[Ledgem]

(Sorry, this turned into a really long reply):

Originally Posted by relentlessflame

Well three points:

1. Keep in mind that both the thread request and the retirement systems have been around for many years now. Sub-forum retirement started in 2008, and thread requests were around 2005 IIRC. Of course, a major reason for sub-forum retirement was that the sub-forum was basically not being used anymore anyway, and was just taking up space on the main index and making the site look stale by listing all these "old shows that nobody cares about anymore" (in quotes). Cleaning them up was more good housekeeping than anything else.

2. In the case of retired sub-forums where we do lock certain threads, there is always an unlocked thread that is still suited to discussing the show and can cover the topics that were previously covered in the locked threads. So I'd again think of it as re-consolidating the discussion into a single thread going forward (while preserving the old threads for posterity).

I find these to be reasonable, and have no problems with them. Indeed, the forum is better off for them.

Originally Posted by relentlessflame

3. As for "preventing original talking points" bit, I still honestly don't see this. Again, what threads are you wanting to create that you can't create by asking? Do you really need a new thread, or would one of the existing threads do? The pre-defined threads are there because we've found that, if we don't create them, people ask for them anyway. People have gotten into a habit of there just always being certain threads for shows season after season. And I think, for a lot of the conversations, that works just fine. For cases where that doesn't work, a new thread can be proposed, and I really don't see why it wouldn't be granted if it's a worthy topic. What I'm trying to understand is: is it "stifling" because we won't create the threads you feel are necessary (due to not deeming them worthy), or just "stifling" because you have to make the proposal in the first place?

For a series that is on-going, I have no issue with the way that the subforums are handled. Actually, I recall trying to participate in forum discussions on a popular, actively-airing series (Code Geass season 2), and found it to be too fast-paced and chaotic to spend much time in. The way things are probably works as well as can be for series like that.

For the older series, you ask me what thread I would want that doesn't exist. I don't create new threads very often. What I want is something that is less easily definable: people proposing theories, linking the series to various aspects of life, bringing in comparisons with other series, movies, or world events... basically, the boundless, unrestricted creativity of fans who want to talk about anything and everything, tied in to the series.

Having to request a new thread to be made is a huge barrier in itself. It's not a matter of laziness, either: the fact that such a rule exists already indicates a hostility to the creation of new threads, and seemingly indicates that a moderator is likely to tell you that your idea stinks or that it should just go into a pre-defined thread. Why bother, particularly knowing that the forums are older and don't receive much traffic anyway? (Bear in mind also that while the subforums for older series receive less traffic by default, I wonder if they wouldn't receive more if threads could be created freely.)

Originally Posted by relentlessflame

And I don't think this is just because "nobody can create new threads about random things to keep the conversation going", it's just that most people have moved on and there's really not that much to say.

I don't disagree that it's a contributing factor. However, I think it's hastened by the restrictions. Take, for example, the Angel Beats! subforum. It has only two pages, and even on the first page roughly one third of the threads are episode discussions. Episode discussions are usually cast aside when a series finishes, and topics shift to discussions that examine the series as a whole. I flitted through a few topics, and most of them devolved into people either responding to very old posts, or not responding to anything in particular at all.

How about the Death Note subforum? It's a similar deal, with threads that have accumulated hundreds of replies that seemingly lead to people ignoring the most recent posts that have been made (even if they truly are recent) and just dropping their thoughts. I was delighted to have a conversation with a member who joined the site this month, but there were a number of other replies that seemingly ignored my posts and never returned, even after I responded to them. And I don't blame them - when there seems to be little activity and threads are hundreds of posts long, people seem to be assuming that nobody is active at the end, or that people contributing are just post dumping.

Originally Posted by relentlessflame

Beyond that, we have Social Groups now, which I think are a lot more effective for small dedicated communities due to the user-managed aspect (we didn't have such a thing back in the day).

I've seen the social groups mentioned by site staff before, and I feel that it has just become a convenient excuse. Social groups are tucked away and have simply become badges that people put into their profile to indicate interests or what they are fans of. I can only think of one social group that has maintained some semblance of activity, and it happens to be an image-sharing group with the most members in any social group I've seen thus far. Actually, I just checked, and we have 89 social groups with more than 50 members, and of those only five have any activity from 2012. If you include December 2011 (seven groups), then we can say that 12 groups out of 89 have a sizable user base and active discussion. I was not a fan of the social group concept when it was first introduced, and I think the data speaks for itself in how well it has taken off. Social groups are hidden away and are fairly difficult to find, in many cases - it's no surprise that they garner so little activity.

Originally Posted by relentlessflame

Despite what is being implied, I really do think conversations nowadays are much more focused and on-topic than they used to be in the old days, and so a lot more engaging with a higher content/spam (signal-to-noise) ratio. It's a lot easier for me to engage in a topic that's of immediate interest to me without having to wade through a whole ton of randomness to find a gem. Are the threads perfect? Of course not. But I'm not sure that it's so simple to fix the problem, nor that allowing free thread creation gets us closer to a solution. (Granted, I can't say that I'm exactly clear on the problem.)

Well, your perception differs from mine. Certainly things have become more organized, but I also feel that there is less of people talking with each other, and more that people are talking at each other (or just sending posts off into the void of the internet, seemingly not realizing that people may want to reply to it and discuss it farther). I am saddened by this, but I can only blame forum restrictions so far: much of the blame lies with the user base itself.

Originally Posted by relentlessflame

Of course, each person who works on the staff has different opinions and their own personalities, but each person was also nominated by the other staff because (among other reasons) they seemed to understand and accept the general principles that govern the site's operation.

If the nomination process is as you say, then I interpret it differently: that people would be nominated in part because their views are in line with the majority of the rest of the staff. The principles that govern the site are not laws of nature; they can be changed.

I guess now I've shifted from asking a question to making an appeal. If the staff are dead set in their ways, then there's nothing to be done. I'm asking that this all be reconsidered, not because I want this site to return to the way that it was in 2003-2005 (even though I liked those days best), but because conversations feel incredibly stifled.

Originally Posted by relentlessflame

Again, if you ask me to give you like "the 5 main reasons why this is the best system in existence that'll convince anyone we're on the right path", I don't know if there is such a thing (though I've tried to give as many as I can think of along the way). I think it's more like "we like it this way", "it generally seems to accomplish our goals", and "previous experiences with other approaches have driven us away from them". Contrary to what some might believe we really are open to new ideas (and often these are incorporated into internal discussions and get morphed into future ideas/decisions), but proposals that go firmly against the principles we otherwise use to moderate the site aren't very likely to be adopted, at least not as is.

All well and fine. I'm curious: what are your goals, and would you put what you like (as site staff) above what the users like? My personal view is that the forum is set up for users to have discussions, and the moderators have their roles simply to ensure that things remain civil (take care of aggressors) and that the flow of conversation is not disrupted (take care of spammers). It seems to me that moderators are partly creating these rules to make moderation easier on themselves. While understandable, it seems bizarre that moderators would put themselves and their moderation above the users and purpose that the site was designed for.

I won't be surprised if nothing changes from all of this. Noting that things have become more restrictive over time, I would request that they not become more restrictive than they have already become.

Edit: Even though Relentless and I have been going on about this, I'd invite other staff to give their thoughts and opinions, as well.