War Threads belong to 2+ Factions, not 1

Regardless of who starts a war thread, by the end of a war, it is the record of a war from both sides, as well as from the peanut gallery, and I think it's to big to be closed at the discretion of the thread's creator.

Personally, war threads are all I read, so I'm biased, and I'd say they should never be graved, but left to fade out on their own.

But, if one has to be closed, if it's a thread about two or more factions, and they're named in the subject, then they too should have some control over the life of the thread.

I suggest, to close a war thread, you need permission from the leadership of all factions involved in the main war.

Closing a war thread at your own whim is akin to messaging someone something incendiary and spiteful and then putting them on ignore. Make sure both sides feel they've said their peace before letting something be graved.

Completely agree. unless a war thread breaks blatant forum rules, i would prefer these to stay unless all faction leaders agree to grave it.

War threads only get closed as far as I am concerned if:

1) They break rules

2) The OP requests it

If the leaders don't like it, start another... [:sick:]

But it's their thread, if you want to keep discussing it then just make another one

Like I said, I'd only close it for mass rule breaking or at the OP's request...

And I think the word "discussion" is a little too lenient, as two groups of people saying "Your mum!" and "You suck!" is hardly going to bring about world peace... [:sick:]

do not take that last war thread as an example of one that should continue, it was just the most recent one I felt shouldn't have been removed. but really, restarting a war thread after it's over is not really the point, you lose the chronicle of it when it's graved. So any sore loser has control over a thread that involves two groups equally. Doesn't seem fair to me.

Well the OP has rights over a thread more than anyone else who posts in it... [:sick:]

If you don't like the fact that it's graved then make another thread and then you have control of it.

You could have two threads, one from each point of view.

Yes, I know... that's why I am *suggesting* that be changed specifically for war threads. Isn't this a place to make suggestions? Am I losing my mind? Or are you just chiming in as a player and not as staff?

I think she's just suggesting shared ownership

Usually what happens when there are 2 threads about the same thing. Is 1 gets graved because it was the second made on the subject.

Therefore if you want ownership over a war thread, start it a few months before it begins.

Easy Fix!

Talking as both, but asking player permission to close a thread will not work. Either a thread needs closing, or not...

well then, if I think someone will close a war thread too early, can I start a competing war thread at the start of a war without fear it will be graved for being a duplicate? Say if I named it JFK v MNC instead of MNC v JFK?

I rather have, only start war threads once the war has started.

Here's what I'd do with it. Stuff in the graveyard is rarely lost. For example, if I wanted to continue the SA v JFK thread because I had something more to say about it, I would do something like this (example only):

Title: I Wish I Could be Like the Cool Kids (Recent SA v JFK War Thread Reboot)

Body: The intent and purpose of this thread is to continue the discussion found here: http://www.torn.com/forums.php#!p=threads&f=17&t=15939775&b=0&a=0. It was initially about the SA v JFK war, but the thread had redirected into a discussion about interference in faction wars by other factions not directly involved. For example, factions collecting bounties on one side or the other, the hosping of known revivers , and so on. It was also suggested that one or both sides may have encouraged said interference, whereas this has not been proven conclusively. I would encourage anyone wishing to participate in this discussion to read through the link above, in order to understand the discussion as it has progressed thus far, and then respond with your thoughts.

After having done this, please respond with your thoughts along this line: Most factions want a "clean" war. Two factions testing their might, to see which is better. Most players, I feel, will agree that these wars are the best and most fun for all involved. However, proven or not, a desperate faction could conceivably encourage, or even initiate (buy) such interference. A faction favoured by the Torn Community could receive interference on their behalf by outsiders who simply want them to win because they don't like the other side. What does this mean to the future of warring, and will Public Relations now become as much a factor in future high-profile wars as actually warring?




------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The above is, of course, just an example. If I really posted that, I'm sure my forum score (karma) would drop like a lead brick into the middle of the ocean.

That being said, I agree with this suggestion, and would love to see its implementation. Practically speaking, however, the status quo is unlikely to change regardless of whether the vast majority actually support the idea. I do feel that wars are multi-sided, and that both factions should have and deserve a say in how the threads involving them are handled. Rated +.

Dear Sweeney

Please see the following link:
http://www.torn.com/forums.php?p=threads&f=17&t=15938426&b=0&a=0

Let me copy your comment just incase you cannot read:

• Sweeney_Todd [27468]
• Status: Helper
• Level: 66

• Report

Posted to on 11:56:55 - 19/04/15 (15 days ago)

One thread is enough...

Locked... [:sick:]










Now were you wrong to grave a thread because there was already a similar thread on it?
Because here you are saying to g-ho to effectively create multiple threads on the same subject.

Lets be blunt here. If this was to happen and staff saw 3-4 threads on the same war, they (and that includes you) would grave all but one and tell the OP to use the other thread. A thread which they have no control over when it gets graved.
Your responses on here seem to mirror someone working in a call centre reading of a script and refusing to listen to what the person they are talking to is saying.

To paraphrase an old saying "When one thread closes another opens..."

So this is not the same thing. I was saying if a thread is closed due to severe rule breaking or at the request of the OP, then a new one can be started, so one exists still... [:sick:]

a new thread on an in process topic is not useful. I'm not really sure how you do not see that. it is akin to havign a conversation with one person, and turning your chair and picking up where you left off but with someone who doesn't know what your saying and has to now keep tapping that original person on the shoulder to ask question about content and context. it's like you saying, sure, your account was reset, but you know, just play. there's no jumping off point.

so you can keep repeating 'just start a new thread' but that doesn't even scratch at what I'm saying, which is, as noted in the subject of this OP, that a War Thread belongs two two or more parties, not just one, with much input over significant time by multiple parties, a point which you cannot seem to acknowledge I'm even saying.

if you look at faction discussion right now you see SA v PT & WP, JFA v WP, Haka v Rogues, MM v SA, the 4:20, FTW v Helvete, and AOW v Everyone. Yet it's like the biggest recent war, with the longest thread of all of them, is just gone. Like it didn't happen. A new thread wouldn't and couldn't tell the story. You don't put a 1 page bible on the shelf and say in it "reference the old copy in the garage" and think that will suffice.

When it turns into a flamefest, it will be graved whatever. The op can also request that it can be graved. If adults act like children they will be graved as there are forum rules. The problem is not the threads themselves, it's the people posting in them, and unfortunately, you cannot have control over them. I'd rather see staff have the ability to remove certain people from threads, but this would only open up another can of worms.

it's a war thread, of course it will get feisty. they used to get feistier, now they just get kinda whiny.

and I love the idea of removing people from threads (though you already have forum ban power)

but again, none of this is my problem with the system or what I'm referring to.

I am not referring to threads closed for flaming, I am referring to war threads, 20+ pages long, that are at the whim of a single person to close as they please. this is the only thing I am trying to address. if a thread is about 2 or more factions for a war, all main factions should have input on it closing.

Maybe it's something about this applying only to Ranked Wars. The parties involved in a ranked war need both leader's approval.