Julius

@rorie: that sounds like an awesome step to take. Again, further contextualizing what is appropriate for users to bring up relative to the subject they're discussing could make these problems much more resolvable.

@kcin: I do not feel like the matters discussed were semantics. I'm not going to get mad if you don't want to discuss this any more though, it's all good.

@matatat: Now I'm considering making a configurable hide-this-content-from-me Chrome extension for Giant Bomb, might as well put these CS skills to work.

@kcin: it is short-sighted to appeal to the angry, they scare the original fans away and then eventually leave to go be angry about something else. I don't think Jeff is going for short-term profit here.

Also, you act like a comment thread has to be a "town hall meeting," which says a lot about how different our perspectives are. I don't want to attend town hall meetings, and I don't want Giant Bomb to be like one. I would prefer the metaphor of a rock concert, a public space where people are exuberant and focused on the content. It seems like that would be a much better goal to strive for than being like a bunch of municipal blowhards.

@kcin: the internet is definitely a larger place. However, it still hasn't caught up to the real world in the sense that "context" isn't a concept we've really figured out yet. Except for Facebook, people don't think twice about getting really angry about really serious topics in the middle of a pleasant conversation being held by strangers, and when you look at this from the "real-world" perspective, that is a pretty disruptive and weird thing to do. In real life, we have different rules for different contexts, and a new context for Giant Bomb may be needed since these matters potentially impact the number of viewers and subscribers if the conversation is toxic all the time.

I believe that it is necessary to establish a more rigorous context for what is appropriate on here, and from a business perspective I believe that keeping conversation light and positive would be an excellent choice.

@rorie: I guess part of the problem is that a conversation about 15 minutes of a 2-3 hour podcast is theoretically still on-topic, but for that conversation to dominate the comments is to misrepresent the content. I think that's what the (non-jerk) dismissive people in those threads are saying -- "don't ONLY talk about this."

@james_hayward: I work for a university and I totally agree that they are catty and horrible. However, I strongly disagree that that fact brings them down to the level of a text-only conversation on the internet. Research papers are still pretty awesome sources of information.

Having slept on these ideas, I see now that outright banning won't solve things. However, redirecting overly loud members to discuss things in dedicated forums/threads or PMs does seem like a good solution. Not that anyone here is on this horrible level, but you couldn't have r/mensrights and r/shitredditssays suddenly merge with r/starcraft and expect anyone to talk about how cool Maru's marine control is anymore.

@spaceinsomniac: That would be a good solution too. It's mainly the domination of the discussion of Giant Bomb content on the homepage that bothers me. I can't use this site to relax with that much noise happening.