A question about discussion re: BF Monthly releases

[brandynigma]

Would you prefer one thread per release, or one thread per trilogy?

[Anthony Williams]

I'm quite far off being up to the current place with BF, but I would definitely prefer to see threads for each individual release.

[Si Hunt]

One per release please, as per current practise.

Si.

[SiHart]

I'd prefer a thread per trilogy, and per season for the CCs, since we don't get that many replies to each thread, so it'd be tidier.

[Si Hunt]

Many of the trilogy's are only very loosely linked, and the upshot would be to dilute discussion down to one thread for every three months of main range CD's, that can only be a bad thing for forum discussion?

Si.

[Si Hunt]

But most people discover or re-listen to the CD's months or even years after release, so the threads will always be revived and added to.

Si.

[Richard Brinck-Johnsen]

All the individual threads have now been indexed so it should be easier to keep track.
Threads for trilogies will lead to spoilers for later releases being harder to avoid and for those who haven't heard all the plays over the last couple of years there have been some nice surprises along the way.

[Lissa]

I was going to vote for trilogies until Richard made a v good point about spoilers. I think of the plays as trilogies - and choose by trilogy when picking CDs for the car - but something like the Sixth Doctor and Jamie adventures would definitely be spoilt if innocent discussion of Legend of the Cybermen made you realise what was really going on in City of Spires.

[SiHart]

So why can't people use spoiler tags then?

[Si Hunt]

You could, but you don't have to now, because largely you don't go into a thread about "Army of Death" without expecting spoilers. So having to spoiler tag everything would be another negative side of doing this. And I don't really want to go into a thread to talk about a CD and have to black out any details of it!

Whichever way you look at it, it works against you. If the trilogy stories ARE heavily linked, you risk seeing spoilers or have to tag everything, if they arn't then there's no point in combining the threads anyway.

I'm really, really against this idea.

Si.

[Richard Brinck-Johnsen]

I was going to vote for trilogies until Richard made a v good point about spoilers. I think of the plays as trilogies - and choose by trilogy when picking CDs for the car - but something like the Sixth Doctor and Jamie adventures would definitely be spoilt if innocent discussion of Legend of the Cybermen made you realise what was really going on in City of Spires.

That was actually the very trilogy I was thinking of. Sadly the premise which is only properly revealed in the final story got spoiled for me elsewhere before I heard it. I still really enjoyed them though. Plus in this case there is an accompanying companion chronicle (4.11 Night's Black Agents) which is set between City of Spires and The Wreck of the Titan so keeping track of four plays across different ranges in a single thread could get very confusing.

Also I've found the spoiler tags sometimes reveal their contents uninentionally when scrolling past them to read subsequent posts but that may just be me doing something wrong.

[Lissa]

Plus the spoiler tags don't work if you're using the Tapatalk iPhone app.

[Si Hunt]

And, to be fair, the Jamie Trilogy was one of very few to be linked so heavily. Almost all the so-called "Trilogies" are linked only by Doctor/Companion and some vague theme, at best.

Si.

[Richard Brinck-Johnsen]

Other examples being Key2Time (which also had an accompanying Companion Chronicle), the Klein trilogy, and the first two entries in the last 7th Ace and Hex trilogy. If I'd read a spoiler for Death in the Family in advance I would've forsworn Doctor Who online fandom for good!

[Si Hunt]

Those were all years ago now though. Although we're disagreeing and both arguing for the same thing because, as I mentioned before, whether they're linked or not it still disadvantages the concept of grouped threads in different ways.

Si.