|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| How many new threads are just enough? |
| One |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
| Two |
|
7% |
[ 1 ] |
| Three |
|
7% |
[ 1 ] |
| Four |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
| Five |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
| No maximum, what are you kidding? |
|
85% |
[ 12 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 14 |
|
| Author |
Message |
Enrico Palazzo
Mod Team
Joined: 11 Mar 2008
|
 Posted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 9:24 pm Post subject: The spamming poll and other comments (New Threads) |
 |
|
This new poll has been re-introduced in order to fine tune it. There were issues with fine-tuning it, so after consultation with the members and other moderators this was placed back and revised. The first poll had some problems. The poll was changed, because he first one didn't give enough choices. Your feedback is welcomed. The delay in sending this back was on my part, because I wanted to discuss fine-tuning it and solicit feedback. There is a process for doing things we must go through. You do understand.
Identify what you consider to be spam, discuss posting in general.
If you have other concerns that go outside this bring it up, and a possible second thread could be established to discuss that.
The mods have been trying to respond to the reports you've been sending in as much as you can. If you have concerns you want to bring to the mod team, use the PM function and contact any mod of your choosing on the matter. We appreciate the reports, and the PMs.
If you think something needs to be added to the poll or there should be some revision. We wanted to introduce this back in a way that
could solicit as many balanced opinions on the subject in a way that could promote more choices and a variety of responses. On a side note, most posters have been civil but a handful have not responded adequately to the guidelines whether those posted by Raoul Duke or The Dude.
On a side note, we are not here for a popularity contest.
The Mod Team.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Manner of Speaking
Joined: 09 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 9:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Enrico Palazzo,
I'm assuming that this poll is asking, 'how many new threads a forum participant may start in a single day'? In which case I voted 3 max.
I think a limit of three would force people to focus a little better...think seriously about what they are saying, and what they want to discuss with others.
Only IMHO of course... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 9:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I remain of the opinion that we ought not place any numerical limitations on posters and threads -- provided that posters introduce new stories, information, concepts, and not the same, droning themesong again and again.
I am going to risk provoking "them" by asking you, Enrico, how many conspiracy theory threads are enough for this forum? I think this is a valid issue because the evolution people seem to have successfully confined themselves to a single thread, and over time as well, while the conspiracy theory people have not.
I would ask you to strongarm this issue. And I imagine I would get significant support from others here. My proposal is this: streamline the conspiracy theory threads into one and then delete any new conspiracy theory thread or conspiracy theory post on unrelated threads that appear after that. Call it the Mod-enforced containment policy.
In my view, that would settle the spamming issue on this forum once and for all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cbclark4
Joined: 20 Aug 2006
Location: Masan
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 9:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| If you poll enough and keep tweaking the poll you will get the results you really want. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Enrico Palazzo
Mod Team
Joined: 11 Mar 2008
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 10:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Manner of Speaking wrote: |
Enrico Palazzo,
I'm assuming that this poll is asking, 'how many new threads a forum participant may start in a single day'? In which case I voted 3 max.
I think a limit of three would force people to focus a little better...think seriously about what they are saying, and what they want to discuss with others.
Only IMHO of course... |
Manner of Speaking, yes it is about how many you as members think a member should start. I didn't use the word may, because this isn't policy or a guideline or an intention for strong arming people to post this or that.
Gopher, the conspiracy theories are another thing, they don't relate per se to the idea of new threads. If someone is posting 3 posts on JFK that is different than what is being asked, not that it shouldn't be looked at.
Cbclark, the poll was tweaked to invited as much positive
feedback as possible. There are no results desired in terms of a number by the moderators or a desire to count posts. Nothing as such was expressed by anyone on the mod team. There is no conspiracy, no one is hiding Jimmy Hoffa.
This is a consultation thread. See it as such only write now.
If there are other issues like the one Gopher brought up.....
I am not sure, Gopher, about limiting conspiracy theory posts if the posts are different, shouldn't a poster have a right to post their theories even if they are wild? If they are repeating the same ones and with duplicate posts that may be another issue, wouldn't it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
regicide
Joined: 01 Sep 2006
Location: United States
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 10:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I vote for "grow up folks, pass over a thread if you don't like it"
and; stop mucking up threads that bug you - - hello, you are just keeping
it around that much longer! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 10:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
My proposal is this: streamline the conspiracy theory threads into one and then delete any new conspiracy theory thread or conspiracy theory post on unrelated threads that appear after that. Call it the Mod-enforced containment policy.
|
You could probably confine each separate conspiracy theory to one thread, but it gets a bit trickier when you start considering multiple theories.
I was happy when all the 9-11 truth stuff got streamlined to one thread, in fact I think I was one of the first to suggest that idea. But I don't think it really makes sense to ask that JFK and federal reserve conspiracy theories(for example) all be put together. They are separate topics. I guess you could argue that they're all promoting one big conspiracy theory, and so therefore all belong on the same thread. But the conspiracy theorists could just as easily argue that mainstream posters are all parroting their own version of a big conspiracy theory, and so should have all their topics on one thread.
Now, if somoeone insists on posting multiple threads about "Is The Federal Reserve A Masonic Sex Cult?", then the mods can delete most of them, and direct all traffic to the remaining thread. Not because it's a conspiracy theory, just because we don't need multiple threads about one topic. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 10:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Enrico Palazzo wrote: |
| ...[A] shouldn't a poster have a right to post their theories even if they are wild? [B] If they are repeating the same ones and with duplicate posts that may be another issue, wouldn't it? |
I do not object and have never objected to "A." I object to "B," however, and especially the attitude that comes with it, which is usually expressed like this
| Quote: |
| grow up folks, pass over a thread if you don't like it... |
| Quote: |
| Quit your whining, move past the threads that you don't interest you... |
Or, paraphrasing the intent: if we would just keep quiet and let them filibuster indefinitely, then it would go much more peacefully for us. Sounds a lot like a hostage-taker talking to his hostages to me, Enrico.
Here is my take on why the evolution people remain confined to one thread (and if you want another, controversy-free example, see the Battlestar Galactica thread on the Off-Topic forum): there are a small number of evolution people interested in debating their issue to death, they sometimes draw in outsiders, but their discussions generate their own momentum and they seem to remain satisfied that their discussion accomplishes something, whatever it may mean to them (on the other example, we have a single thread to return to in order to exchange news and gossip or what-have-you relating to Battlestar Galactica; sometimes months pass with no activity, but sooner or later, we all return to it to check for new information or pass something on to the others who are interested in it).
The conspiracy theory people, on the other hand, find that most of us most of the time simply ignore their threads. I can tell you for a fact that responding to them, attempting to reason with them, leads nowhere. Yet sometimes I make my attempt. In any case, this "rejection" dynamic leaves them bored and indeed desperate for recognition because at the end of the day, there remain less than five of them nodding their heads "yes" to each other about single bullet theories and melting metal or whatever and none of the rest of us get on board (like we are apparently expected to). And because they find themselves less than satisfied they constantly seek attn by thrusting new threads on the same topic again and again and again and again in order to force the rest of us to at least see what they want to foist into our minds, which is their dark worldviews about an evil and pervasive police state or what-have-you.
It will likely go on like this indefinitely unless the mods stop it.
Last edited by Gopher on Tue Apr 01, 2008 10:26 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Enrico Palazzo
Mod Team
Joined: 11 Mar 2008
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 10:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Gopher, what about what OTOH stated, as to there being different variations on the theme. What about the rights of the posters who subscribe to the views they subscribe to? Couldn't their threads be ignored? Do you think the situation is bad? If so, why? How would the single thread thing deal with there being variations on the thread.
It isn't the same thing as the duplicate thread that posters were complaining about, because a duplicate thread involves the same exact article........... This is tricky, you must admit. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 10:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I disagree with On the Other Hand: all of them revolve around the allegation that a collection of military-industrial complex interests and secret societies control the United States and from there the entire world. All of them may be reduced to that conspiracy theory allegation. That is the thing that they want all of us to believe. And they want us to wring our hands with them and denounce our oppressed status, the vitcims of an ubiquitous police state (and as you know, as a mod, you are one of the censors and oppressors)...
Back to my point:
Here is the latest JFK thread, only a few hours old.
Would you like to wager money, Enrico, on the odds or one, two, or three more JFK threads appearing in the next, say week or so?
It is tricky, of course, this ramming of information down our throats again and again. And it does present multiple problems -- some of them already acknowledged...
| Quote: |
| 5)When posting an article, do not post the whole article. It is something members and moderators alike discourage. Post some of the article and place a link at the bottom. Also, hit the URL button on top. The bold button is the first button, the URL is the last one. |
In any case, I have stated my position. Sure I can simply ignore the case of the reappearing conspiracy theories and allegations. But what about when they invade and hijack unrelated threads? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 10:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I never read the conspiracy threads. Nor the million and one US election threads that pop up every 5 minutes or so (Obama this, Clinton that, McCain is swearing again, oh my!... etc).
Can't we have all the boring US election posts on just one thread? After all, it is essentially just one topic...   |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Manner of Speaking
Joined: 09 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 11:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Enrico Palazzo wrote: |
| Manner of Speaking, yes it is about how many you as members think a member should start. I didn't use the word may, because this isn't policy or a guideline or an intention for strong arming people to post this or that. |
Okay thanks.
| Quote: |
This is a consultation thread. See it as such only write now.
If there are other issues like the one Gopher brought up.....
I am not sure, Gopher, about limiting conspiracy theory posts if the posts are different, shouldn't a poster have a right to post their theories even if they are wild? If they are repeating the same ones and with duplicate posts that may be another issue, wouldn't it? |
Personally, I don't care how many "conspiracy theory" threads are started, or threads on anything else, for that matter....however, like Gopher I object to repeatedly starting new threads on the same topic over and over again. In some cases, a new thread is started on the exact same topic as one previously posted, and if any responses are made, they are (often) ignored by the thread author. This suggests that the thread author is, in effect, spamming the forum by simply advocating their viewpoint.
Last year, there was a very long, extensive thread on the subject of the Cassini spaceprobe mission to Titan. I can't remember if it was me or Mithridates who started it, but as weeks and months went by we both made new posts to the thread, as new data from the mission was analyzed and published.
We didn't need to start a new thread every time NASA issued a new press release, AKA "More on the Titan Mission..." There was no need to; keeping new information on the topic restricted to - and posted to - the same thread made it easier for readers and respondents to keep up on the topic. It's something you do if you have consideration for the people reading the material you present.
Suppose I was rabidly interested in the Spirit and Opportunity spaceprobes NASA has placed on Mars; and suppose I started a new thread every time NASA issued a new press release? I wouldn't do it because A) it's inconsiderate to the other members of the forum, and B) I would get loads of complaints along the lines of, "enough already!" It wouldn't matter whether or not they are interested in the topic, or whether or not they agree with my viewpoint. It would be the excessive and repetitious posting they would find annoying.
...
I would like to put forward the following viewpoint regarding starting threads, and what that entails.
Dave's ESL Cafe Current Events Forum is a public discussion board. It is not Dave's blog, nor is it anybody else's. Anyone who joins the forum and agrees to follow its guidelines is free to start a discussion thread and/or respond to a current thread. I am sure there are a great many people who read the threads and posts on this forum, but are unable to respond - but only because they have not bothered to register for membership.
It follows, therefore, that the act of starting a thread is, in fact, a public invitation to participate in a discussion on a particular topic, the one the thread author is interested in. Thread authors do not have the power to exclude respondents, limit discussions to a particular set of individuals, or delete respondent's posts. Only the Moderators do that. The Moderators limit their powers to deleting or "editing" only those threads and posts that, in their opinions, violate the TOS.
Since any given thread author is initiating a public discussion, it follows therefore that the thread author should have consideration for any respondent post, and should be willing to accept that some responses to their thread will express opinions that the author does not agree with. If the thread author is not willing to accept this, then what is the point of the author starting the thread?
It's a public discussion forum, after all. The only person entitled to post commercial advertisements here is Dave.
Consideration for the respondents of a topic thread would and should include limiting the threads to one thread - one topic. That's not censorship. It's just doing things in an organized and considerate fashion.
Partly by being accountable to the forum community for what discussions you initiate.
Topic respondents, by the same token, should have the same consideration for the topic author. Even if the topic of the thread strikes the respondent as bizarre, off-beat, or just plain stupid, they should still be willing to treat the thread author with courtesy and consideration. They should be willing to consider the thread author's theories and viewpoints seriously and respond courteously. Otherwise, what's the point of participating in the thread?
Last edited by Manner of Speaking on Tue Apr 01, 2008 11:19 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 11:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| Can't we have all the boring US election posts on just one thread? After all, it is essentially just one topic... |
Yes, I feel your lash again, you wicked woman.
But let me ask you this? How many of these neverending election threads have I created? I have "the Final Ron Paul" thread which is hybernating at the moment (it responded in turn to the dozens of Ron Paul threads that the conspiracy theorists had foisted onto the forum as well).
In any case, I wholly agree with you. These things, too, should be confined to a single thread, or a small collection of threads: the Democratic Convention/Nomination thread; the McCain thread (I tried to create that one a while back, too.) Now. In any case. What do I get for that? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 11:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Gopher agrees with me! 
Damn it! 
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 02, 2008 1:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
Gopher is apparently cognitively impaired. He was the one attacking people for having so many threads and asking for a single thread on such a topic, and now he's got it and he's still attacking!!!  That is proof right there that it doesn't matter what I say, only that I, bacasper, am saying it.
That thread drew an immediate response typical of those who, like Gopher, lack the self-control necessary to scroll past a thread they have no interest in and refrain from spamming it with their nasty, vile spew. Every day I scroll past the Evolution thread and don't feel the need to go and slam the posters there. It is not that hard.
The time before this, only a day or two ago, he went absolutely apoplectic on me because I referred to Operation Northwoods in the same way it is referred to in all the major media, National Secutiry Archive, and just about everywhere else, as an "Operation."
I cannot make a simple post about almost anything without Gopher coming down like nasty, raving lunatic. This amounts to nothing short of cyberstalking and I demand that an end be put to it.
If you want civility on this forum, banning Gopher would go a long way towards that.
I am trying to have single thread to discuss JFK. Can we not get a single thread for all those who want to bash "conspiracy theorists?" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
