# Are point-buy message threads broken?



## BVB (Jun 27, 2003)

How many "attribute point-buy" message threads do you like to see on your forums? I've heard some people say that two or three is plenty, while other gamers aren't happy unless they've got at least five or six threads to choose from (they keep posting and posting and posting until their message is *just so*).

Me? I prefer a totally random number of message threads about buying vs. rolling attributes. But I'm wacky that way.


----------



## hong (Jun 27, 2003)

Point-buy message threads are clearly a cry for help, and we should all pray for guidance.


----------



## apocalypstick (Jun 27, 2003)

they'll fix it in 3.5.


----------



## MarauderX (Jun 27, 2003)

I would say....no.  IMO the point-buy threads are perfectly balanced.


----------



## Negative Zero (Jun 27, 2003)

point buy threads may be balanced, but they're not as much fun .

~NegZ


----------



## alsih2o (Jun 27, 2003)

i wouldn't go so far as to say broken, but they definetely got the shaft


----------



## NPC (Jun 27, 2003)

You can't be creative in a buy point thread because you can only create one type of post.


----------



## jaerdaph (Jun 27, 2003)

How many points does an orc need to buy a pie?


----------



## dagger (Jun 27, 2003)

They got nerfed man!


----------



## diaglo (Jun 27, 2003)

3d6 six times in order.


----------



## Valiantheart (Jun 27, 2003)

diaglo said:
			
		

> *3d6 six times in order. *




No 3d6 is totally munchkin.  You can have 25 point buy threads but must choose to spread them amongst the seven days of the week as you like.


----------



## Dinkeldog (Jun 27, 2003)

Welcome to the forum about the forums.  Enjoy your stay.


----------



## BVB (Jun 27, 2003)

Once again... (sigh)

This thread didn't raise any questions or issues about the FORUMs, guys. It was a topic about topics, specifically the topics being repeated over and over again in a very broad forum. The satire was intended to point out the redundancy of certain message threads.

By its very nature, *this* thread would have taken up less space than the dozen of attribute point-buy threads on the main board, and it MAY have prompted at least a few people to reevaluate and refocus their energies into other topics.

Instead, I've been bumped away from the original content that spawned this, and into a forum about forums. This thread would have been much more focused, and no more silly, than the Hivemind meanderings.

That being said...
Well, nevermind. The thread has been moved and what's done is done. Complaints and whining serve no good purpose other than to hear myself complain and whine. 
I bow humbly now to your decisions and administrative power.


----------



## BVB (Jun 27, 2003)

Is it a matter of being self-referential? Or any topic that makes reference to another thread sorta bumps itself up to a "meta" level? 

Now it's a logic puzzle. I like puzzles.

So, let's say we've got something like, "Rangers are broken." Pretty standard fare. No problem.
But later we get the topic, "Why we keep asking if rangers are broken."  That thread would probably be bumped to this forum, right?


----------



## Negative Zero (Jun 27, 2003)

yeah BVB, you tell 'em! sorry Dinkledog, but i think you goofed too.

~NegZ


----------



## Dinkeldog (Jun 28, 2003)

Anything about the boards finds a home here.  Just because I agree with the idea that multiple threads on the same topic isn't necessary doesn't change that fact.


----------



## BVB (Jun 28, 2003)

Ah, I tricked him into a response!

But Mr. Dog (may I call you Dinkle for short?), I didn't write anything "about the boards" in my original thread. Nada. Zilch. As far as I'm concerned, the boards are running fine and dandy. 

I wrote something about another message thread. Uh-huh. Can't argue that. Clearly poking fun at other threads, NOT the forum.

So?...


----------



## The Fifth Elephant (Jun 28, 2003)

Threads are components in a forum.  Therefore, it can be argued that a thread about a thread is, by it's very nature, also about the forums.


----------



## BVB (Jun 28, 2003)

The Fifth Elephant said:
			
		

> *Threads are components in a forum.  Therefore, it can be argued that a thread about a thread is, by it's very nature, also about the forums. *




Bad logic.
An apple is a fruit, but an apple is not all fruit. Talking about an element within a set -- the apple's red skin, for example -- does not imply any interest in the larger set.


----------



## Mark (Jun 28, 2003)

i like apple pie


----------



## jonesy (Jun 28, 2003)

Mark said:
			
		

> *i like apple pie *




What, you mean there are people who don't?


----------



## jdavis (Jun 28, 2003)

So what your wanting somebody to say is "No there are not to many threads on point buying, with 11000 members we will end up going over the same subjects again and again"? Or maybe "Eh it happens around here." Myself I'd prefer to just say "I am fond of the Point Lease system." and stick a little smiley at the end 

Besides Meta isn't so bad, it's quite pretty this time of the year. More people should check it out.


----------



## jdavis (Jun 28, 2003)

Mark said:
			
		

> *i like apple pie *



My wife found Apple Pie Ice Cream, it's so good it's evil.


----------



## Welverin (Jun 28, 2003)

jdavis said:
			
		

> *My wife found Apple Pie Ice Cream, it's so good it's evil. *




Kind of like Carrotcake Soup?

p.s. that's two different links


----------



## Sixchan (Jun 28, 2003)

jonesy said:
			
		

> *
> 
> What, you mean there are people who don't?  *




I only like Scotch Pies (strange that we Scots, who are so offended at being called Scotch, call our pies by that name). Mutton good, apple bad.


----------



## BVB (Jun 28, 2003)

I'd like to formally request that this thread be moved back into the general forum ...

Because it's completely shifted to a general topic about pies, fruit and food, and no longer fits the description of a "meta" thread.

(heh)


----------



## Dinkeldog (Jun 29, 2003)

I'm sure you'll agree that there are enough OT threads in the General Forum.  We don't really want to clutter it, do we?


----------



## the Jester (Jun 29, 2003)

Dinkeldog said:
			
		

> *I'm sure you'll agree that there are enough OT threads in the General Forum.  We don't really want to clutter it, do we? *




Yes, it would be terrible to clutter all the off-topic threads with General Forums.


----------



## Dinkeldog (Jun 29, 2003)

This is either obviously on topic for Meta or off topic for General.  I thought that would be obvious.


----------

