That’s a good point, but it doesn’t adress the issue of diminished post count after the merging.
I wouldn’t mind if you merged the two topics after the new one has already lost steam and both topics are inactive, but merging them too soon seems to inhibit discussion, that’s all I’m saying.
I guess we’ll never know whether they naturally attracted little interest due to the topics’ own qualities, or if the merge artificially suppressed interest. One thing, as point of fact, there were 7 replies to the “Star Meaning” topic post-merge, so not literally 0, but yes I understand. It might be too early to judge a trend based on few examples, but I take your point, and will bear it in mind, for sure.
I would like to point out that nearly every single reference to “regular powers” in this thread so far is actually talking about leader powers, meaning that all of this basically applies solely to Shatter and Nevov.
When all you want to do is merge some posts but get dragged into an impromptu revolution.
Hey, Nevov, don;t take this personally or anything, I know you are trying to your job, and don’t get me wrong you are great at doing at it. I just want to make sure you know why posts are merged, and if you merge a new post with an old post with a similar subject that is a week old, no one’s going to see, and therefore no discussion will happen. It’s kind of like what @Werbenja was saying. Its like merging two samurai class ideas to one post. Posts are merged to clear up the clutter without affecting discussion, but moving a post to something old will prevent discussion.
Ironically, this is an example of a thread that might benefit from being split. There are two discussions.
With regard to @Nevov, it sounds like the original thread in the op was handled correctly, but he has indicated that he’s totally open to talking about any of the decisions he’s made. Personally, I don’t expect any of us will be perfect, but I’m completely happy with how it’s gone to promote both @Nevov and @Shatter.
With regard to when to merge/split, I am interested in hearing more people who have an opinion. There are many @moderators calls to merge threads, and I’m not always sure what I think. I like megathreads to handle super common topics, but when there is no blessed megathread I am sometimes torn between merging threads about the same topic and enjoying the differences in conversation.
One thing that I think about merging threads is that sometimes it can be frustrating as someone who just wants to make a post if there are two or more threads about the same thing because once I start typing I have to figure out what goes with this thread, what goes with the other one, and what goes with both.
Imagine that we have two threads with similar topics, one older than the other. Wether the topics are similar enough to deserve merging is really subjective and I don’t think we can set an outline to follow in this regard. Of course, this can always be discussed in the new thread, with someone presenting the old thread to the OP, and that’s what I’ve been doing most of the times I see this situation occur.
But let’s say we all agree that the topics are similar enough, we’d still need to ask ourselves if merging the new thread with the old one won’t desincourage conversation, my main concern with very few examples of @Nevov’s merging (emphasis on “very few”, his work has been stellar for the majority of his time as a leader, definitely better than @Shatter) (and, even in the cases where I think he did wrong, we can never be sure if conversation was desincouraged, as he himself reminded me). My thought process for merging threads that I already deemed to be of similar enough topics, if I could do it, would be:
If both threads are active, merge the new one with the old one. In these forums, that’s where most of the merging examples already fall into;
If the new thread is active and the old one is inactive, leave them be;
If the new thread is inactive and the old one is active, merge the new one with the old one;
If both threads are inactive, merge the new one with the old one.
Of course, we’d need to define what is an active thread, but I’m sure we can reach a consensus. Maybe after a month has passed without new posts we could call a thread inactive? Or maybe we could leave the auto-closing of @System to be the sign of true inactivity?
we’re all in the same boat
plus @Nevov is kool beans
He closes slits and merges so much…why…he even did himself in…
I like your swift movements…but can you chill like a little bit
Yeah, sorry, I’ve now hidden that false topic I started, so you don’t need to see it cluttering up your Bugs Forum view.
I failed in searching for a Marks topic, and only found it after I posted my thread, if I had found it I’d have just posted a straight reply on there instead of even creating my own topic. But we can’t delete a whole topic, so merge was the only option.
Don’t know if you saw, but Deca’s Dev Krathan did post a clarification on the patch notes including mentioning Shaitan, so if it helped clarify the picture, then was worthwhile to have raised the issue.
@Nevov please make a thread called “Realmeye Fourms” and merge every other thread into that.
You people need to chill the fuck out. Like people are putting up with your bs right now.
Stop being dicks.
You two aren’t exactly fucking saints so why not look at yourselves before calling out someone working on making these forums tolerable from your trashy posts?
Jesus Christ, if you don’t know its a joke then I question your intelligence. Do you really need someone to tell you its a joke?
You need to stop being uptight taking a gaming forum as serious as a life or death situation. Here’s a suggestion: when you see something that’s not practical or true, don’t take it seriously. It’s that simple.
I don’t know about XIYANGYANG, but I honestly think Nevov is doing a great job.
my name hasn’t been mentioned shoo!!! have fun nevov 
