Moderation suggestion: the obligatory Murphy topics

[Serack]

In 4 and a half weeks the forum is going to... erupt with discussion.

Water is wet.  There will be discussions about Murphy's role in the DF.  There will be people with opposing opinions.  Anddddd, these opposing opinons will feel the need to "convince" each other of their opinions veracity.

My suggestion is that we implement a Murphy topic specific policy that is closer to what we have in the Bar sections than the DF sections where A) There is one topic dedicated to discussing Murphy.  New topics generated get spliced into it or locked.  B) It has a shorter (1 month) rollover/lock out time than the rest of the spoilers section. (B would require mod activity)

Furthering the suggestion, if this policy were to start Tuesday, 4 weeks later would be the release day and the fresh installment would be due to start on release day.

The OP of the topic could be something along the lines of:

Murphy's role in the Dresden Files:
This topic has historically been quite contentious.  Discussion of it is encouraged but it is required to be contained within this topic.  After 30 days, this topic will be closed and a new version will be generated.

Just as in every aspect of our forums, respect is manditory.  Do not allow frustration over differing views to allow you to neglect this rule.

This topic was generated on mm/dd/yyyy
This topic is scheduled to close on mm/dd/yyyy
Last months Murphy topic link

[narphoenix]

Yes. Yesyesyes. YEEEEEEEEES. Please YES. Murphy has gotten out of hand in discussions, and you seem to be implying that it's only going to get worse. So,

YEEEEEEEEEES.

[Serack]

Overall posting volume will be extremely high after the release. 

[Quantus]

I want to second this suggestion.  The latest sample chapter has already stirred up the Murphy Pot, and it might be a good idea to set it up before the posting explosion next week.

[Mith]

third vote for "aye"

[Priscellie]

I don't think a decreased shelf life will have any effect, but here's one potential direction:


The petty sniping in Murphy-related topics of late is unbecoming of the high standards of discourse expected of this forum.  Remember that civility to your fellow posters is expected at all times.  Murphy has become a very divisive character on this board, and while everyone is entitled to his or her opinion, expecting everyone else to conform to your opinion through the power of your rhetoric is futile.

Remember, guys, it's okay to disagree.  If you've represented yourself in a convincing way, but it doesn't look like another member is ever going to come around to your side, LET IT GO, find something else to discuss, and DON'T carry animosity towards those who think differently across to other parts of the forum.  We're all here because we dig Jim's works, and differences of interpretation are not worth the forum drama they're currently receiving.

Don't let this be you:

[Mith]

I was thinking to do so it's not 5 different topics on the same thing on the boards, rather than 5 or 6 different threads.

[Priscellie]

I was thinking to do so it's not 5 different topics on the same thing on the boards, rather than 5 or 6 different threads.

...Huh?

[Quantus]

I thiiink Mith was trying to say it would still consolidate all the various flavors of Murphy debate into a single stickied location (Serack's Benefit A) even if the shorter roll-over time (Serack's benefit B) wouldnt gain as much.  That it Mith?

Ill add that the B option, along with the suggested link to previous iteration in the OP Block, would provide both continuity for the discussion and the ability to bow out of the conversation at certain intervals if it moves past your interest.  As somebody that uses the "Show New Replies to your Posts" feature, the latter one would be especially nice. 

[Priscellie]

I think that treating the Murphy-related topics differently by the mods gives the message that Murphy should be treated differently by the members.  Like they have license to be less civil.  Far from it.  Breaking the forum's respect rules is just as serious an infraction when Murphy is involved as when she isn't, and the mods will respond accordingly.  If posters can't treat each other like human beings, they can spend the first chunk of the time after Skin Game is released in Time Out.

[Mith]

Fair enough.  I was only thinking in terms of one specified area of discussion, not the consequences of what such segregation would bring about.  I just get a bit annoyed when there are multiple threads on the same topic when one works just as well.  The only thing I could think for fairness is merging threads that have the same topic, or locking new threads with a link to the more established open thread.

Hopefully this makes a bit more sense.

[Priscellie]

Fair enough.  I was only thinking in terms of one specified area of discussion, not the consequences of what such segregation would bring about.  I just get a bit annoyed when there are multiple threads on the same topic when one works just as well.  The only thing I could think for fairness is merging threads that have the same topic, or locking new threads with a link to the more established open thread.

Hopefully this makes a bit more sense.

You're absolutely right about duplicate topics!  Whenever you see them, report the newer thread and include a link to the older one, and whichever mod gets to it first will merge the two.

[Quantus]

I think that treating the Murphy-related topics differently by the mods gives the message that Murphy should be treated differently by the members.  Like they have license to be less civil.  Far from it.  Breaking the forum's respect rules is just as serious an infraction when Murphy is involved as when she isn't, and the mods will respond accordingly.  If posters can't treat each other like human beings, they can spend the first chunk of the time after Skin Game is released in Time Out.

That's an excellent point, and not a side of the issue I was considering. 

[Serack]

I think that treating the Murphy-related topics differently by the mods gives the message that Murphy should be treated differently by the members.  Like they have license to be less civil.  Far from it.  Breaking the forum's respect rules is just as serious an infraction when Murphy is involved as when she isn't, and the mods will respond accordingly.  If posters can't treat each other like human beings, they can spend the first chunk of the time after Skin Game is released in Time Out.

Ah, I figured there was a reason why the suggestion hadn't gained traction with the powers that be.  The decision to nix segregation of topics was made shortly before I started participating here, so I'm not as exposed to the rationale.  This makes complete sense.

The petty sniping in Murphy-related topics of late is unbecoming of the high standards of discourse expected of this forum. 

I wholeheartedly agree with this.  Especially the term "petty sniping"

One of the reasons why segregation was on my mind was because I typically avoid spending much time on Murphy centric topics because of all the bickering that they seem to devolve into.  However, there have been several instances in the past month or 2 where the non Murphy centric conversations have ended up touching on Murph, and the vitriol ended up spilling into those topics as well, thus negating my avoidance tactic.


I know the Mod staff follows the suggestions section pretty closely, even if they don't always respond.  So after mentioning my concern, I was taking an "In the Mods we trust" attitude.  Your responses sure do reinforce my opinions of Modly competence though

*considers saying something silly and rude to wipe the brown off his nose*

(minor edits for grammar...  this post got revised multiple times because of browser issues, and some rattling grammar issues got introduced)