Another Thread Closed!

[dbphoenix]

Excuse me, but I'd like to speak privately to peto, Bertie. Do not interfere with whatever communication peto and I may have on this board or else I shall be forced to punish you.

Please don't make me repeat this :cheesy:

 

[trendie]

A Private Forum allows traders to post ideas without the rest of the membership intervening.
Access to the Private Forum is controlled by the initiator. (Socrates)
Access to the PF can be denied by the initiator.
The PF is, well, Private.

"Let us see if you and I can have a discussion between us without being interrrrupted."
Get a Private Forum. (no interruptions as only invited people get to post)

"See if you can pinpoint who the troublemakers are there and come back to me and tell me, in your impartial opinion, who they are."
In a Private Forum, you wont have this problem. If you do, you can deny access to the reprobate.

"When you have done that first and given me your considered reply, it will be made clear if you are in the 99.999% of dunces that I mention or in the exclusive .1% ."
In a Private Forum, you can selectively allow ingress to ensure only the worthy are present.

"You again ? Clear off ! Go on ! Or can't you read ?"
You will never have to suffer the childish mutterings of us dunces, in a Private Forum.

However, this wont work. Because, Socco needs the attention.
He is like a D-list celebrity trying to get publicity through sensation, rather than substance. (I am not suggesting he puts anything up his nose)
An exhibitionist with little to show, he flaunts, then gets all hot and bothered when we point out there isnt much to see.

Its staring in you in the face, get a Private Forum.
Its solves ALL your problems, except the need for attention.

Right, I'm off to lose more money to the market. Those twig-birds aren't gonna feed themselves.

EDIT: re-open "The Ledger" thread as a Private Forum, where Socco can invite the members of his choosing.
that way he accepts responsibility for the thread. job done.

 

[Rhody Trader]

Am I the only one to see the irony of a thread about closed threads quickly moving toward becoming one itself?

 

[barjon]

Am I the only one to see the irony of a thread about closed threads quickly moving toward becoming one itself?

rhody

yes, it does get tiresome doesn't it - I'm afraid I'll have to start flinging my weight around if it goes on .

jon

 

[dbphoenix]

Am I the only one to see the irony of a thread about closed threads quickly moving toward becoming one itself?

No, you're not. But then there'll be another thread about why the thread about the closed thread was closed. And so on. Which is why deleting and editing and moving and closing are not solutions.

But then how one chooses to spend one's time is after all a personal choice.

 

[trendie]

Am I the only one to see the irony of a thread about closed threads quickly moving toward becoming one itself?

the irony is eclipsed by the hallucinogenic qualities of a candlestick thread becoming one about a ledger made up of gold-leaf pages. EDIT: the contents of which can NEVER be disclosed.

 

[Charlton]

Am I the only one to see the irony of a thread about closed threads quickly moving toward becoming one itself?

Rhody
You are so right.

IMHO we should not be closing threads where there has been an excess of detractors, because they get what they want: attention and disruption of interesting threads.

The main detractors/protagonists or whatever you want to call them should be banned for a specified time or permanently. This enables the threads to continue in a civilised fashion and to starve detractors of the publicity they crave

Charlton

 

[JTrader]

Or why not just let the person who started the thread, simply delete any posts by any users they see as unfit.........for whatever reason, without any appeals process, whinging etc. But then no doubt some would abuse this...........

There's no right or wrong way to handle all this stuff - just the chosen way.

Some dubious characters are alway going to abuse whatever set-up is in place..........

 

[Rhody Trader]

I agree with comments made before about private discussions on public threads. We can't really expect to restrict input from others in a forum that is open to anyone who wants to put in their two bits.

The question I can't help asking is why allow oneself to get sucked in and wound up? By responding to someone you feel is distracting the focus or attempting to make things personal we only serve to encourage them and send the thread spinning further way from its intended course. If, as has been suggested, some folks post for the sake of attention, don't feed in to it by responding if they aren't contributing meaningfully to the disucssion at hand.

 

[trendie]

Or why not just let the person who started the thread, simply delete any posts by any users they see as unfit.........for whatever reason, without any appeals process, whinging etc.

I think the owner of a Private Forum has such moderating powers.

Here again, the prospect of acting the put-upon victim would be denied if he simply deleted anything that offended his rather fragile ego.

The attention-seeking would still be denied.

barjon - just as an experiment, offer Socrates the option of a Private Forum!!!

 

[Charlton]

I agree with comments made before about private discussions on public threads. We can't really expect to restrict input from others in a forum that is open to anyone who wants to put in their two bits..

Absolutely agree - if members want to make private comments to each other there is either PM or they can start a private forum. A public forum is open to all and posters must expect reactions/posts from anyone.

The question I can't help asking is why allow oneself to get sucked in and wound up? By responding to someone you feel is distracting the focus or attempting to make things personal we only serve to encourage them and send the thread spinning further way from its intended course. If, as has been suggested, some folks post for the sake of attention, don't feed in to it by responding if they aren't contributing meaningfully to the disucssion at hand.

Unfortunately not everyone is as civilised as yourself. If they were then we would have no need to discuss this and no need for moderators, but I agree wholeheartedly that posters should not get drawn into this. Ignoring these distractions is the easiest way to nip them in the bud.

Charlton

 

[bracke]

rhody

I'm afraid I'll have to start flinging my weight around if it goes on .

jon

and rumour has it that it is not inconsiderable!

barjon

I trust the irony of the situation is not lost on you. The possibility that you may have to close a thread that is discussing the closing of threads. It' s a gem.

Regards

bracke

 

[counter_violent]

If a poster is challenged about what is posted..he has a choice if challenged...either to defend what is posted until One side or the other conclusively proves the topic..or concede that others have a valid counter argument...all this nonsense about not arguing the case is tantamount to stifling free speech...thus allowing One viewpoint to go unchallenged...if that is the kind of web site that is wanted...then nothing will be said and the site will fizzle away.

A question for everyone reading this thread.....why has this thread been the most popular over the last Two days ?...I know the answer...I wonder if you do.

 

[dbphoenix]

Or why not just let the person who started the thread, simply delete any posts by any users they see as unfit.........for whatever reason, without any appeals process, whinging etc. But then no doubt some would abuse this...........

This was one of the suggestions that was to be addressed with the new site. But, apparently, it wasn't. More's the pity.

Db

 

[dbphoenix]

The question I can't help asking is why allow oneself to get sucked in and wound up? By responding to someone you feel is distracting the focus or attempting to make things personal we only serve to encourage them and send the thread spinning further way from its intended course. If, as has been suggested, some folks post for the sake of attention, don't feed in to it by responding if they aren't contributing meaningfully to the disucssion at hand.

You're missing the dynamics. The individual who regularly attempts to disrupt threads does so for the attention. Therefore, he will continue to hammer away until he gets it. If those whose attention he seeks try to "ignore" him, he doubles and redoubles his efforts until he gets a reaction, even to the extent of using caps, ever-larger fonts, color(s), etc. At some point, whoever is trying to carry on a substantive discussion no longer sees the point of the effort and withdraws.

Theoretically, your suggestion makes sense. Practically, it has never worked.

Db

 

[Rhody Trader]

...all this nonsense about not arguing the case is tantamount to stifling free speech...thus allowing One viewpoint to go unchallenged...if that is the kind of web site that is wanted...then nothing will be said and the site will fizzle away.

No one said anything about not defending a position or arguing a case. At least I didn't. I'm all for healthy debate. I love it myself.

There's a difference, though, between arguing a point as it pertains to the subject of the thread in question and responding to personal attacks and other distracting comments.

As I noted earlier, I've been subject to personal attacks from time to time by those who get it in their heads that just because I'm a book author I consider myself an expert and have an ulterior motive for posting. My personal approach is generally to ignore them. If I respond at all to the personal stuff, it's to point it out for what it is, but I never try to rebutt or anything like that. They don't know me at all, so it's not like there's any basis for what they're saying, and I'm unlikely to say anything that's going to change their view. I've found that just continuing on with the main debate/discussion will usually suffice to quell the situation. Actually, many times others in the forum will chime in on my behalf.

 

[Rhody Trader]

... he will continue to hammer away until he gets it. If those whose attention he seeks try to "ignore" him, he doubles and redoubles his efforts until he gets a reaction...

But you make my point. If no one ever reacts to the attempted disruptions, the poster can yell and scream (metaphorically speaking) all he wants to no avail. Just don't react. Don't allow yourself to be provoked. It really is that simple.

And no. I'm not so daft as to really think that we'll ever prevent all reactions to posts that are pointless, distracting, insulting, etc. I think we all have that initial desire to react to defend ourselves or someone else, or to express a strong view counter to something we consider garbage. Most of the time, though, it's best not to act emotionally and jump in to the fray, but it can be quite difficult to keep one's self from doing so.

If we can, however, restrain ourselves, though, it makes it very easy for the mods to go in an trim out those distracting posts without mangling the thread as a whole.

 

[TheBramble]

This issue occurs so frequently and absorbs so much energy and screen time, even just to scroll through, that I feel compelled to make an attempt to suggest some ways to address the underlying issue.

If sufficient number of you find one or more characters are consistently and persistently derailing or otherwise ruining your threads and this is genuinely believed to be done with specifically negative intent rather than through simply meandering off topic from time to time as we are all prone to do, there should be a mechanism to prevent them from any further participation in that thread. There has been endless traffic on this topic and unfortunately, it finds its way into threads that would, had they been left to run their intended course, have provided all with potential benefit rather than yet more of the same pointlessness and rarely any resumption of the initial topic matter.

Thread starters, if given restricted or local moderator power to delete – not even edit – posts, would serve well to keep serial spoilers away from their threads. This seems like the most sensible and the least draconian measure that could be adopted. And one which is technically simple to implement.

The option of these attention seekers having their own private forums has already been addressed and for the very reasons mentioned, unlikely to be a solution to their own personal psychological needs on a long term basis or the needs of others who do not wish to be bothered by their posts.

Before I am put too firmly in any camp, which would be an error, I believe the site would be poorer for the forced departure of these individuals as they do provide a wide range of comment and source for useful debate, often quite by accident, not to mention their introduction of huge amounts of humour both intentional and even more mirthfully, unintentional. But equally they could, from an purely objective point of view be accused of sullying everyone else’s pants which is simply not on. Let them post in their own threads, where they too have local moderator privs and where those who wish to engage with them on their topic-of-the-day (or off-topic-of-the-day perhaps), however hallucinogenic or deranged, can do so in the blissful awareness they are doing no harm and are comfortable among their own. They would also be protected from the abuse from those who currently abuse them for being abused.

Failing that small tweak to the site, those who have a significant concern about having their threads disrupted could ask for their own private forum which would have automatic entry for all, but with the ability to permanently lock out those that seek purely to disrupt. So instead of expecting those accused of attention seeking to purposefully restrict their audience (unlikely) we can turn the tables and suggest all others who wish to prevent nuisance posts could seek to have private forums.

 

[Crap Buddist]

mmm, why not turn it into something interactive , kinda like big brother, and the members vote people off.....

I dunno... totally off topic but kicked in by the above, I remember listening some weeks back about these online worlds. Towns cities etc. Virtual worlds and it was saying it is a booming business. Further, people actually thought more of their virtual world and identities over their real life ones.

Scary . People are living more time online in the virtual communities and feeling more stimulated in them , than in their real life ones.

Weird. People are paying big money for top virtual properties located in the best spot.

Anyone got a web address of these virtual worlds. ? And anyone had experience of them ?


Another thread maybe....

 

[dbphoenix]

But you make my point. If no one ever reacts to the attempted disruptions, the poster can yell and scream (metaphorically speaking) all he wants to no avail. Just don't react. Don't allow yourself to be provoked. It really is that simple.

And no. I'm not so daft as to really think that we'll ever prevent all reactions to posts that are pointless, distracting, insulting, etc. I think we all have that initial desire to react to defend ourselves or someone else, or to express a strong view counter to something we consider garbage. Most of the time, though, it's best not to act emotionally and jump in to the fray, but it can be quite difficult to keep one's self from doing so.

If we can, however, restrain ourselves, though, it makes it very easy for the mods to go in an trim out those distracting posts without mangling the thread as a whole.

I'm afraid you don't understand my point; therefore, I'm not making yours. In theory, your proposal is fine, but then, in theory, so are universal disarmament and worldwide brotherly love. So your solution is not as simple as it seems. In fact, it's next to impossible, something the Skinnerians figured out some time ago.

Db