Official threads for major GT announcements

[SCER]

It might sound petty, and it might also sound like too much work, which is fair enough, but I'd love it if one of the GTP staff members, or any that are available at a given time, would provide an objective discussion thread for analysis and feedback to major GT announcements. The primary thread which is currently being used to discuss the announcement that GT7 will probably have standards for instance, has a heavily biased poll question and heavily biased answer options, despite the consensus apparently being in favour of the announcement.

 

[Azure Flare]

I'm pretty sure that is what the news blog is for.

 

[SCER]

I'm pretty sure that is what the news blog is for.

Where would I find the news blog? If by news blog you mean the articles that come up on the main page, they don't really allow for much discussion/debate or the creation of objective polls.

 

[Azure Flare]

That is the primary purpose, but then members just take them to the forums and complaining/whining/bitching/poo-flinging ensues.

 

[SCER]

That is the primary purpose, but then members just take them to the forums and complaining/whining/bitching/poo-flinging ensues.

If an official, objective news thread was posted on the forums, accompanied by a decent poll when necessary, there could be a marginal reduction in the amount of complaining/whining/bitching/poo-flinging.

 

[Azure Flare]

Have you ever seen the GT6 section? It leads to that every time. That's why the epic whining and crying thread exists.

 

[SVX]

I think it's a good idea. And it would make everything more organized if a mod did it. It wouldn't need to even be a mod, could just be a 'GT6 Section moderator' or something, like how it was a few years ago.

 

[BobK]

Isn't this what a) the front page and b) the entire GT6 section are for?

 

[SCER]

Isn't this what a) the front page and b) the entire GT6 section are for?

regarding:

a) The front page doesn't exactly allow for in-depth communication/discussion.

b) The keyword is 'objective', pretty much all threads made by ordinary gtp members end up having biased titles and OPs, and biased polls where applicable, objectivity is important so as not to skew debates about important topics.

 

[MatskiMonk]

Biased Polls are indeed just troll fodder, but it's hard to avoid. If you don't like it, I'd avoid those threads, or just try and get in sooner with an un-biased one.

 

[SCER]

Biased Polls are indeed just troll fodder, but it's hard to avoid. If you don't like it, I'd avoid those threads, or just try and get in sooner with an un-biased one.

It could be avoided by the introduction of 'official' announcement discussion threads, where most of the main debate would be directed, with threads about the same topic simply getting locked. In my head it's a pretty good solution.

 

[BobK]

regarding:

a) The front page doesn't exactly allow for in-depth communication/discussion.

b) The keyword is 'objective', pretty much all threads made by ordinary gtp members end up having biased titles and OPs, and biased polls where applicable, objectivity is important so as not to skew debates about important topics.

WRT A: News article from today has 106 comments. Articles from yesterday have several hundred comments. How "in depth" do you want it to get?

WRT B: What's stopping you from creating an objective discussion thread?

 

[SCER]

WRT A: News article from today has 106 comments. Articles from yesterday have several hundred comments. How "in depth" do you want it to get?

In-depth enough to have a back and forth debate with someone over an extended period of time, like you are able to on the forums but aren't able to on the front page comments sections.

WRT B: What's stopping you from creating an objective discussion thread?

The fact that by the time I'd have got around to making one, there would very likely already be a (probably) biased one, which the majority of gtp users interested in the topic would be using to discuss it. And besides, the one I make could be biased.

 

[BobK]

In-depth enough to have a back and forth debate with someone over an extended period of time, like you are able to on the forums but aren't able to on the front page comments sections.



The fact that by the time I'd have got around to making one, there would very likely already be a (probably) biased one, which the majority of gtp users interested in the topic would be using to discuss it. And besides, the one I make could be biased.

Firstly, I was unaware that there was an upper limit on the number of comments to a news article. Otherwise, how could there not be an in-depth back and forth discussion if people wanted to engage in one?

Secondly, how would these "objective threads" be kept objective? And why can't that be done now in existing threads?

Creating an objective OP isn't really a difficult thing, just turn off the fanboiism for a few minutes. Something like:

"Today PD has announced a major change to the franchise with the addition of a new Skyline model. Discuss."

Okay, I'll concede that turning off the fanboiism would be difficult if not impossible for some.

 

[SCER]

Firstly, I was unaware that there was an upper limit on the number of comments to a news article. Otherwise, how could there not be an in-depth back and forth discussion if people wanted to engage in one?

It's a lot easier to have a discussion when you are notified about being replied to. I've addressed people on three or four seperate occasions on the front page, not once have I been responded to.

Secondly, how would these "objective threads" be kept objective? And why can't that be done now in existing threads?

I'm not asking for a perfectly cordial discussion, it'd just be a lot better if a discussion thread started out on an unbiased and objective footing.

Creating an objective OP isn't really a difficult thing, just turn off the fanboiism for a few minutes. Something like:

"Today PD has announced a major change to the franchise with the addition of a new Skyline model. Discuss."

Okay, I'll concede that turning off the fanboiism would be difficult if not impossible for some.

What reason do people have to comment on my unbiased discussion thread, instead of the first one that gets put up, which could well be biased?

 

[Samus]

A topic will invariably go the same way whether the OP is objective or not. The standard car issue was going to create a strong debate no matter what.

 

[SCER]

I just thought a better debate would be more likely without the possibility biased titles, ops and polls, but if nobody thinks it'd make a difference then fair enough I guess.

 

[BobK]

I'm not asking for a perfectly cordial discussion, it'd just be a lot better if a discussion thread started out on an unbiased and objective footing.

So, again why can't you do this yourself? If you can't be bothered to create an objective unbiased post, why should anybody else?

What reason do people have to comment on my unbiased discussion thread, instead of the first one that gets put up, which could well be biased?

By the same token, what reason do people have to comment on anybody's unbiased discussion thread, instead of the first one that gets put up? Or should people be forbidden from posting on a new topic concerning announcements until such time as a moderator or "official first post creator" gets a chance to create a new thread?

 

[SCER]

So, again why can't you do this yourself? If you can't be bothered to create an objective unbiased post, why should anybody else?

Because I can't guarantee that I'll be the first person to put up a discussion thread for every announcement made. It's not about being bothered to, it's about being able to.

By the same token, what reason do people have to comment on anybody's unbiased discussion thread, instead of the first one that gets put up?

Exactly. Which is where an official moderator-created thread comes in.

Or should people be forbidden from posting on a new topic concerning announcements until such time as a moderator or "official first post creator" gets a chance to create a new thread?

Well an official moderator-made thread wouldn't take very long to be made, perhaps five minutes, I'm sure people will be able to control themselves. Just a copy and paste of the front page headline and main page text, possibly with the addition of a poll.

This is one hell of a grilling you're giving me

 

[BobK]

Because I can't guarantee that I'll be the first person to put up a discussion thread for every announcement made.

So if I understand you correctly, the person who creates the thread regarding an announcement would have to be the person who posted the news article. Otherwise *anybody* might make the first post, biased or otherwise.

But why should this person have to post the same thing twice? Kind of makes the whole news page redundant, doesn't it?

I'm sure people will be able to control themselves.

Oh, come now. This is the GT5/GT6 section you're talking about, right?

This is one hell of a grilling you're giving me

Yeah, I suppose it is . I just don't think you've thought the whole thing out all the way, that's all.

 

[TRLWNC7396]

Isn't this what a) the front page and b) the entire GT6 section are for?

I think I saw @Jordan mention that he wanted a change in the front page. It really is a poor way to have discussions.

An easy fix would be to NOT have the discussion on that page, but, rather, a link to the exact same news page in a dedicated thread (as in the first post IS the news page) on a "GT news" forum section.

Then, we could dump the old, rather difficult current reply system and just jump easily into better discussions.

I feel it would solve all problems involved.

Thanks!

 

[SCER]

I think I saw @Jordan mention that he wanted a change in the front page. It really is a poor way to have discussions.

An easy fix would be to NOT have the discussion on that page, but, rather, a link to the exact same news page in a dedicated thread (as in the first post IS the news page) on a "GT news" forum section.

Then, we could dump the old, rather difficult current reply system and just jump easily into better discussions.

I feel it would solve all problems involved.

Thanks!

Exactly! Someone who understands me!