RPGWW

How far back does a topic have to be before it is considered dead? Is the location on the topic lists a valid measure, or just the date of the last post compared to now?

Is any topic on the first page of a sub-forum ok to reply to, or is it different on each one?

How far in the past compared to "now" does the date have to be for a thread to still be considered "alive"? Less than two weeks? Less than one week? Less than that? Does the awesomeness/lameness of a thread alter this lifespan?


I figure this counts as "light discussion," since it is not discussing heavy things like who's got the right messiah, when or whether it's ok to kill "pre-babies" and who to vote against.

So hopefully I will get some serious to semi-serious responses and before the thread goes to hell or dies.

I wouldn't hit the second page of a forum for a post to reply to, but other than that you're okay, I think.

...Do we really care that old discussions are brought back to life? I personally don't care, if something worthwhile is said in it... Not a "NUH-UH" kind of response, where nothing is really said, but an awesome tidbit that might spark further talk.

It really depends if you're adding something to the discussion or just going "Yeah okay" for no reason.

These are the kinds of replies I was hoping for, thanks.

Sometimes I happen upon old topics and read them, without noticing the date. Then finish reading and think, "Hey, maybe I have something to add," before noticing the post is from Ishmas past and think "crap, better not post then."

I don't care so much when it was from, as long as the reply is suitably interesting. Old != bad.

When I see a thread old enough that I don't recognize recognize it, I roll my d30, compare the result to my super-secret chart, and use that to decide whether or not to kill/praise/ignore the topic replier/s.

I use my alphabet d30 for this, so on a vowel I post something offtopic, and on a wild I go get myself something to drink.

Wait...your d30 has a ñ on it then?

No, it has the 26 letters of the English alphabet, two wild and two vowel spots.

A Spanish d30 would be cool, but from what Gluglu and I can figure out, no one really knows what the hell is up with the Spanish alphabet.

I would go for one with a Ü myself, but sometimes you don't always get what you want.

pd Rydia wrote:No, it has the 26 letters of the English alphabet, two wild and two vowel spots.

A Spanish d30 would be cool, but from what Gluglu and I can figure out, no one really knows what the hell is up with the Spanish alphabet.

yeah, thats what having letters which are made up from two letters does to your alphabet : (

those letters are dead to me.

The sounds are cool though, at least, for the double R. I'm ambivalent about the double L.

Wow, Glu_Glu! How did that story you were doing with Cho turn out?

Dia, what about the vowels already in English? Does this mean that you have 7 vowels?

well, they were more like concept pics, i just posted then as a story because...well, i thought it was original.

Time for a one-up: Welsh.

Clark is incorrect. The elle, found in the noble llama, is cool, while the tongue-murdering erre is dumb. Derf(bidoof). Also, in response to his question, rolling a vowel gets one response, rolling an a, e, i, o, or u each have their own individual responses. That's six different possible responses for 7 spaces on the die, not one response for 7 spaces.

Hm, come to think of it, the die should have an é.

The ll and rr aren't even the weird part of the old version of the Spanish alphabet, if you ask me. The ch being its own letter was definitely much screwier.

You think THAT'S bad? The Danish language pulled this "Ã¥" bs in the 50s because I guess they were too lazy to write "aa" in words. Not only that, but of all things, they placed the cursed thing after p, of all letters. Seriously, what is the point?

Archmage wrote:The ll and rr aren't even the weird part of the old version of the Spanish alphabet, if you ask me. The ch being its own letter was definitely much screwier.

Gosh, as kid, i had a lot of problems with my teachers due to the CH, i was all like "CH is not a real letter!" and people would tell me "Then, how do you write the word 'Hacha'(axe), huh?" and i would yell "WITH A C AND AN H!!!!!".

glu-glu wrote:Gosh, as kid, i had a lot of problems with my teachers due to the CH, i was all like "CH is not a real letter!" and people would tell me "Then, how do you write the word 'Hacha'(axe), huh?" and i would yell "WITH A C AND AN H!!!!!".

Oh wow, that's great. You hacha'ed that CH right in two.

Are CH and LL the only consonants that combine to make a different sound than the individual letters/components? Digraphs, that's what they're called, I think. Maybe that's how they got the "letter" status.

English has heaptons of those--I still remember studying them in 1st grade, we had boxes labeled with them for some reason (I forget by now). CH, SH, TH, CK, SK, ST, GH, PH, NG, QU--it'd be funny if they were all part of our alphabet. Except for, you know, the little kids in K and 1 studying the stuff. :(

English spelling/pronunciation is so fucked up in any case that I'm glad we only give the title of "letter" to discrete symbols.

Ch, ll, and rr. I think you could put ñ and w in that same box, too, really, considering I think no Spanish words actually use the letter w--it's for foreign shit--and ñ is just an n with a vowel sound attached.

You can't really call them letters, I think, because a couple of them 'combine' to form other letters while remaining visually distinct and spatially separated. You can't really call them phonics, because then the list is incomplete (think of the variants on vowel sounds that are not represented, such as diphthongs). Whatever it is, the Spanish alphabet really doesn't take itself too seriously, and teachers of it should follow suit, in my opinion.