It's a private forum and they have a rule, they don't need to refute anything. I am sure there are other places to post your thoughts about Skyrim if you don't like the rule here.

How's that different than having to read through a 20+ page thread? Two 10 page threads and one 20 page thread are going to have the same number of posts, they will just be organized differently. As long as people keep their threads organized and post links and summaries of the previous thread in the original post (which most people around here are good about doing, and it's honestly not hard to do), then there's absolutely no difference.

Plus, people are already quoting the previous thread in the new one that Exo made. You're trying to make it sound like this is such a horrible problem that everyone wants fixed, when really you're the only one that seems to be bothered.

It would certainly be good form to treat people with respect and address their concerns. You're right, they don't have to, but that doesn't make it right.

And to that other guy, have you ever considered that we shouldn't have to cross quote?

I like how they are locked at 200 posts.

It keeps discussions from getting stale in my opinion.

There is nothing to refute. By joining these forums you agreed to abide by the rules that Bethesda have set down, and have been refined over many years to help keep the forums running smoothly. If you don't want to stick to them then perhaps these forums are not for you?



Such as accusing the moderators of crudely and brazenly closing threads at 200 posts?

I can see the OP's point. There isn't really a huge difference either way. On one hand, you have a ( for example ) 600 post thread, and people will likely read the first and last 50 or so. On the other hand, you have three separate threads which people will likely ignore the first two and read a bunch of posts from the latest one. I don't know which I think is better or worse, but the level of douchery in this thread is uncalled for.

let me ask you this. do you tend to avoid the threads that are already on page 6 or farther because you feel that you won't be able to easily merge into the discussion? I feel like that sometimes, by that point (if the thread is about a specific subject; a one perspective VS another) there isn't much to really discuss until a while later.

that and because some topics like the unofficial threads that get into the double didgets would allways be on the top of the board, and the first page of the CD would always be filled by the same threads because they don't have an end.

I feel like I should point out that the thread you cited as an example (which I then bravely rescued from imminent death using a new groundbreaking technique called "Creating a new thread") doesn't really have any discussion worth reading anyway. The thread is basically just a list of unlikely bugs, awkward attempts at humour and conspiracy theories.

If it was a thread about the wise, yet controversial teachings of Confucius (and Confucianism) with intelligent, well thought out replies... I would probably agree with you.

Of course that would never happen on this forum The closest thing we had to a proper discussion about asian philosophy was the legendary Tao Master thread, which was basically just a bunch of brilliantly written posts that made absolutely no sense and the confused replies of 14 year old Morrowind fans.

So? They'd be on the top because they're popular and people keep posting in them. If they ceased to be interesting then they would sink. I see no problem at all with that. This way, you've got new threads discussing the same topic still getting to the top of the page, so really what's the difference?

EDIT: And I agree with Capital. There are valid arguments for and against this rule, no need to mock the OP.

so there would be no change at all

And then they are brought back to life with a new thread.


How is having to go through 700 post easier than going through multiple threads that do a better job organizing it chronologically?


And there is a new thread for it already and people get back on track.

We don't need one thread that starts as topic A and changes into topic B when there is already a thread for topic B.

I'm not saying its the greatest thing in the world but its not really harmful in anyway.

Batman is right.

Super long threads are repetitive anyway. I frequent a forum with many threads in the high-hundreds and some in the thousands of posts. I never bother reading through the entire thing... I don't even bother replying most of the time because I know it's probably already been said (unless the thread is VERY general like about a game and maybe a new expansion or something was just announced).

I just love that fresh smell of a new thread. It's like the smell of recently cut grass. Mmmmm...

yea, but not EVERY one is going to be posting in those popular threads. Does every one on these forums like MLP? because that one would be up there all the time. there are alot of threads that are very popular and get alot of posts, you'd have to flip to something like page 4 of the communty board to check up on the small discussions that aren't total spam fests but have real disscusion.

Just because a thread isn't super popular and doesn't have a bunch of posts doesn't mean its not valuable and should be hidden by critical mass topics.

but... mocking is the only thing I'm good at :cold:


Seriously though, I see his point, but I also see the flaws in his theory. There are valid arguments on both sides which is why it's a pointless discussion. The rules were written to prevent exactly this argument.

We will never reach a conclusion because both sides are equal, which is why we use the rules to settle the argument.


I realize that the OP is probably thinking "Exorince, I hate you so [censored] much right now", and I don't blame you, that's what most people here think anyway, but I'm pretty sure I'm right about this.

Which completely justifies a little mocking. ^_^

...right? Mods? yes? :unsure:

Why is there a black van outside?

oh f

Normally I hate when people type "I agree" but, alas, I agree. I was struggling trying to think of a way to say the last sentence without it getting deleted.

Critical mass topics are just the same as any other topic: either of those that has recently been posted in will rise to the top of the page. Should I feel annoyed that there are many people interested in a topic that doesn't interest me in the slightest? No, I'll just check the one that interests me and if there are people who want to discuss it, it will survive.

You're saying that topics witch gets a lot of posts would always be at the top... which how it works already...

that and because threads about rules usually pop up every time some one gets locked or gets a warning and from their perspective they did nothing wrong, so they post a topic asking why it is that rule exists.

it happens to often and are redundant as they are not going to change the rules, so its technically against the rules to post threads discussing them, so that we don't have dozens of "why did I get a warning" threads.

this is something that the OP should have PM'd a mod about, unless he was just looking to sturr up forum members to his support hoping to get some kind of democratic change to the rules.

which is silly, this isn't a democracy, its a dictatorship.

@Nuck: yeah, thats how it is now, but the difference between them is that they don't take up the whole front page and it gives smaller starting threads a chance for people to look at before vanishing to page 4 in the matter of minutes.

even if the other way works better, which I don't really see how it would, its NOT going to change no matter how many are in favor of it. the mods have done so for specific reasons, which are clearly explained in the forums rules.

... which is why you should mock people and discourage them from adding to the discussion?
Someone has to win, don't they?

...Am i reading the same forums? All i see is people complaining about Bethesda's every decision.



Benevolent dictatorship if you ask me :hehe:

more like stratocracy actually

:hehe:



No, people should counter-mock. To maintain the mocking equilibrium. :nod:


Only if that someone is me.

I actually like threads being kept short here and would even like them shorter with maybe a max of 100 replies. It seems to have some sort of a psychological effect on people if they have too much to read they just give up after a while and ignore many of the points given later on even if they have been addressed already. I can′t even count how often I've addressed some issue with a reply only to have someone ask the same question in the next reply having neither read the question when it came up nor read the reply.

So I′m personally all for the 200 replies limit. If it went to 400 or even 800 the problem of people just getting exhausted with the topic before making a reply would just escalate further. When it′s short people seem to be more likely to quickly breeze through the old one and then whatever is in the next thread because they feel smaller.

dictatorship is dictatorship, its the autocrat that is either benevolent or malevolent. systems of government or leadership don't have moral personafications. having said that, I acknowledge that I did not need to add that input.

People can punch back, that's why it's okay to punch them.

No, at least not for me; for me the posts with the most recent post is on top and then they are sorted chronologically. A 1000 post thread would not be on the first page if it had not been posted in recently and a 3 post thread would be on top if it had the most recent post.