Suggestion World News, Current Events & Politics should have thread time limit

[Attacker3]

The threads in World News, Current Events, and Politics should have a time limit on how long their threads can stay up before they are locked. Because of the nature of the board, talking about news, it should stay up to date with new stories. What happens currently is that it evolves or devolves (depending on who you ask) into policy debates and such, which is very ok in a place about politics and policy, but it should not keep bumping an old story to the top, because the debates rage on for weeks in certain threads.

There should be a General Politics Debate thread that pinned to the top that people can move to once the thread has been locked, once it's old enough. 3 days would probably be the best, in my opinion. This is just so that fresh news is always at the top, and that they are as on topic as possible, because they usually start up on topic, then slowly stray away as people question other people's reason behind their opinion, which then stray even further away from the article. If people knew they did not have enough time to get into those longform debates, discussion would probably stay on topic.

 

[FAST6191]

I would say quite the opposite. If people are coming here for "fresh" news then something has gone wrong somewhere. Furthermore much of the value of discussion comes from further follow up and developments, and discussions of policy that result. If you want reddit or twitter the said services exist already.

 

[Attacker3]

I would say quite the opposite. If people are coming here for "fresh" news then something has gone wrong somewhere. Furthermore much of the value of discussion comes from further follow up and developments, and discussions of policy that result. If you want reddit or twitter the said services exist already.

That's not what I want, I want on topic discussion about policies relating to news, not what this thread has turned into. And the thing with those 2 is that if you have a different opinion than what the majority of the subreddit's/twitter person's followers are, you get pushed to the bottom of the pile, not to be seen by anyone. At least with this people see. I want debate of policies, I don't want what the thread I just linked to has become (I'm part of the problem too, mind you )

 

[Subtle Demise]

Yeah I'm not seeing the problem either. It's a forum for debating politics and world events, not necessarily just current events. Besides there are topics that aren't necessarily time sensitive in that forum as well, but that are too sensitive to go into the off-topic section.

 

[Tom Bombadildo]

If you want a place to hardcore debate brand new news and politics, best you leave GBATemp and find some other place to do it. This isn't "PoliticsTemp", why should we change the way one section works if no one else really cares?

If you don't want a hodge podge mix of posts in a thread, go to Reddit or Twitter.

 

[Attacker3]

If you want a place to hardcore debate brand new news and politics, best you leave GBATemp and find some other place to do it. This isn't "PoliticsTemp", why should we change the way one section works if no one else really cares?

If you don't want a hodge podge mix of posts in a thread, go to Reddit or Twitter.

That's a little aggressive, and it was only a suggestion. And you're right, this isn't PoliticsTemp, but I'm talking about the section that has the word "Politics" in it. I like the mix of posts in threads, I just think that it defeats the purpose of having News in the title if the most popular thread atm has news from FEBRUARY and has barely any discussion about that piece of news.

 

[FAST6191]

I agree Reddit, Twitter and things that follow from them are generally awful places to be and why I tend to only observe them from afar. Cliques, bad rules and such with the relentless chasing of "new" probably being what gets them there.

I have not been in that thread in a while (still haven't as of writing this) but elsewhere around here, and prior to the appearance of this section, I generally see anybody that can do the whole reasoned debate thing engaged with and closing threads I don't see as a way to promote better debate. What might be better is if a thread like that diverges that it gets renamed and a note from the renamer gets added to the start.

 

[Tom Bombadildo]

No aggression here mate, just being blunt.

If you want to see newer threads first, then sort it that way using the sort options at the bottom. Otherwise, I see no reason why any change has to be made for everyone else, nor do I see any reason why we should close threads were people are actively having a discussion, regardless of age.

 

[Attacker3]

I agree Reddit, Twitter and things that follow from them are generally awful places to be and why I tend to only observe them from afar. Cliques, bad rules and such with the relentless chasing of "new" probably being what gets them there.

I have not been in that thread in a while (still haven't as of writing this) but elsewhere around here, and prior to the appearance of this section, I generally see anybody that can do the whole reasoned debate thing engaged with and closing threads I don't see as a way to promote better debate. What might be better is if a thread like that diverges that it gets renamed and a note from the renamer gets added to the start.

Sure that's absolutely fine, or maybe an automatic tagging system that has "Old News" after a week?

 

[FAST6191]

Too many stories take more than a week to develop, or have developments that occur over months.

I did a quick scan for "biggest news of 2017" and everything that came up as a result took months to develop and unfold. At that point you are either making more mod work or encouraging people to make new posts for every new development and also having to summarise things to that point.