Opinions On Super Threads

I do not understand the point of super threads. They just kill peoples opinions. If you dont understand let me explain.

A person who replys a topic will have lower chances of being read than an author. I mean really its pretty stupid. Its just really annoying that your post gets locked for no reason. Locking should only be used it the thread is full of pointless arguing or the thread offended someone like if it was racist.

And on serveral occasions some of my posts get deleted because there is already a thread on it. I think its a pretty dumb rule to be honest, I am thinking about a making a poll. Tell me in the comments or replys or whatever they are called on what you think, unless this gets locked too.

There is no rule about topics with similar premise being deleted.

Better to have 1 super thread than 500 threads on the same subject cluttering up the forums.

Super threads usually die out or derail quickly, Centralized threads about specific subjects last longer

Only a fool can irredemably derail a superthread. The Libya one seems to have lasted pretty well, longer than Gaddafi and ChFlegel in fact. Not bad if you ask me; imagine the political coffeehouse without it...

Super Threads add dignity to what would otherwise be a cluttered mess of 1 page updates on each conflict.

I like super threads there usually entertaining and i loved the Libyan Super thread. (come on Gaddafi rise from the grave so we can start it all over)