Recent discussion about discussions

[Jesse Phillips]

On Thursday, 13 March 2014 at 19:38:21 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 06:17:27PM +0000, bossfong wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 12 March 2014 at 18:30:37 UTC, Jesse Phillips 
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >I don't see anything from that which would make it better for
>> >heated discussion. A discussion is just a thread of replies.
>> 
>> "A discussion is just a thread of replies" is wrong I believe.
>> Discussions often evolve and diverge, whilst threads have a 
>> static title and topic.

What Teoh says below, a divergent thread is a new discussion, 
which may or may not relate to its parent. The only way to 
separate it is for someone to decide it should be separate.

> That's not true. That's only the limitation of the web 
> interface. NNTP
> threads can have a new subject in every reply, should the need 
> arise.
> AND it keeps track of the parent post, so that if you want to, 
> you can
> actually trace the thread back to the parent thread! Show me a 
> web-based
> forum that can do that, and I might reconsider.

Yeah, the web interface could handle new titles better (currently 
keeps them nested in the same thread).

>> >Votes are probably the only thing missing because they 
>> >eliminate
>> >the need for "+1" posts.
>> 
>> I agree. (see, how again some button would have been nice)
>
> Frankly, I rather see voting as a waste of time. Either you say
> something substantial, or don't say it. Getting rid voting 
> *and* +1
> posts will be a good thing (though I'm guilty of +1 posts 
> myself :P).

Sometimes the only thing you need to communicate is that there is 
more than one person who holds this opinion. Not really for 
deciding what to do, but to encourage the poster to peruse this 
point. Unlike Reddit or politics, votes shouldn't be used for 
moving thread priority or deciding what action to take.

They are mostly meaningless, but can be a moral boost for the 
poster.