USS Enterprise (eventually) on Discovery?
- Thread starter EJD1984
- Start date
well, the Discoprise does have R2 units to fix damage during battle so...
I was more amused by the idea of how that would work in real life conversation. "Whelp, we have completed this part of our conversation. Time for the next topic."
But we are in fact on a site subdivided into forums with threads that are being moderated. It’s not supposed to be a free-form conversation, so the challenge is to go with that framework instead of playing a 619-page game with cheat codes as it were. Let’s ask questions / define topics that don’t have simple answers (especially not those recorded on wikis) or cannot be referred to earlier threads; the user with the most interesting question “wins” the highest number of pages. What’s not fun about that?
Last edited:
But we are in fact on a site subdivided into forums with threads that are being moderated. It’s not supposed to be a free-form conversation, so the fun is in going with that framework instead of playing a 619-page game with cheat codes as it were. The object is to ask questions / define topics that don’t have simple answers (especially not those recorded on wikis) or cannot be referred to earlier threads; the user with the most interesting question “wins” the highest number of pages. What’s not fun about that?
Who are you to dictate how people should be posting and what they should be posting? You're not a moderator.
? I’m not allowed a definite opinion lest it be characterized as “dictating”, even though it’s obvious I can’t implement it myself? And I have to be “someone” to express it?
I never said anything about you having a opinion but insisting that posters should post in a certain way and that threads need to be wrapped as quickly as possible is kinda dictating peoples behaviour.
In all serious though, who gives a toss about how long a thread goes for or what tangents we go on. That is what makes being on this board fun. I would highly suggest you lighten up and enjoy the ride.
The whole point is that it’s not a ride, but rather 619 pages of slow burn that will hardly be reread in full. A ride is when you pose a question and get shut down at once (“See this wiki article”, “You can look that up on iMDb”), then you regroup and pose a better question that lasts for two pages, then three, and finally maybe even ten. What’s more Star Trek than constantly being challenged?
Constantly being challenged? How exactly do you think this thread got so large? It's full of people challenging one another. Who are you to judge whether peoples contributions constitute a slow burn or not? This is a community not a lecture hall or debating competition.
It’s a slow burn because the stakes are too low. Replies won’t stop because there is nothing more to say, they’ll just evolve into something not quite matching the title. Valuable contributions will be lost on pages 123 through 145 and possibly restated on 456 through 478 — who’ll go back and reference those? It’s a community on a discussion forum intended for discussion, not casual conversation. The Enterprise has been on DSC since the S1 finale, so why be vehemently opposed to someone pointing out the funny side of a 619-page running thread on the subject, and also making a concrete proposal on how to avoid that?
Because a discussion isn't about winning.But we are in fact on a site subdivided into forums with threads that are being moderated. It’s not supposed to be a free-form conversation, so the challenge is to go with that framework instead of playing a 619-page game with cheat codes as it were. Let’s ask questions / define topics that don’t have simple answers (especially not those recorded on wikis) or cannot be referred to earlier threads; the user with the most interesting question “wins” the highest number of pages. What’s not fun about that?
Why does there have to be stakes? This isn't a competition or a game or anything..it's just a casual discussion.
I like this thread. Please don't ruin it and get it clanged shut.
There is a way to solve it. If it isn't interesting to you, or goes in a direction you aren't interested in, then simply go to other threads that do interest you.
Yeah, if I raised my voice every time a thread I was in got derailed by another topic I'd have gotten fed up and left the board, oh, around 2001. There's no point getting worked up about it unless deliberate trolls are spamming the thread with completely unrelated and disruptive topics and stirring up bad feelings, and there are Mods for that.
The worst problems can be handled by the Moderators and - if necessary - the Admins. Everything else is patience.
The worst problems can be handled by the Moderators and - if necessary - the Admins. Everything else is patience.
What does it matter? People are still talking to each other in this thread.
And now it's evolved into why the Enterprise is on discovery, the nature of the Enterprise on discovery, the reaction to the Enterprise on discovery by the fanbase, a comparison of the reaction of the fanbase between ST and SW and arguing about the canon nature of the Enterprise on Discovery.
And those can’t be separate threads?
Why clog up the forum with 5-6 separate threads when they can all be condensed into one thread?
I gather few of those topics could be argued to warrant its separate thread- they are all responses to the appearance (in both senses) of the ship in DSC, first potential, then realized.
Now, completely separate arguments could perhaps be made on the in-universe position of this DSC-specific ship, now that she's part of another spinoff as well. That's no longer a DSC topic as such. But this discussion never was: before the ship appeared, she had appeared again and again in spinoff after spinoff, and that's what our anticipatory arguments were about.
I say cram it all there (and keep it from polluting every other thread or subforum that touches upon the NCC-1701, which is most of them). How close are we to breaking a record on page numbers?
Timo Saloniemi
Now, completely separate arguments could perhaps be made on the in-universe position of this DSC-specific ship, now that she's part of another spinoff as well. That's no longer a DSC topic as such. But this discussion never was: before the ship appeared, she had appeared again and again in spinoff after spinoff, and that's what our anticipatory arguments were about.
I say cram it all there (and keep it from polluting every other thread or subforum that touches upon the NCC-1701, which is most of them). How close are we to breaking a record on page numbers?
Timo Saloniemi
Similar threads
