Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Hijacking threads: Serious or Not So Much? You decide.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Fleetwood Mac
    replied
    Originally posted by Admin View Post

    banned either for threatening to sue us
    That's mental. 'Some strange people in this world.

    Leave a comment:


  • Admin
    replied
    Originally posted by Tom_Wescott View Post
    Lift all the bans and see what happens. #justasuggestion.

    Yours truly,

    Tom Wescott
    We are happy to entertain most notions. However, since everyone who is currently banned is banned either for threatening to sue us, telling us to, and I quote, "F*ck off" when we asked them to quit breaking rules, or for other similar transgressions, we have to say that after consideration....


    No.

    But we appreciate user involvement in improving the boards. I suggest more diligent use of the Report Post feature.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tom_Wescott
    replied
    Lift all the bans and see what happens. #justasuggestion.

    Yours truly,

    Tom Wescott

    Leave a comment:


  • Fleetwood Mac
    replied
    There's nothing wrong with a thread meandering, providing it's kept civil and it's not repetition of the same points ad nauseam. If you want interesting ideas then it'll pay to give people the room to breathe and talk.

    I reckon where the board falls down is in that threads always revert to speculation, which wouldn't be a problem, except more evidence based posts get lost in the deluge.

    I suppose it depends on what you want your board to be: speculation and repetition, in a manner whereby other people lose interest in the thread; or more evidenced based conversations.

    Personally, I would split the board into two sections: 1) allow the people who want to speculate and repeat the same points until the cows come home their place to do that 2) the people who are more interested in evidence based arguments have their place also.

    It could be an idea to look back at the threads on this board from say 15 years back and the difference in posting quality is marked. Posts were more evidence based, much more reasonable and much less of the 'my team' versus 'your team' outlook.

    Leave a comment:


  • Admin
    replied
    Originally posted by Fiver View Post
    For me a bigger problem is misrepresentation. Refutation of positions another poster never held. Claiming a source or expert supports your position when they do not. Selectively quoting a source. Claiming another poster is anti-science when they disagree with your interpretation of the source, not the actual contents of the source. Attempting to rewrite the dictionary to support your theory.
    We appreciate your position. However, being obtuse is not against the rules, and can't be made against the rules, lest there be only half a dozen left to post.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fiver
    replied
    For me a bigger problem is misrepresentation. Refutation of positions another poster never held. Claiming a source or expert supports your position when they do not. Selectively quoting a source. Claiming another poster is anti-science when they disagree with your interpretation of the source, not the actual contents of the source. Attempting to rewrite the dictionary to support your theory.

    ​​​​​​

    Leave a comment:


  • Pcdunn
    replied
    I agree that the first off-topic posting should just be given a warning. But increase points if more people report the same poster for derailing topics.

    Leave a comment:


  • Admin
    replied
    Thanks to all who responded, with posts and messages. We appreciate the input.

    Leave a comment:


  • Elamarna
    replied
    My view is slightly different to those above, sometimes a thread goes off topic naturally, as others have said, and sometimes that goes to interesting places, but ultimately as little to do with the original thread. I remember some years back, a debate with "Pierre", I think the thread was linked to Goulston Street, and me and Pierre ended up with an in-depth talk about the Dead Sea Scrolls. It was in reality a separate debate between the two of us, and would have been better as a private message exchange, but I don't think it was deliberately aimed to disrupt the thread, or that it in fact did.

    Rather my issue is when certain suspects are raised in debates that have nothing to do with that suspect, again one needs to be careful, as it may be that an event relating to suspect B , is used as an example of a similar event in the case of the original suspect A.

    But we are all aware that there are attempts to move a thread away towards a general discussion on the 2nd Suspect.

    I would suggest policing this is difficult, and to great degree relies on the cooperation on other members of the forum.
    While the odd off topic comment can simply be ignored, (Caz is correct, often we go off topic because we reply) serial attempts or serial offenders need to be reported.
    It's unrealistic to expect Admin and Mods to read every post( I speak from experience on the other place).

    My advice would be to issue a warning to repeat offenders, those soon add up and people end up on gardening leave.


    What ever Admin decides, they have my backing, and we should all back them.


    Steve

    Leave a comment:


  • Losmandris
    replied
    This drives me mad to be honest. Bit of deviation is fine but when all threads seem to revert to a discussion around the timings of the Stride murder or time of death, I give up!

    It all gets a bit 'Godwins Law' sometimes.

    Leave a comment:


  • caz
    replied
    I tend to agree with Al, and I do feel we could each help to make a moderator's job a happier one by not responding to any poster we personally consider to be a 'repeat offender' and only reporting them if they stubbornly refuse to get the message that their contributions are largely unwanted and ignored and just clogging up the thread in question.

    Repeat offenders could then receive penalty points or bans based on how many individual posters are pissed off enough to report them, as well as the frequency of such reports, causing Admin more work and a bigger headache as a result. The more reports, the bigger the penalty?

    In short, no responses and no reports would allow Admin to leave well alone, so happy days if the reader is prepared to suffer in silence until the offender getting the silent treatment takes the hint.

    I don't know how well this would work in practice but I prefer self censorship so we always know exactly who - and what - we are dealing with by their posting behaviour. Unlike homeless people living in tents, posting crap on a message board is most definitely a lifestyle choice. And okay, I should know.

    Love,

    Caz
    X
    Last edited by caz; 11-15-2023, 10:10 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Al Bundy's Eyes
    replied
    Hello Admin,

    The issue isn't solely the hijacking of threads, it's the inevitable engagement it gets which creates a perpetual motion machine of nonsense. If we engaged less in pointless back and forth 'my belief can beat up your belief' style discussion the side tracking would naturally be reduced.

    I'd opt for keep it the same. It's not perfect, but perfection is a lofty aspiration. Dealing out infractions would be very time consuming, difficult to judge equally at all times and would inevitably lead to more discontent. The boundaries are pretty lenient on Casebook and posters who overstep the mark are consistently dealt with. Tightening the rules around free flowing discussion can only hobble the subject and discourage new contributions.

    It's not the rules that need altering, it's the user. Maybe if we all try to just get along nicely...?

    Leave a comment:


  • JeffHamm
    replied
    As with many things, I'm of two minds about this. I get the desire to separate a thread that, through the course of discussion, drifts from the original starting post from the sudden interjection of "My theory about dinosaurs" that appears out of the blue, and usually occurs when someone joins the thread for the first time. The first happens all the time, and is part and parcel of a good discussion, the second happens all the time too, in one form or another, and some threads have devolved into a feeding frenzy around something that keeps getting discussed in every thread, or at least a large number.

    I agree with Lewis C's point, that particularly with situations of the first sort, where a thread is drifting due to the flow of the conversation to something quite unrelated to the thread "title", most of the time that either gets wrapped up when it's pointed out or it gets moved to it's own thread if those conversing wish to continue. I think that is a good idea, as often some interesting asides get lost because it becomes difficult to track them down later.

    It seems to me that the second, and the "problem issue", tends not to do that, and it comes across as if the poster simply wants their pet topic to be discussed everywhere, to ensure it gets "seen" no matter what thread a person reads. It seems to me that, while it is annoying at time, a warning is probably enough 99% of the time. I suppose if a warning is given, the offending post could also be deleted (or the offending section removed; similar to a personal attack post), which might help to reduce the attractiveness of doing such things.

    A warning is probably sufficient most of the time to curtail such "enthusiasm", but if you are finding that there are those who get repeated warnings about the same topic "injections", so basically ignoring the warnings, then I think that starts to move from minor infraction (for hijacking) to a major infraction (for ignoring the moderators). The latter is probably worth more than 1 point as the "sin" is no longer the interjection itself, but the continuing despite being warned not to.

    I suspect some don't even realise they are doing it, partly because they will feel very strongly about some topic or issue that they see it connected to everything. After a few warnings, though, it should become clear to them so if the behaviour continues, it becomes clear that they are not taking on board the soft approach.

    On the other hand, it might require a lot of work to monitor such things, and as asides may divert a thread, they rarely result in it spiralling into the chaos that personal attacks are capable of creating.

    Good Lord. I can't even keep that short!

    - Jeff

    Leave a comment:


  • Lewis C
    replied
    I don't think that this is a serious problem. If a thread goes off-topic, anyone can can point it out and suggest that the conversation be continued in a more appropriate thread, and from what I've seen, when that is pointed out, it usually takes care of the issue. If there's a back-and forth between 2 posters, either of them can say, "I'll respond to your post in the ___ thread where this is more on-topic".

    Leave a comment:


  • NotBlamedForNothing
    replied
    I hope you don't mind, but I'd like to take this thread slightly off-topic.

    While I agree that the hijacking of threads can be very annoying, there are also times when the natural tangents result in a thread straying just a bit too far from the title/opening post of the thread. What posters can do in these situations, instead of 'contaminating' a thread with off-topic posts, is to reply to a post in the given thread, in a more appropriate thread.

    It's just a matter of copy & pasting the quote text (including the opening and closing QUOTE tag) into the reply text box of the appropriate thread. You don't have to reply to a post in the same thread as the post.

    For example,

    Originally posted by Monty View Post

    An entry in Howard Vincent's Police Code, a guide book by which all constables should abide by, under Obscene Publications (Page 122), on the erasing of such chalk writing as seen in Goulston Street.

    So it would seem the Met were guided to erase the graffito after all.


    Monty
    Click on the >> link to go to the post.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X