@moonbus You have made some very good points. As one of the more
prolific posters on here I would accept having my own posts
curtailed if that meant a reduction in "spam" from others.
@wolfgang59said @moonbus You have made some very good points. As one of the more
prolific posters on here I would accept having my own posts
curtailed if that meant a reduction in "spam" from others.
Problem here is defining what is spam. Some of the most random and surreal posts are the ones that make me laugh. A bit of banter is good. Maybe we are just trying to solve one of the age old problems of the human condition. What some find funny others don't. You can only say it didn't work for you but its a lot harder to say what would never work for anybody. Personally I am okay with extreme language used in context with a sense of humour. I would prefer that to seeing people gloating over the numbers of people dying in the western world but that would seem to make me too tolerant of certain words and too intolerant of insensitive repetitive reference to human tragedy.
@petewxyzsaid Problem here is defining what is spam. Some of the most random and surreal posts are the ones that make me laugh. A bit of banter is good. Maybe we are just trying to solve one of the age old problems of the human condition. What some find funny others don't. You can only say it didn't work for you but its a lot harder to say what would never work for anybody. Personally I a ...[text shortened]... o tolerant of certain words and too intolerant of insensitive repetitive reference to human tragedy.
Thanks for virtually verbalizing my thoughts.
It saves me a lot of time.
@wolfgang59said I am no in favour of censorship ... I am tying to find a solution to banal posting.
I have no objection to banal or humorously silly posts either (goodness knows, I've posted enough silly stuff myself). The problem is people who bombard serious threads with senseless blather. There's no changing people, but there may be a way to limit bombardment.
Of course lemondrop it is quite obvious to anyone who follows the threads! 😉 You see I am not a "YES" man and the group don't like people who are not "YES" men or women for that matter.
@wolfgang59said I am no in favour of censorship ... I am tying to find a solution to banal posting.
Of course that is exactly what is being suggested (CENSORSHIP)
Not what the forums are meant to be. We may end up losing paying subscribers have you thought about that part of it.........I don't think that is something Russ would want to see.
You do know there are private clubs you can chat in if you don't want to be disturbed that is why they are there!
Hell just make one up, Very Rusty not permitted should do!!!! 😉
Banal posters eventually kill forums, in a way that even the one-eyed conspiracy theorists cannot do. They're just unanswerable. Like the guy at the party who interrupts every conversation with some irrelevancy, triggering a disruption of thought processes and causing individuals to just walk away. They may re-form and attempt to continue their exchange of ideas, but the bore goes where the action is and throws another intellectual spanner in the works. The weirdest thing is that he thinks he's helping to keep the party action going.
Anonymity is a wonderful thing. Replace "party" with "business meeting" and see the difference.
@kewpiesaid Banal posters eventually kill forums, in a way that even the one-eyed conspiracy theorists cannot do. They're just unanswerable. Like the guy at the party who interrupts every conversation with some irrelevancy, triggering a disruption of thought processes and causing individuals to just walk away. They may re-form and attempt to continue their exchange of ideas, but the bo ...[text shortened]...
Anonymity is a wonderful thing. Replace "party" with "business meeting" and see the difference.
Thank you for that post.
It will however not alter things. As you correctly said: The person doesn't feel himself to be the disruptor...
We can deal with the openly disruptive pople in a way. BUt all in all internet forums need a stable base to work.
@lemondropsaid that is why we have moderators who want to impose their sense of morality
what guidelines are they using?
their own or does it come from the top?
Nothing is going to be perfect, and someone is going to be upset. It does however help to keep certain things out of the forums. We have all had posts removed. (Perhaps I should have said most of us)! 😉 Have you read the TOS carefully? We all know who has the final say don't we!
@wolfgang59said @moonbus You have made some very good points. As one of the more
prolific posters on here I would accept having my own posts
curtailed if that meant a reduction in "spam" from others.
What about if you went the opposite way to curtailing and you earned more posting rights in the thread for getting green thumbs up. Ignore the red ones so nobody can get victimized, but run out of posts for that thread if nobody is liking what you are contributing? Maybe start with a given two posts for any thread but get two more available everytime somebody liked seeing you post in it?
@petewxyzsaid What about if you went the opposite way to curtailing and you earned more posting rights in the thread for getting green thumbs up. Ignore the red ones so nobody can get victimized, but run out of posts for that thread if nobody is liking what you are contributing? Maybe start with a given two posts for any thread but get two more available everytime somebody liked seeing you post in it?
I could post I am going to give everyone 1,000.00 and would get a thumbs down. It just becomes a popularity contest!
@petewxyzsaid What about if you went the opposite way to curtailing and you earned more posting rights in the thread for getting green thumbs up. Ignore the red ones so nobody can get victimized, but run out of posts for that thread if nobody is liking what you are contributing? Maybe start with a given two posts for any thread but get two more available everytime somebody liked seeing you post in it?
01 May '20 08:25
Sabotaging threads
Back to Top