ParanetOnline
The Site => Site Suggestions & Support => Topic started by: Aine on November 04, 2009, 06:00:53 PM
-
Is it a reportable offense?
I don't know if it was the norm in TT, but, in my opinion, it looks like more people seem to be posting multiple times in a row in the Spoilers section as a way of drowning out others by sheer quantity.
-
If that's genuinely what's going on, I am not okay with it, but I'm leaving day to day enforcement up to the Mod Squad right now.
-
I just sense from conversations here and in the chat room that there is a level of frustration with wanting to talk about the books and not being able to because your opinion is squashed or drowned.
It could just be laziness, though. ;)
-
I just sense from conversations here and in the chat room that there is a level of frustration with wanting to talk about the books and not being able to because your opinion is squashed or drowned.
It could just be laziness, though. ;)
From my perspective, as someone who checks the forums irregularly through the day and not every day depending on how work is going, if there's a high-volume discussion going in which I am interested in participating, responding to every point of interest separately is a way both of keeping straight what I am saying to whom, and of showing respect for each poster individually. And if I'm away for a while it's easy for that to mean I have six different things to post in a row when I come back. There's certainly no intent to swamp anyone else's opinion there.
-
Sometimes I multi-post in a row in a topic, to complete a line of thought, or add stuff (as with Abielle worried about being fat in the character pic thread) but I do it as opposed to modifying and modifying my previous post to a screen busting size. Or because I don't know if someone else is posting in the interim. (I feel rude modifying a post someone else has already posted after it.) Never to crowd out another poster.
What would be a the better protocol?
And would multiple posting prevent others for voicing an opinion? What is the prescribed lag between posts?
That would be an easy fix, to set the time between post as a glacial 30 seconds. Torture to those who touch type and speed read.
-
Yeah, I'm sensitive to the notion of replying separately to each poster's response -- I'm certainly guilty of doing that on forums occasionally. If someone's doing that with a *clear intent* of drowning out other people, that's a problem. If they're not, though -- well, I think that can only be solved in the "social layer" of things, rather in the "policy layer". Something as simple as "Hey, dude, you're not giving other folks a chance to get the word in. Could you give it a rest for a couple hours?"
-
Sounds fair to me. Thanks Iago! *HUGS*
-
From my perspective, as someone who checks the forums irregularly through the day and not every day depending on how work is going, if there's a high-volume discussion going in which I am interested in participating, responding to every point of interest separately is a way both of keeping straight what I am saying to whom, and of showing respect for each poster individually. And if I'm away for a while it's easy for that to mean I have six different things to post in a row when I come back. There's certainly no intent to swamp anyone else's opinion there.
Just my $.02, but it seems that having six or seven individual conversations with one person at the center seems contrary to the atmosphere of genial group discussion. Though most of the Changes/Susan-centered Spoiler threads that I have seen have lost the atmosphere of "genial" by now at any rate.
Sometimes I multi-post in a row in a topic, to complete a line of thought, or add stuff (as with Abielle worried about being fat in the character pic thread) but I do it as opposed to modifying and modifying my previous post to a screen busting size. Or because I don't know if someone else is posting in the interim. (I feel rude modifying a post someone else has already posted after it.) Never to crowd out another poster.
What would be a the better protocol?
And would multiple posting prevent others for voicing an opinion? What is the prescribed lag between posts?
That would be an easy fix, to set the time between post as a glacial 30 seconds. Torture to those who touch type and speed read.
Sorry, Blaze, I wasn't talking about the general oops multi-post that we all do occasionally or the "it has been too long since my original post to go back and modify it 'cause no one will see it" type deal. Those are completely understandable. There are a few threads going around the Spoiler section with multiple people making 3,4, or more multiposts in a row on multiple pages. To me, and the sense I get from talking to other people, gives an exclusionary or monopolistic impression.
-
Just my $.02, but it seems that having six or seven individual conversations with one person at the center seems contrary to the atmosphere of genial group discussion. Though most of the Changes/Susan-centered Spoiler threads that I have seen have lost the atmosphere of "genial" by now at any rate.
I would invite you to start a separate thread in those circumstances, and ignore the one that's troubling you so. Or at least to try to step back and consider the idea that the individual in question isn't *intending* the effect that *you* perceive to be happening.
-
There are a few threads going around the Spoiler section with multiple people making 3,4, or more multiposts in a row on multiple pages. To me, and the sense I get from talking to other people, gives an exclusionary or monopolistic impression.
That's certainly not my intent, but it seems to me that, while that might well be the effect in a real-time conversation, a conversation in a textual medium lets people go back and pay as much or as little attention as they like to whichever parts interest them, so I don't myself read volume of content as competitive at all; it doesn't feel to me like anyone posting large amounts is demanding anyone's attention because it's trivial to skip over if you only want to follow part of what's being discussed in a given thread.
-
Those are completely understandable. There are a few threads going around the Spoiler section with multiple people making 3,4, or more multiposts in a row on multiple pages. To me, and the sense I get from talking to other people, gives an exclusionary or monopolistic impression.
How can it be 'exclusionary' if no one is actually _blocked_ from making any given post?
???
Sorry, Áine, but coming down on multiposting seems to me a way to guarantee mob rule where 3, 4, 5, "me too!" posters can gang up on one dissenter.
-
I've been guilty of multi posting lately, but it's not an attempt to drown out others.
Given the time difference between me and a lot of posters, I will re-enter a thread to find 4 or 5 pages of discussion has gone on.
I tend to reply to posts as I read them, rather than at the end, so I might post 3 or 5 responses, to different people, on different parts of the arguement.
Sometimes, you don't WANT to write a monster post out to 3 different people, or you want to clearly seperate or delineate your ideas, so you post it in seperate chunks.
If no one else posts in between, you get a multi post.
On my side, at least, it's not intended to be malicious.
-
How can it be 'exclusionary' if no one is actually _blocked_ from making any given post?
???
If you have a bunch of individual conversations going on, it seems to me, that it *excludes* everyone who is not already involved in that conversation. I wouldn't just randomly start going up to people at a party and listen in and interrupt their conversation. That's what I mean by "exclusionary," to people who might otherwise want to join in or discuss a topic.
Sorry, Áine, but coming down on multiposting seems to me a way to guarantee mob rule where 3, 4, 5, "me too!" posters can gang up on one dissenter.
Perhaps it is just the overall /aura/ of some of the Spoilers threads that makes it seem that way and it /is/ just my perception, but how is this any different that what already happens now?
-
If you have a bunch of individual conversations going on, it seems to me, that it *excludes* everyone who is not already involved in that conversation. I wouldn't just randomly start going up to people at a party and listen in and interrupt their conversation. That's what I mean by "exclusionary," to people who might otherwise want to join in or discuss a topic.
IF you want to post, post.
By this logic...a 10 page thread is exclusionary, because it's interrupting to post on it then.
The beauty of a forum is that it's not 'interrupting' to post on it, regardless if 2 or more people are having a back and forth.
Perhaps it is just the overall /aura/ of some of the Spoilers threads that makes it seem that way and it /is/ just my perception, but how is this any different that what already happens now?
How do you mean?
-
If you have a bunch of individual conversations going on, it seems to me, that it *excludes* everyone who is not already involved in that conversation. I wouldn't just randomly start going up to people at a party and listen in and interrupt their conversation.
Forum posting really stretches that analogy to breaking, imo. If we were to stand strictly by that model, you'd be hard put to join -any- thread unless you were one of the first 3-4 responders.
That's what I mean by "exclusionary," to people who might otherwise want to join in or discuss a topic.
To me, reading up on what has been posted in the thread already, and having something to add, is sufficient to justify anyone posting anywhere, really.
If one person can meaningfully field and provide responses to 3, 4, 5, 17 dozen questions in assorted colours, I'm willing to support their wish to do so.
I'm gonna talk to them. Until they run out of fun, amusing, interesting, clever things to post that is.
-
If you have a bunch of individual conversations going on, it seems to me, that it *excludes* everyone who is not already involved in that conversation. I wouldn't just randomly start going up to people at a party and listen in and interrupt their conversation. That's what I mean by "exclusionary," to people who might otherwise want to join in or discuss a topic.
But if you don't want to stand in the corner by yourself all night that's what you have to do. Unless someone starts a thread brand new, you kinda have to just jump right in there if you want to be part of the discussion.
-
But if you don't want to stand in the corner by yourself all night that's what you have to do. Unless someone starts a thread brand new, you kinda have to just jump right in there if you want to be part of the discussion.
And that does mean that people aren't intending to be exclusionary...you simply aren't comfortable posting.
IN that sense, how would reporting them help??
-
And that does mean that people aren't intending to be exclusionary...you simply aren't comfortable posting.
IN that sense, how would reporting them help??
Don't ask me, I was agreeing that it's not meant to lock people out, it just happens. ;)
-
Don't ask me, I was agreeing that it's not meant to lock people out, it just happens. ;)
I was just asking generally, since we seemed to have a bit of a discussion going.
-
In terms of multi-posting in general, where I've seen it become an issue is when a thread is really active. You post one thought, and I start to respond, only to find when I hit "post" that you've posted another thought, which I now want to respond to as well. It can inhibit 'conversation' that way... I hold off on responding until I think you've completed your thoughts.
Perhaps is not intentional, and perhaps some of us are just not as assertive in our approach. Either way, it seems reasonable not to put the onus solely on those that feel excluded when multiposting is occurring... if you're in a situation where you're about to multi-post, consider whether it's a time when you can simply modify the existing post.
I've been guilty of multi posting lately, but it's not an attempt to drown out others.
Given the time difference between me and a lot of posters, I will re-enter a thread to find 4 or 5 pages of discussion has gone on.
I tend to reply to posts as I read them, rather than at the end, so I might post 3 or 5 responses, to different people, on different parts of the arguement.
Sometimes, you don't WANT to write a monster post out to 3 different people, or you want to clearly seperate or delineate your ideas, so you post it in seperate chunks.
If no one else posts in between, you get a multi post.
On my side, at least, it's not intended to be malicious.
The issue I've seen with this, is that if you post while reading instead of waiting until you catch up, you don't know what else has been said about a particular subject or question. You may end up multi-posting even when you're addressing a single topic or poster.
-
I was just asking generally, since we seemed to have a bit of a discussion going.
Not a clue, calling in the mods for a chattebox has never even crossed my mind.
-
In terms of multi-posting in general, where I've seen it become an issue is when a thread is really active. You post one thought, and I start to respond, only to find when I hit "post" that you've posted another thought, which I now want to respond to as well. It can inhibit 'conversation' that way... I hold off on responding until I think you've completed your thoughts.
Perhaps is not intentional, and perhaps some of us are just not as assertive in our approach. Either way, it seems reasonable not to put the onus solely on those that feel excluded when multiposting is occurring... if you're in a situation where you're about to multi-post, consider whether it's a time when you can simply modify the existing post.
The only time I think modifying a post is feasible is if no one has yet responded to it....there is no notification taht you've modified a post, so people are likely to miss your mods.
That, and sometimes modifying a post gets an accusation of 'rewriting what you said', which is never fun.
The issue I've seen with this, is that if you post while reading instead of waiting until you catch up, you don't know what else has been said about a particular subject or question. You may end up multi-posting even when you're addressing a single topic or poster.
Sometimes, yes, that happens.
And like I said above, when I do it, it's to make a clear deliniation of arguments.
For instance, I might respond to Neurovore 3 times, but it's 3 posts on three different points, and done that way so each argument is distinct, rather than looking like it's one contiguous blob.
Also, it lets the person being addressed (or anyone wanting to join in) address only that point, without having to trim a massive post down.
-
Not a clue, calling in the mods for a chattebox has never even crossed my mind.
WEll, it what confused me....at the beginning of the thread, the question was, 'is it a reportable offence', but later, the thread starter said that they felt uncomfortable joining in when the discussion was between 3 or 4 people, who were multiposting.
That distinction, to me, makes it a personal issue, rather than one with multi-posting.
(And I just did a multi-post)
-
Not a clue, calling in the mods for a chattebox has never even crossed my mind.
From what I can tell, it's not a concern about someone being a chatterbox; it's about people using what could be considered 'bullying' techniques in order to steer a discussion the way they want to see it go.
I'm not saying that people are doing it deliberately, I'm just saying that it can be interpreted that way.
The only time I think modifying a post is feasible is if no one has yet responded to it....there is no notification taht you've modified a post, so people are likely to miss your mods.
That, and sometimes modifying a post gets an accusation of 'rewriting what you said', which is never fun.
Sometimes, yes, that happens.
And like I said above, when I do it, it's to make a clear deliniation of arguments.
For instance, I might respond to Neurovore 3 times, but it's 3 posts on three different points, and done that way so each argument is distinct, rather than looking like it's one contiguous blob.
Also, it lets the person being addressed (or anyone wanting to join in) address only that point, without having to trim a massive post down.
All fair points. I'm just saying that it's reasonable to ask that people stop and consider what they're doing - not just their intent, but how it may be perceived. Again, I'm not trying to say that people should 'never' multi-post or mega-post... just consider the state of the discussion and how those actions may (unintentionally, perhaps) fuel emotions.
WEll, it what confused me....at the beginning of the thread, the question was, 'is it a reportable offence', but later, the thread starter said that they felt uncomfortable joining in when the discussion was between 3 or 4 people, who were multiposting.
That distinction, to me, makes it a personal issue, rather than one with multi-posting.
(And I just did a multi-post)
I don't think the points are mutually exclusive...
-
From what I can tell, it's not a concern about someone being a chatterbox; it's about people using what could be considered 'bullying' techniques in order to steer a discussion the way they want to see it go.
I'm not saying that people are doing it deliberately, I'm just saying that it can be interpreted that way.
I guess, for me, I don't want someone to report me, because they are feeling like they can't join the discussion.
That's not(or shouldn't be, in my opinion) on me...it's on them.
I think there is a clear difference between someone consistently posting on a topic, and someone attempting to lock down a discussion on here.
I've seen the latter....and reported it, not for the multi posting, but for the bullying behaviour.
All fair points. I'm just saying that it's reasonable to ask that people stop and consider what they're doing - not just their intent, but how it may be perceived. Again, I'm not trying to say that people should 'never' multi-post or mega-post... just consider the state of the discussion and how those actions may (unintentionally, perhaps) fuel emotions.
We can't look at things from everyone perspective, however.
I've seen, during my time on here, comments I meant innocently, and even things where I said, straight out "This is my opinion" or "Well, in my view" be mis- or re-interpreted negatively.
I think we need to be careful not to put too much onus on the poster for the readers interpretation...otherwise we'll never post anything more interesting than 'Nice day today'.
I don't think the points are mutually exclusive...
How so?
-
I guess, for me, I don't want someone to report me, because they are feeling like they can't join the discussion.
That's not(or shouldn't be, in my opinion) on me...it's on them.
I think there is a clear difference between someone consistently posting on a topic, and someone attempting to lock down a discussion on here.
I've seen the latter....and reported it, not for the multi posting, but for the bullying behaviour.
So the theory would be that in and of itself, multi-posting isn't an issue. But if the multi-posting (or any other action) seems to be locking down a discussion or otherwise bullying, it should be reported.
We can't look at things from everyone perspective, however.
I've seen, during my time on here, comments I meant innocently, and even things where I said, straight out "This is my opinion" or "Well, in my view" be mis- or re-interpreted negatively.
I think we need to be careful not to put too much onus on the poster for the readers interpretation...otherwise we'll never post anything more interesting than 'Nice day today'.
I'm not saying all the onus should be on the poster. But it seemed like the discussion was tending toward all the onus being on the reader. I believe there is a balance between the two.
How so?
If the individual is feeling uncomfortable because of something that is bullying behavior, then it's not just a personal issue.
-
Really? You don't see the difference in posting in a thread that is directed towards the group in order to continue or start a discussion, and responding to a post which is directed /specifically to an individual/ that is not you? Maybe it is my issue, but it seems rude to me and guess what? That's my opinion.
And saying 'gee, if you don't like it, just start your own thread or go stand in a corner, ignore my posts and don't take part' (paraphrasing here, obviously) kinda illustrates my point on how it is not really conductive to genial conversation and could seem exclusionary.
iago made his ruling that it won't be moderated, so please, feel free to continue to do so and those of us who aren't comfortable with it can continue to not post in Spoilers the same way we didn't post in TT.
-
Could it help to make a distinction between multi-posting when replying to just one post, and multi-posting in response to multiple posts? I know some people like to use multiple posts to reply to multiple posters because they feel it's more polite. I don't have a problem with that happening, but I'd be willing to do away with multiple posts that are responding to one post from one person.
-
So the theory would be that in and of itself, multi-posting isn't an issue. But if the multi-posting (or any other action) seems to be locking down a discussion or otherwise bullying, it should be reported.
That's the way I see it.
I'm not saying all the onus should be on the poster. But it seemed like the discussion was tending toward all the onus being on the reader. I believe there is a balance between the two.
Yeah...I agree that the poster has some duty here...it's the level of it, I think we disagree on.
If post three times, in succession, in one thread, and that makes someone else feel excluded...how am I to know?
More to the point, what am I supposed to do?
Not post my thoughts into the discussion because someone else will then not want to post theirs?
Why am I responsible for them?
Now, if I post 3 times, in response to the same post...then I do think there is a bullying angle that needs to be investigated.
If the individual is feeling uncomfortable because of something that is bullying behavior, then it's not just a personal issue.
The question of whether it is bullying or not is completely subjective, however.
And Aine's issue was that she felt rude 'interrupting',....not that she felt bullied out.
That's why I said it seems like a personal issue to me.
-
Really? You don't see the difference in posting in a thread that is directed towards the group in order to continue or start a discussion, and responding to a post which is directed /specifically to an individual/ that is not you?
I don't see the difference. You are welcome to join any 2-way thread I'm having with anyone else. If I wanted an exclusive, I'd use PM or email.
And saying 'gee, if you don't like it, just start your own thread or go stand in a corner, ignore my posts and don't take part' (paraphrasing here, obviously) kinda illustrates my point on how it is not really conductive to genial conversation and could seem exclusionary.
I am having trouble understanding your vision of genial conversation.
If I have an idea that fits in a thread -now-, how long should I leave off?
-
The boards are by definition public discussion fora.
If you want to have private, user-to-user conversations, use private messaging.
Otherwise, anything that you write is available for anyone on the boards to read, and to respond to.
-
Not a clue, calling in the mods for a chattebox has never even crossed my mind.
Any mods available for changing my chattebox?
-
Any mods available for changing my chattebox?
::) That should have been chatterbox. Stupid wireless keyboard anyway.
-
Really? You don't see the difference in posting in a thread that is directed towards the group in order to continue or start a discussion, and responding to a post which is directed /specifically to an individual/ that is not you? Maybe it is my issue, but it seems rude to me and guess what? That's my opinion.
And saying 'gee, if you don't like it, just start your own thread or go stand in a corner, ignore my posts and don't take part' (paraphrasing here, obviously) kinda illustrates my point on how it is not really conductive to genial conversation and could seem exclusionary.
I was going to let this go, but it's bugged me since I read it. That is not paraphrasing what I said at all, that's taking what I said and flipping it 1800. My whole point was if you don't want to stand in the corner at a party you have to jump into other peoples discussions. And unless you are starting a thread you are going to have to jump in somewhere. Never did I mean, or want it to sound like I was saying, that you should stand in the corner or start a new thread if you don't like it.
-
I was going to let this go, but it's bugged me since I read it. That is not paraphrasing what I said at all, that's taking what I said and flipping it 1800. My whole point was if you don't want to stand in the corner at a party you have to jump into other peoples discussions. And unless you are starting a thread you are going to have to jump in somewhere. Never did I mean, or want it to sound like I was saying, that you should stand in the corner or start a new thread if you don't like it.
I was, as well...but I'm curious.
If the reader want's to be part of the conversation, surely the onus is on them to join it...not on everyone else to stop talking until they (the reader) starts.
LIkewise, should we all stop posting on a topic, to let everyone else start?
-
Really? You don't see the difference in posting in a thread that is directed towards the group in order to continue or start a discussion, and responding to a post which is directed /specifically to an individual/ that is not you? Maybe it is my issue, but it seems rude to me and guess what?
The idea that any post I make in response to anyone on the forum could be construed as an exclusionary conversation with that person rather than part of an ongoing community discussion would never have occurred to me, because it's kind of axiomatically, intuitively obvious to me, that if it was meant to be private, it would be a PM, and if it is in public on the forum, that is because it is meant to be part of the ongoing discussion and to explicitly welcome anyone to comment. Public forum posts reading as "specifically directed to an individual" is not a concept that makes any sense to me, no matter how I turn it round in my head.
I'm not for an instant doubting you feel otherwise, Aine, nor that everyone concerned is entirely sincere and in good faith in where they are coming from. And it would not surprise me if this is coming from sincere differences in what each of our home cultures and contexts have taught us to consider polite. Myself, I was brought up to regard not engaging with an argument to the fullest extent possible as not taking it seriously and therefore as rude to the other party; again, I do not doubt other people see this differently, I am just asking that the sincerity of that position be accepted.
I don't have a solution to suggest to this issue; I don't see any means of addressing the specific issue of multiposting in ways that feels like both being compatible with what I understand of Aine's expressed preferences and feeling comfortable myself that I can engage fully with an animated and interesting discussion to whatever degree the discussion itself warrants.
-
If the reader want's to be part of the conversation, surely the onus is on them to join it...not on everyone else to stop talking until they (the reader) starts.
LIkewise, should we all stop posting on a topic, to let everyone else start?
I can't see any way to make that work in an asynchronous medium.
Posting is not talking. Talking is linear. Posting can back up for half an hour or a day or a week if something else is happening. Posting is not urgent or importunate. Posting can be interrupted if you get an urgent phonecall without doing any harm or even being visible to the other parties.
It seems to me, therefore, that the standards of civility for posting do not necessarily work the same way as the standards of civility for talking in person. (You might be amazed how much of a wallflower I am in person.)
-
I don’t see a problem with having 3 or 4 multiple posts, its when it becomes 10 to 12 that I think there might be a problem. It may or may not be intentional but it is a form of dominating a thread. It has the effect of making the conversation revolve around the super posters because those posters are critiquing every post that every poster makes. People may not be doing things like that to be bullies but it has the same effect.
At least that is what seems to be going on to me.
-
I think it is important here to step back and try to listen to what Aine is saying. She is voicing an opinion about how conversations have been evolving lately and I tend to agree.
It seems that the conversational style of some members tends to be interpreted as confrontational or unwelcoming in the pursuit of truth (about a work of fiction.....) when you can't get a word in edgewise. In the absence of gesture, nuance of voice or physical contact the only way we have to communicate is words. You can lose the "open" atmosphere in an attempt to be an organized and efficient poster.
Regardless of the intention or procedure of multiple posts, when I click on a thread and find almost 2 pages straight of replies to posts 5 pages back, without an interrupting NEW reply, it is rather annoying. It can be seen as someone talking without a breath or not giving someone an opportunity to jump in... The original conversation is lost in the minutiae. It is not welcoming. Starting a new thread seems pointless when it devolves into the same type of debate.
Also, as evidenced in this thread, when someone attempts to address an issue in a global way it is dismissed as too unspecific or even whiny, but if a certain person(s) are identified then it is perceived as an attack. There doesn't seem to be a way to win.
Is anyone saying that members need to change the way they post to pacify a single member? No. Are members allowed to say "Hey, can you find another way to say that? It SEEMS to be exclusionary/confrontational/mean when you communicate that way" ? Yes.
People will say things here they NEVER would in person, either because they are shy or it is rude or inappropriate or simply confrontational. Without the chance to interpret facial expression and voice, the best we can do is read the words.
Dismissing someone's observation or concern is an excellent illustration of the problem... today and the last few months. I used to enjoy reading threads even if I didn't participate. Not any more.... I get enough ego-stroking hormone-driven "debate" in real life, and anyone who says that isn't what is going on is part of the problem or delusional. The need to kill TT should be a clue. Shockingly, the problem didn't go away, it simply went to Somewhere Else.
This is (was) supposed to be fun.
Its fiction.
Books.
Entertainment.
Fun.
Perhaps there should be a section for people who want to be curt and exclusionary and SPECIAL.... like the Harry Potter or Twilight forums... or Fox news or MSNBC or the Today show. Just don't do it here.
Please.
-
Is anyone saying that members need to change the way they post to pacify a single member? No. Are members allowed to say "Hey, can you find another way to say that? It SEEMS to be exclusionary/confrontational/mean when you communicate that way" ? Yes.
And yet the first post wasn't about trying to fix the problem, it was asking if it was reportable. Instead of asking someone to slow down, or just mentioning nicely that it's bothersome, the mods are brought in. It comes across as harsh and unreasonable to me, asking about reporting instead of just mentioning to the person(s) that it's a growing problem. How can a person know they are bothering people if they're not told?
-
How do you know that Aine didn't send pms to people asking them to stop and pointing out what she saw as a problem and she didn't just get ignored? calling someone "harsh and unreasonable" comes across to me like you are trying to attack someone that is pointing out a problem and wants to have the mods input. Now you know that some people on the forum see it as a problem, you can either think about why they see it as a problem or continue to attack the whistle blower.
-
And yet the first post wasn't about trying to fix the problem, it was asking if it was reportable. Instead of asking someone to slow down, or just mentioning nicely that it's bothersome, the mods are brought in. It comes across as harsh and unreasonable to me, asking about reporting instead of just mentioning to the person(s) that it's a growing problem. How can a person know they are bothering people if they're not told?
Ah, but they have been, now. And look at the response. The person asking is being pointed at as the problem.
Pointing out the elephant in the room doesn't mean you put it there. When someone feels the need to start a thread to bring up an issue rather than just bring it up in the thread the reason WHY should be considered.
The point is that 'just mentioning it' has become an exercise in futility and frustration.
Also, the people that are the greatest offenders are most often the ones that are the last to realize it. The single-minded Pursuit of Unassailable Logic and Rightness means that "I am not the problem. They are obviously not understanding what I am trying to say."
The boards are by definition public discussion fora.
If you want to have private, user-to-user conversations, use private messaging.
Otherwise, anything that you write is available for anyone on the boards to read, and to respond to.
This thread fits that, doesn't it?
The reason they don't bring it up in the thread is because the people who are the problem constantly proclaim their own martyrdom as victims of literary persecution OR they proceed to pick apart the person or the request to the point that saying ANYTHING has become an act only slightly more fun than pissing into the wind, naked... covered in paper cuts.
In other words... Yeah, what Landing said! ::)
-
Wow, this got vicious quickly.
I think I'm out of this discussion.
-
Wow, this got vicious quickly.
I think I'm out of this discussion.
How did it get vicious? There is no name calling or yelling. Just people discussing problems that face the forum, and expressing their opinions in a civilized manner. I hope we didn't offend you DF :)
-
Gotta say I haven't noticed a change in the (non-TT) threads overall. Fast-paced conversations, with lots of one-on-one exchanges, and multi-posting, have always been there. This is the first I've heard that anybody had a problem with such conversations, so it appears to me to be a tolerance issue, not an actual change in the tone of the book threads.
I agree with respondents who have pointed out that multi-posters - who have been doing so here for years - have no way of knowing anybody has a problem with their style of discussion unless somebody brings it up with them. Whether such direct communication on this subject would be an excercise in futility and frustration can't be confirmed until the attempt is made.
Alternatively, hitting the "Report to Moderator" button on one of those multi-posts would have brought the matter (privately....) to the attention of a mod, who could (at his/her discretion, of course) have taken on that direct communication as deemed appropriate.
-
Personally? Most people on this board talk too much, from my perspective. But my personal opinion has no business, in this case, becoming board policy.
There's a pattern in a lot of posters of a rapid back and forth chatter that's more fitting for a real-time conversation like a chat room or an IM conversation. So that's one thing. Unfortunately, I am not in the business of running a real time chat service -- I've got no expertise on that, and I'd have no idea what to do if some sort of major security hole got introduced by running one other than "shut it down permanently". So I can't really fix that part of things.
This thread has also gone on for more pages than it had to. Much earlier, I recommendeded that people treat people like people when there's a problem, and ask them nicely to step back and give other folks a chance to chime in. That's as far as I think this topic needs to go, and that's why I'm going to be locking this thread after I'm done posting this.
Some folks have used the party metaphor, to talk about people who *don't* post as often being equivalent to the wallflowers who don't jump into the conversations that are happening. That's at least a little legitimate as a perspective on things, but it it's also a very *incomplete* metaphor. There are also folks at the party who conduct their "conversation" with the volume turned up to 11. Folks do want to jump in -- or have their own conversations nearby -- but they can't, because the loud guy is running his mouth too much and too loudly, holding court and paying no heed to the folks who would jump in but aren't getting *any* opening to do so.
So look at this conversation, here. If you're the one who thinks there are loud guys who need to turn down the volume, you're the wallflower. If you're the one who thinks that there are wallflowers who need to speak up, you're the loud guy. Both of you need to meet in the middle, at that place where the wallflower puts a kind hand on the loud guy's shoulder and says, "Hey, dude... look, you don't need to shout." And the loud guy, if he's not a dick, says "Oh, hey, sorry. I'll try to keep it down."
You know.
Like PEOPLE.
Thread locked.