New Forum Policy on “Megathreads”

[crashcarson15]

Hey everyone.

 

We’re piloting a new forum policy where “big four” sports teams that are unveiling a significant logo/uniform change and/or seen had a significant logo/uniform change leaked will see forum discussion split off from the league’s “megathread” into individual threads. I’ve gone ahead and done this with the Pacers unveiling yesterday, splitting that discussion into its own thread.

 

The motivation, largely, is that “megathreads” are particularly vulnerable to potential discussion getting trapped and looked over, and can be particularly difficult to navigate when they grow significantly in 24 hours, as they often do when a team unveils a new set. When the Pacers unveil a new uniform, that discussion shouldn’t be swallowing up news about the Trail Blazers’ new threads, for example.

 

We don’t necessarily need individual threads when teams are making small tweaks, especially when it relates to the Adidas -> Nike move the NBA is making this offseason; the slightly different Thunder shorts don’t require a split from the megathread.

 

Additionally, let’s keep all speculation to the so-called “megathread.” An individual thread should be created for each team either…

• On the date of the expected logo or uniform unveiling
• When a credible image of the logo or uniform has leaked

 

I’ll set out some examples of how we’d implement the new policy, and hopefully they make good sense.

 

We would want an individual thread in instances like…

• An expansion team’s unveiling, like the Vegas Golden Knights last month
• When a team is keeping its logo suite the same, but unveiling a new uniform design, like the Minnesota Wild last month
• When a team is introducing a new logo, like the Minnesota Timberwolves did a couple months ago

 

We do not need an individual thread in instances like…

• A team makes minor tweaks to its uniform, like the Columbus Blue Jackets last month.
• A team introduces a new tertiary or anniversary mark.
• A team’s jersey is transferring to a new cut or manufacturer, but largely keeping the design the same, like the Oklahoma City Thunder.

 

This announcement only directly pertains to the major four American/Canadian sports leagues: MLB, NBA, NFL and NHL.

 

Soccer kit news should remain in the megathread; creating individual threads for kits would bog the forum down significantly, which is the danger of this policy. However, if a major club or an MLS team has unveiled a new crest, it should have its own thread.

 

I’m keeping this thread open to field questions and feedback from the forum, so please do let me know if you have any questions!

[Gothamite]

Thank you for this! 

 

I think that it's a great idea to limit speculation to the mega thread, but personally I'm less happy about some of the restrictions on individual threads.   If a team unveils a new anniversary logo to be worn for an entire year, that seems worthy of a new thread.  Many of us avoid the megathreads because they get so unwieldy, and some good stuff will otherwise be lost. 

[HedleyLamarr]

Any possibility that the actual logo/uniform/etc change can be linked onto the opening post, too?

[Gothamite]

Here's another example of why I think the solo-thread limitations are too strict; under these guidelines this thread, created this morning, shouldn't exist. 

 

 

 

It's a new logo for a new team, so that makes sense.  But it's not a major league, so according to that it should be limited to the megathread.  But it's a good topic, and really seems worthy of discussion.

[BadSeed84]

I think individual threads tend to be better, like the 2018 Mlb All Star Game logo deserved it's own thread, but instead its talked about in the MLB 2017 thread.

Which sorta doesn't make sense since it relates to 2018, but it is certainly too early to make a MLB 2018 thread.

[crashcarson15]

11 hours ago, Gothamite said:

Here's another example of why I think the solo-thread limitations are too strict; under these guidelines this thread, created this morning, shouldn't exist. 

 

 

 

It's a new logo for a new team, so that makes sense.  But it's not a major league, so according to that it should be limited to the megathread.  But it's a good topic, and really seems worthy of discussion.

TBF, I don’t expect those guidelines to pertain to minor league teams, and see no issue with that having its own thread.

 

It’s more a set of guidelines to draw discussion out of megathreads for the topics the board cares most about, rather than to restrict other discussion to a megathread. We can evolve these as time goes on, too, based on what the community thinks is most important; to me, anniversary logos are little more than footnotes, but if others feel differently, we can and should change the criteria.

 

At the same time, I know there are members that prefer the idea of a “megathread,” so I’m trying to split the difference a little here, too.

[Gothamite]

If you don't mind my asking, was there a concern that we had too many threads?  I thought we had a pretty good balance already; every change made it into a megathread, and some also got their own.  If the change was too minor or the conversation uninspiring, it quickly dropped to the back pages and was forgotten.   Was that deemed insufficient?

[CS85]

I feel like this is a necessary change, and honestly I'd let it go even further. It's not a democracy, so why not have it both ways?

Pinning general threads is always a safe bet, since inevitably some will want megathreads, others will want specific threads, and honestly since this is a uni/logo design forum, even incremental changes kind of merit their own threads (unless there's already a team-specific thread in place).  

 

Either way, I applaud the mods.  Please take the previous sentence into consideration next time you get a butthurt complaint from someone about one of my posts.

[oldschoolvikings]

I'm all for anything that might help to put an end to the amateur mod jumping down someone's throat for opening a new thread with the obligatory "already being discussed HERE!" post.

[Gothamite]

That policy isn't new, though, is it?  What's new is fewer separate threads, not more. 

[BBTV]

This is good.  While there was always a rule that individual threads could be made, too often jerkoffs would get on people for doing it and post links to a post on page 1,224 of the megathread.

 

Megathreads have their purpose.  Discussing league-wide changes, like BP cap material, promotions like the stupid little league thing, manufacturer changes, rumors, etc.  But it's so difficult to critique and have a discussion about a uniform when another one is unveiled the same day and there's two separate conversations going on right on the same page of a megathread.

 

It won't produce clutter.  If nobody cares that a minor league team totally overhauls its look then it'll naturally fall off the first page.  It could get crazy if there were threads for NCAA teams since nowadays they have like 20 unis each and change every year, but I think people are smart enough to only make a separate thread for something really significant.

 

I remember the pre-megathread days and it was fine.

[OnWis97]

I like this.  There were a couple times when a uniform overhaul would be announced and some backseat mod would jump in on post #3 and say it should be in the 300-page megathread.  

 

Hopefully the participants can understand this.  If so, it's a good balance.  Hopefully when the Yankees announce they are removing their pinstripes, nobody will say "uh, we have an MLB thread."  But the general thread obviously is a good place for a team adding a memorial patch, the inconsistencies of how players wear pants/socks, "Natinals" jerseys, and the like.  The policy is roughly how I'd like these things to go

[Gothamite]

So how come this thread on the NBA “city uniforms” event was shut down and everyone told to use the 300+ page megathread instead?  

 

 

This new policy seems really arbitrary. 

[Bruhammydude]

On 12/30/2017 at 6:28 PM, Gothamite said:

So how come this thread on the NBA “city uniforms” event was shut down and everyone told to use the 300+ page megathread instead?  

 

 

This new policy seems really arbitrary. 

Haha, that was my bad, i just didn't want it to get lost in the sea of comments

[Gothamite]

1 hour ago, RealSkillsAbraham said:

Haha, that was my bad, i just didn't want it to get lost in the sea of comments

 

You were entirely correct to start a new thread, based on the criteria laid out.  The policy appears to be applied in an arbitrary fashion.

 

And you’re right, news and discussion like that shouldn’t have been buried in a 300+ page megathread.  

[Sec19Row53]

4 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

 

You were entirely correct to start a new thread, based on the criteria laid out.  The policy appears to be applied in an arbitrary fashion.

 

And you’re right, news and discussion like that shouldn’t have been buried in a 300+ page megathread.  

I'll play devil's advocate. If RealSkills had offered an opinion instead of just saying 'tell me all what you think', it would have been worthy of its own thread. Since it was just an invitation to offer an opinion, it didn't need its own thread.

[Gothamite]

2 hours ago, Sec19Row53 said:

I'll play devil's advocate. If RealSkills had offered an opinion instead of just saying 'tell me all what you think', it would have been worthy of its own thread. Since it was just an invitation to offer an opinion, it didn't need its own thread.

 

Isn't every thread an invitation to offer an opinion?  Not all first posts are great, but the threads themselves can grow from there.

[BBTV]

I think it's reasonable to request some clarification on this policy.  The way it was written (and intended), minor changes like the Marlins ditching their orange tops, or the Braves adding a one-day patch for MLK wouldn't be things that anyone should start a new topic for, and would be either merged with the megathread or just killed.  Now with the SL.Net bot, we're getting not only threads that a regular member wouldn't be allowed to start, but also the occasional dupe - literal dupes because there's already a thread, and other dupes because the new thread was already being discussed in the appropriate megathread.

 

I'm not anti-bot, and I'm for whatever drives traffic to the mothership and helps pay for this place that we all come to for free, but I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for some clarification and it seems to be a subject that is intentionally being avoided, though several members have either asked the same or endorsed other's questions.

[officeglenn]

This policy predates the SL.Net bot, so it has resulted in some unforeseen/unintended consequences that have come to the fore recently. The mods have taken note, however, and have been discussing it.

 

For the most part, we feel the megathread policy is a good policy and should continue forward. That means that we will have to be more diligent about merging NewsBot-started threads into the megathreads where we feel it's warranted. Of course, we'll be dealing with these threads on a case-by-case basis, so in some cases, we may leave the NewsBot-started thread up on its own. That will have to be left up to the discretion of the moderator(s). 

 

If you have questions or concerns about why a thread was merged or not, or any other questions in general, feel free to PM or tag me, or post in the Ask A Moderator thread. Those will be easier to find and address than questions left in large, very active threads.

[LMU]

Branching off of Glenn, the bot was created by Chris without our influence or request so we're still trying to figure out how to best handle posts that duplicate what's already being discussed.

 

Also branching off what Glenn said if you have a question or concern please direct it to us.  Us missing a buried post that a few people clicked "like" on does not constitute us "intentionally avoiding" a subject.