There have been major and minor server/database corruption problems over the last three years. Didn't BSSM even have to move to xtratime for a bit?
That was during the big crash when BS was shut down for a week or two. I still don't know why we can't try 200 pages for a week and if that doesn't work change it again.
Ok, so when closed here were the post counts. DaisyGirl B@W - 82,814 BSSM - 5,457 (we voluntarily close at 15,000) Panic's D3 threads - 27,236 CarolinaB - 17,085 Random Thoughts - 40,845 If we try closing at 200 pages, that's 3,000 posts. That's a pretty large reduction of what we were doing a few days ago. If it doesn't work we'll try it lower.
The link that JonnyQuest posted had a convo about large threads and their effects on servers, and one of the posts stated that "2,000 post threads are quite abnormal." The software used on BigSoccer is not new, its been used on plenty of other sites all over the place. So its already been "experimented" with.
You just don't get it. It's not a negotiation. The folks running the system, watching the logs and loads, and working with the vendor's support team have given a limit. There's not "compromise" or "negotiation" to be made. If the 350 posts limit works as intended, then I suspect enforcement of the limit will become slack as long as it's not maliciously ignored. The real choice, for us - as customers - is to decide how to spend our time and money. Me? I'll stay right here. Having done tech support, I'll let you know that you get a lot more of what you want when you respectfully make requests - but you don't when you try to negotiate in unnegotiable situations. Instead of dredging up meaningless stats like a kid ("Hey the Daisy kids down the street had 60k posts while we behaved ourselves and only used 15k"), try a more respectful tack: "Well, we'll do it, but I'd appreciate it if you'd be willing to revisit the server loads in a week or two and raise the post limits if things are going well, and keep raising them until you notice any problems" I think you'll find that kind of response gets a lot farther with the Administrators than some of the stuff I've read in this thread.
Yeah, and I think i've been doing a pretty good job too... I think it is going along kind of nicely now. People just needed time to get used to change. People have been taking it upon themselves to start a new thread at @350 without me telling them to now. I think all this really needed was an adjustment period. One idea would be that maybe there could be a seperate forum where i could place the threads that have been locked, like an archive forum so that FFA doesn't get cluttered with locked threads.
Says who? Why can't there be a negotiation? There are many people here, who have been posting here for many years, who have contributed to the success of this site. Why shouldn't we have some say in the way things are run or changed? It seems to me from this thread that JQ & Huss are willing to negotiate to keep their long-time, loyal members happy, and here. Don't our hits on this site contribute to its ad rates? I agree with ulmo - I think trying out a 200 page limit is a good idea.
Earlier in this thread such limits were mentioned. It came down to 100, and IIRC without scrolling back, Jesse mentioned that 50 pages were more palatable. So it could be 50 pages with archives or subfora. Point is, it does seem as if this discussion is coming to an end, and that Splarg is right in that thread communities are beginning to self-regulate. All that really remains is to put the subfora in place, with or without a higher page limit.
I'd like to keep all of the B@W, BSSM, D3, Random Thoughts still in the main FFA forum. One thing i like about them is how new people pop in a lot, i think it makes them more enjoyable. If they were moved into a special place seperate from the main FFA forum, i'm sure that the amount of new people coming in would greatly diminish, thus making them not as enjoyable in the long run. Again, just plugging the idea of an Archive subforum only used for placing the old threads in, while the new ones are in the main bit of FFA where they are more accessable to more people.
You forgot the one from the Crew board that was closed for being too long: Fire Andrulis - 800 posts. Yessir, Foos is on the job, saving the BS servers from complete meltdown via 50 page threads.
Because the limit is technical. Given time, I'm sure the "limit" will be relaxed as long as the longer threads don't appear to be negatively impacting system performance. If folks would just calm down, and adapt to the 350 post limit, I wouldn't be surprised to see things eventually relax a bit. Probably not to the 3000 post limit, though. Why does there need to be negotiation? Unless you think the Administrators "have it in" for the FFA crowd, I don't understand some of what I've seen in this thread.
Yeah, lets be honest, so much of that stuff is just masturbation isnt it. Losing page 900 with 16 different posts about the fact that it's almost5pm so why doesent the clock good and goddamn speed up a little so i can go home isnt exactly a huge loss now is it. Is there really a huge amount of value in that stuff? It's mildly amusing, but really not terribly important.
If you're involved in the thread, it is. The main thing is whether or not folks can adapt to more frequent thread changes. It's precisely the "can I leave work, yet" kind of banter that helps fill in the personality holes that physical seperation creates, and allows people to form strong personal communities online. Yeah, they are cliquish. Yeah, most of us don't belong. But, yeah, I think they deserve to live. And those mundane posts - which taken individually are truly worthless - are an important part of what goes on in those threads.
I can adapt to shorter threads but I really think it will work only if we have our own subfora in FFA. The first page of FFA will be nothing but BSSM, B&W, etc... There's nothing to stop new people from popping into the subfora. We certainly don't want it to be exclusive - we just want it to be easy to manage. And not having to wade through a bunch of other stuff will make it much easier. Andy, am I to understand that the thread size thing is a problem with the new software and not necessarily something that was an issue with the old software? Because that would actually explain why this is just now coming up.
1) A 50 page limit is a little thin, in that sometimes we put up 50 pages in a day. We can try to adapt, but it's nowhere near ideal. 100 would be better. 2) I agree with Archer in that the Fire Andrulis thread should never be closed until Andrulis is fired, regardless of post limits. 3) If Andy Mead ever tells you that you "just don't get it," (one of his favorite put downs), that is a sign that you do, indeed, have a clue.
I've asked before, and been met with silence. I don't ever recall interacting with you - even when I was a regular in BSSM. I generally ignored your sniping comments, since I had no frame of reference. What did I ever do to piss you off? What is your beef with me? Seriously, WTF is your deal?
And we're on page 15 of this thread. You people are like freaking gypsies, travel in packs and never leave.
andy - why do you feel a need to defend huss and JQ? it is their website and if they would like to negotiate or talk with those involved in these threads, it's their every right. i just find it funny that you have become the "non-official" spokesperson for them on this issue and in this thread. ever thing about, ya know, letting them get a word in about all of this?