesn’t understand why this post was a problem and triggered official warnings should consult what happened here for clarification.

Warning for my first post, fine.

Warning for my second post, ridiculous. Especially since you continue to insult members in various SW threads, which should be the far greater issue. But it’s your site, so do as you say and ignore what you do. Check.

EDIT: Double post but would take ten years to erase on mobile.

TV’s Frink said:

Jay said:

Mrebo said:

It’s mainly Frink who complains. Two or three others pipe up after he’s challenged.

There’s no “problem” in having new threads. The backseat modding is extraordinarily tiresome.

Yes.

oojason said:

dahmage said:

In response to oojason: (https://originaltrilogy.com/topic/action/reply/id/61688/quote/1225338)

respectfully, having 8 different people start PMs would be even worse. These things are always best discussed in the open, but you are right in that in can derail threads and make them ugly. That is what this thread (https://originaltrilogy.com/topic/The-New-The-New-Thread-Thread-Thread/id/60401) tries to solve: an open place to discuss the merits of a thread, without cluttering up the real threads.

and guess who has been trying to solve this problem for ages? TV’s Frink.

when you have a forum that has no search, we have to resort to insane organization in order to keep things functional. that is part of why this forum is unique in how much we complain about new threads, and pointless threads.

The thread creator can always edit his OP to let people know he’s addressed any issues, or adapted their thread to give a clearer insight as to what it is about - if they so wish/think it’s warranted. A bit like Handman did in his thread.

It’s not like there’ll be much call for this anyway - the vast majority of threads are fairly self-explaining by nature. I don’t think there will be situation where 8 (or 12 - which the number Frink used to voice the same concerns shortly before your post) members are going to PM the mods and thread creator with issues as to the make-up of a thread before it is already addressed after the first couple of PMs. For many there may not even be an issue with the make-up of a thread - and just want to participate.

Or we can just carry on… with people giving their opinion as to whether a thread is valid or not, redundant or not etc - and taking it off course, or derailing it, and resulting in another promising thread going by the wayside. It also has an effect of deterring others from creating new threads - or just not participating in the certain sections of the site at all.

This my attempt to try and remedy this - if Jay, Wook or Anchor don’t agree - or come up with a better way/plan (which is more than likely) there well may be a change to it. At present I think we’re all of a mind we’d like to see more quality debate, more threads on specific issues or subjects of interest, and more members participating in them (especially outside The Cantina).

If someone wants to post in a thread something along the lines of - ‘I think we already have a thread on this very subject mate, here - (insert link)’ then great, do so - politely or courteously etc - and leave it at that, or PM the OP & the mods to discuss it further. We’re not going to have debates in-thread as to whether something is redundant or not. If a thread doesn’t interest someone - let it be, if it does interest them - great, nice one.
 

Re the organisation of the forum… yes, there’s no functioning search - yet there are pointers on how to search for threads on here. There are now also About and Help sections, new Feedback & Assistance forums, and also Index Threads for pretty much every section of the site to help members find certain threads too. Some forum categories have been created so topics are more in tune with each other and threads should be easier to locate as well; ie Media, Culture and Cantina. There are also numerous members on here who lend a hand to help their fellow members out in many differing ways - including Frink.

That there is a ‘new thread new thread thread new new’, or whatever the later incarnation is called, is cool - for those that know what it does. It doesn’t really help new members as they likely wouldn’t know what it is or does - or may not have clicked on it. To be honest I didn’t until late last year - and mistakenly thought it was another thread re Frink, and never clicked on it.

For those that do know it’s purpose (and also not)… there is also an issue in Frink stating his opinions whether a thread is redundant or not - it is not for Frink to pick which threads are or not. Nor is it then getting into why - or why not not - a thread is redundant etc, in that very thread which has the action of derailing it / taking it off further topic.
 

As stated in Handman’s thread, Frink has been asked not to derail threads, which eventually lead to a warning(s) for continuing to do so - though for obvious reasons I’m not discussing this matter further in here.

 

If you have any further concerns or questions dahmage, please feel free to PM me - as is anyone is welcome to do and I’ll do my best to provide them with an adequate answer.

Thank you.

 

Also yes.

If a thread doesn’t interest you, don’t post in it. A polite question asking for clarification is fine.

This is not:

TV’s Frink said:

This thread has no reason to exist.

Anyone who doesn’t understand why this post was a problem and triggered official warnings should consult what happened here for clarification.

Warning for my first post, fine.

Warning for my second post, ridiculous.

What about this second post?

https://originaltrilogy.com/topic/Random-Political-Thoughts-FUN-AND-LIGHT-POLITICS/id/61688/page/1#1225042

HI GUYZ

https://www.grammarly.com/blog/here-here-vs-hear-hear/

Please educate yourselves.

dahmage said:

https://www.grammarly.com/blog/here-here-vs-hear-hear/

Please educate yourselves.

I figured this out recently. It’s especially tricky because if you try to think it through, either spelling could make sense for the phrase - “hear (this), hear (this)!” vs. “(listen) here, (listen) here!” Looking it up is basically the only way to know for sure.

DominicCobb said:

dahmage said:

https://www.grammarly.com/blog/here-here-vs-hear-hear/

Please educate yourselves.

I figured this out recently. It’s especially tricky because if you try to think it through, either spelling could make sense for the phrase - “hear (this), hear (this)!” vs. “(listen) here, (listen) here!” Looking it up is basically the only way to know for sure.

Not true. I think I’ve always known it but I suspect it’s because I read a lot of books as a child.

dahmage said:

DominicCobb said:

dahmage said:

https://www.grammarly.com/blog/here-here-vs-hear-hear/

Please educate yourselves.

I figured this out recently. It’s especially tricky because if you try to think it through, either spelling could make sense for the phrase - “hear (this), hear (this)!” vs. “(listen) here, (listen) here!” Looking it up is basically the only way to know for sure.

Not true. I think I’ve always known it but I suspect it’s because I’m a child.

WIR

For instance, MPs are still offered snuff before they enter the Chamber.

?? They are offered tobacco before entering the chamber?