When a pop star tweets something that will be of interest to the site, we put it in a thread so people see it. Each pop star doesn't have a "Ke$ha's Twitter" thread where all tweets have to go.

When a pop star puts something on facebook that ATRL will find interesting, it gets a thread so people see it. There's no "Rihanna's Facebook" where each facebook update gets relegated to.

When a pop star gives an interview, we're allowed to make a thread about the information that's doled out in the interview. There's no "Katy Perry Interviews" thread where we have to keep all information given out through interviews.

So can someone please explain to me why anything Gaga says on LM.com has to stay in ONE LM.com thread?

I made a thread about the "they killed the blonde" comments, which will clearly be a big influence on the "theme" of the new era. There were 30+ people viewing the thread, and four pages within half an hour. It got moved to the LM.com thread and discussion stopped DEAD. But you're telling me that if she'd tweeted it instead of relaying it through LM.com, it would've been worthy of a new thread?

So can someone please explain the rationale to me? Just because Gaga's got a brand-new way of relaying information to fans, it has to be penalized and relegated to what basically amounts to a second Lady Gaga Base thread, except one which even fewer people check regularly?

It's 'celeb news,' so it should be allowed to be threaded in Celebria. The LM.com thread is annoying/confusing at times.

Yes, all these little things don't warrant their own thread. It should really be kept in Gaga's base. But we allowed the LM.com thread as a compromise.

Exactly. There's just a weirdly restrictive double standard going on that no one seems to have a problem with but me. We don't separate other pop stars' social networks posts into ONE thread for each social network. Why does Gaga have that happen?

I made that thread because I wanted to get a discussion going about how this new explanation for the upcoming era related to Gaga's frequent use of hair and hair color as symbolism and iconography. I put it under Discussions in Base.

Why is that not worthy of a thread, but the 2498702398570394th "Will Lady Gaga's career last?" thread is allowed to stand?

It was only a problem with Gaga, because at one point we had like ten different threads about things she had said or done. We're not a fan site and we'll never allow the overall "look" of one forum to be dominated by one artist for an extended period of time.

Mte

The reason is the utter fact that Gaga is such a huge phenomenon on ATRL that any little thing she blurts out will get a thread. It was utterly crazy in the Music News and Celebria section when she first started doing LM chats.

It's too much little information coming at a very fast rate.

Lord knows. But I think if we have the LM thread then the threads made for every tweet of the other artists should be closed and sent to their respective bases.

Lady Gaga is very active on that site so posting everything she says will clutter up the site.

Can you shut the **** up and stop popping up in every Gaga related thread when it's evident that you don't like her.

Ok but during the Rihanna/CB/Birthday Cake/Remix thing, there were ten different threads about each song and each tweet each artist said about the thing. It dominated the site for a while. It happens. There was no catchall "Rihanna and Chris Brown Reconciliation Thread" where people had to keep every single post about them getting back together.

LM.com is a new way of connecting an artist to their fans -- a fan site where the artist participates regularly. It is the way Gaga communicates with her fans now. If no other artist is kept to a "_____'s Tweets" thread, Gaga shouldn't be kept to a "LM.com Updates" thread.

But take my "They killed the blonde" thread from earlier. I posted it as a Discussion because I wanted to get people talking about the implications of the symbolism for the theme of the album. That's not allowed simply because of how the information was received.

I wasn't posting a News thread that simply said "Gaga chats with fans again!"

If she'd tweeted those exact words, you're all saying that discussion thread would've been valid.

So why, just because the delivery is something new, does the result have to be punished?

Those remixes were a huge event, whenever there's a big release of course it's gonna dominate the forum for a while. Gaga doesn't have much going on that is of general interest. Her new era is still months away.

Other artists don't need their own twitter thread because their fans don't post a thread whenever said artist tweets.

This wasn't even directed shade at Gaga. It was actually hidden praise by me basically saying that she's the biggest pop star on ATRL.

Interpret it how you want though. I dislike Gaga and that's not going to change, but it doesn't take away from the fact that she's a huge internet force when her stans basically make up 50% of an entire forum.

If Katy stans made up this forum, every little thin Dr. Luke tweeted or Katy posted on "katycats.com" would be posted. Nearly half of the popstars on this forum don't give away as much information about their musical progression, hence the lack of threads.

Twai has more than one point, though. Some particular infos are worhy of a thread. That hair discussion in Base was legit.

So then people who aren't interested can not enter the thread, like happens with every single other event? There clearly were people interested in thread about hair color. Like I said, I saw more than 30 people viewing it, just before it was moved to LM.com, where it got one more reply and then suddenly fell dead. That's not because no one cares, it's because it was moved to a thread people aren't checking regularly and that isn't being updated consistently and fairly with respect to other artists.

While I agree posting every little thing Gaga says on LM.com is annoying, if the information is presented in a way that can cause legitimate discussion (like Twai's thread attempted to do), what's the harm?