Mod Sponsored Community Poll - Your Input is Requested

[waggy]

What is the community's take on threads which are started with seemingly little-to-no discussion by the OP?

Example: Thank Obama for the Ever Increasing Prices

Counter-Example: Interesting article on the first months of Obama's presidency.

In the example above there is very little provided in the way of opening discussion on the link and stated topic of the thread itself; whereas the counter-example provides plenty of opening dialogue IMO and makes clear the context within which the OP intends the thread's discussion to focus on.

Administrator Idontcare

IF you post a article then the whole article should be under discussion. To cherry pick what can be talked about is wrong.

now if the article mentions say cherry's then going off and talking about how to make a cherry pie would be off (unless its cooking. then it should be in atot heh)

 

[Bowfinger]

and your point is? you did ask for impute.

who really cares how much someone post in a thread?

Signal vs. noise. Quantity is inferior to quality.

 

[dank69]

IF you post a article then the whole article should be under discussion. To cherry pick what can be talked about is wrong.

now if the article mentions say cherry's then going off and talking about how to make a cherry pie would be off (unless its cooking. then it should be in atot heh)

He wasn't saying an OP can cherry pick what can be talked about, he was asking if the OP should be required to make it clear what the focus of the thread should be. Subtle difference, I know.

 

[darkewaffle]

I think to post in P&N forum members should have to "opt-in" to the P&N user group, which allots unlimited posting in P&N but are limited to three exterior posts a day.

 

[Pens1566]

I've changed my mind. Whatever needs to be done to remove posters like cyber and spidey.

Nuke the site from orbit ...

 

[waggy]

Signal vs. noise. Quantity is inferior to quality.

don't get me wrong. i agree on that. but do we really want to be limiting who can say what? and how often?

What was the point of perks post? nothing really i can tell.

 

[cybrsage]

and your point is? you did ask for impute.

who really cares how much someone post in a thread?

He is using it as part of a continuing Poisoning The Well logicall fallacy attack. His point is that if people post a lot, they must be horrible people who need to be banned or silenced somehow.

It is obvious the two are not related items, but that does not stop him from making the connection anyway. This is why it is a well known logical fallacy.

The problem here is that he continues to use it even after being exposed for it.

 

[Whiskey16]

What was the point of perks post? nothing really i can tell.

That much trouble can be sourced to a few.

 

[Infohawk]

What was the point of perks post? nothing really i can tell.

It is probably something to the effect that trolls can completely take over and derail threads, which is totally true.

But yes, number count alone is irrelevant. There are times when two people have a useful discussion in P&N that basically takes over a thread. The difference, and what should be the focus, is substance. Is the poster just repetitively screaming nonsense about people being peasants with bad teeth? Or are they addressing the new arguments and counterpoints?

 

[Bowfinger]

It is probably something to the effect that trolls can completely take over and derail threads, which is totally true.

But yes, number count alone is irrelevant. There are times when two people have a useful discussion in P&N that basically takes over a thread. The difference, and what should be the focus, is substance. Is the poster just repetitively screaming nonsense about people being peasants with bad teeth? Or are they addressing the new arguments and counterpoints?

I agree. It seems to me in this case, however, Perk has been using this not to "poison the well", as Cybrsage keeps pretending, but to corroborate the other complaints about a couple of posters in this thread. It's not the sheer volume of posts but the fact that few of them contribute anything of value to this thread. They are mostly noise that degrades the overall quality of the thread for everyone else.

 

[cybrsage]

I agree. It seems to me in this case, however, Perk has been using this not to "poison the well", as Cybrsage keeps pretending, but to corroborate the other complaints about a couple of posters in this thread. It's not the sheer volume of posts but the fact that few of them contribute anything of value to this thread. They are mostly noise.

Not true. We both know it, why do you lie?

 

[Bowfinger]

Not true. We both know it, why do you lie?

Like this one, for example. One of the (many) complaints about Cybrsage is his relentless compulsion to argue with anyone who disagrees with him or is critical of him, no matter how clearly he may be in the wrong. He also appears absolutely incapable of accepting criticism or admitting he is wrong about anything. When criticized, his response is usually of the form above, a dishonest attack on the critic that totally dodges any issues or examples presented. Indeed, dishonesty in general is one of his most defining traits.

But that's enough. This thread is not about Cybrsage, or at least not just him.

 

[cybrsage]

To support my statement, here is Perknose's first post in this thread:

One statistic leaps out at me here. As of the first 166 posts, fully 72 of them were made by but 3 posters;

dmcowen674 -- 31 posts
cybrsage --22posts
JSt0rm --19 posts

That's right, more than 43% of all the posts in this thread were made by the above three gentlemen alone.

Read them, these 72 posts, and I believe you will conclude as I have that their collective noise to signal ratio is unacceptably unproductive and non-contributory to any rational, measured discourse.

This has long been a problem in P&N.

Posting more non-contributory "noise" than substance in P&N, for whatever reason, is a pestilence that should be confronted and eradicated.

Of course, he still refuses to define signal and to define noise, so those terms are meaningless.

His post is basically "These three people posted a lot. I don't like what they say. They must be banned". Then each post thereafter is a running total of posts by three people. Well, except the second post which was a huge string of personal attacks bound together by lies.

http://forums.anandtech.com/search.php?searchid=44109

There is no point to the posts, other than to poison the well by saying "quantity means a lack of quality". That, of course, is patently untrue, but by using he is attacking future posts based on a lie he told. Poisoning the Well.

To poison the well is to commit a pre-emptive ad hominem strike against an argumentative opponent.

Anyone bold enough to enter a debate which begins with a well-poisoning either steps into an insult, or an attack upon one's personal integrity. As with standard ad hominems, the debate is likely to cease to be about its nominal topic and become a debate about the arguer.

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/poiswell.html

Perknose is basically saying "don't listen to anything these three posters are going to say, they only post noise". He then one ups it by basically saying "they should be silenced".

 

[cybrsage]

Like this one, for example. One of the (many) complaints about Cybrsage is his relentless compulsion to argue with anyone who disagrees with him or is critical of him, no matter how clearly he may be in the wrong. He also appears absolutely incapable of accepting criticism or admitting he is wrong about anything. When criticized, his response is usually of the form above, a dishonest attack on the critic that totally dodges any issues or examples presented. Indeed, dishonesty in general is one of his most defining traits.

Untrue. In fact, in this very thread (or the one this thread replaced), I admitted I attributed statements to the wrong person AND apologized for doing it.

I realize that destroys your argument, so you have to ignore it...

But that's enough. This thread is not about Cybrsage, or at least not just him.

Then why are you talking about me?

 

[Bowfinger]

Untrue. In fact, in this very thread (or the one this thread replaced), I admitted I attributed statements to the wrong person AND apologized for doing it.

I realize that destroys your argument, so you have to ignore it...

I stand corrected. Though you made a lame excuse about getting disconnected, you did acknowledge that you made an error. Please amend my statement from "absolutely incapable of accepting criticism" to "virtually incapable of accepting criticism". That's one down, 3,173 to go.

 

[shortylickens]

This thread is a fine example why we need strict enforcement of the rules and maybe ban some guys from P&N for a month at a time when they screw up.

 

[cybrsage]

I stand corrected. Though you made a lame excuse about getting disconnected, you did acknowledge that you made an error. Please amend my statement from "absolutely incapable of accepting criticism" to "virtually incapable of accepting criticism". That's one down, 3,173 to go.

Nevermind, does not matter.

 

[cybrsage]

This thread is a fine example why we need strict enforcement of the rules and maybe ban some guys from P&N for a month at a time when they screw up.

Agreed, though I would start with a warning, second offense would be a week off. Third offense a month off. Fourth, lifetime. I would allow access to the moderators forum, though, so the punishments can be appealed and discussed...even if it meant delaying the bannings to do it. This would ensure the natural bias a mod may have does not allow him to run roughshod over those he disagrees with.

 

[Doppel]

As a person who admittedly can be prone to over-posting (not necessarily here, though), I assume the point Perknose is trying to make with his running tally and noise vs signal is that some people are simply posting too much. If a theoretical thread has 20 people posting in it and 50% of the posts are from one person (this is entirely possible on P&N) it becomes damn near a journal of that single person and they end up overbearing on the thread so severely that others simply lose interest.

It cannot be hard to figure out noise vs signal. A relevant response to something is signal. A "ghey" or "wow, really?", or "this" is noise (and most of us are noisy at times).

 

[dank69]

As a person who admittedly can be prone to over-posting (not necessarily here, though), I assume the point Perknose is trying to make with his running tally and noise vs signal is that some people are simply posting too much. If a theoretical thread has 20 people posting in it and 50% of the posts are from one person (this is entirely possible on P&N) it becomes damn near a journal of that single person and they end up overbearing on the thread so severely that others simply lose interest.

It cannot be hard to figure out noise vs signal. A relevant response to something is signal. A "ghey" or "wow, really?", or "this" is noise (and most of us are noisy at times).

Of course it isn't hard to figure out. It is simple to figure out for anyone with even a small amount of intelligence.

 

[MotF Bane]

An example of a blatantly misleading thread title:

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?p=32907328#post32907328

 

[Whiskey16]

An example of a blatantly misleading thread title:

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?p=32907328#post32907328

MofF Bane, your post is that of a link-and-run. You failed to present any context or substantiated reasoning for your warrantless complaint. That should certainly be a big fail for a new thead OP.

Further, you are out of line to likely bring up political, national, or religious partisanship as an excuse to fabricate a complaint against a perfectly apt title:

Middle Easterners stone woman for wearing western clothes

The honest thing would be to present some content to validate your complaint. Considering the actual context and content of the Haaretz article from that thread, you are certainly unable to. I am capable of demonstrating an example of sufficient discussion with only a tiny effort to demonstrate how wrong you are:

Woman in Beit Shemesh attacked by ultra-Orthodox extremists

In latest incident sparked by 'immodest dress,' crowd of ultra-Orthodox men smash car of Natali Mashiah, 27, who says she believes they were going to set her on fire.
..
as she fled the car, she said she was hit on the head by a rock thrown from very close range.

Let's check the points off:

1. Middle East
2. Western Dress
3. Stoning

The thread title that you hold as example of a "blatantly misleading title," most certainly is not. It all jives with the linked and quoted news report.

Your complaint is hereby invalidated, and I suggest if you have a further comment upon that 'stoning story to continue it within that thread.

Yet thank you, MotF Bane, for providing an excellent example of what a link-and-run is and why the lack of content is so often related to dishonesty and often detrimental to a decent discussion.

 

[MotF Bane]

MofF Bane, your post is that of a link-and-run. You failed to present any context or substantiated reasoning for your warrantless complaint. That should certainly be a big fail for a new thead OP.

Further, you are out of line to likely bring up political, national, or religious partisanship as an excuse to fabricate a complaint against a perfectly apt title:

Middle Easterners stone woman for wearing western clothes

The honest thing would be to present some content to validate your complaint. Considering the actual context and content of the Haaretz article from that thread, you are certainly unable to. I am capable of demonstrating an example of sufficient discussion with only a tiny effort to demonstrate how wrong you are:



Let's check the points off:

1. Middle East
2. Western Dress
3. Stoning

The thread title that you hold as example of a "blatantly misleading title," most certainly is not. It all jives with the linked and quoted news report.

Your complaint is hereby invalidated, and I suggest if you have a further comment upon that 'stoning story to continue it within that thread.

Yet thank you, MotF Bane, for providing an excellent example of what a link-and-run is and why the lack of content is so often related to dishonesty and often detrimental to a decent discussion.

Apparently, a moderator came to the same conclusion that I did, as did multiple other posters in that thread, and all coming up with similar reasoning. Therefore, I feel quite safe in concluding that you are the one who is incorrect, even "intellectually dishonest", and accordingly disregard your opinion again.

 

[Corn]

fuck you.

You asked me to come here and weigh in.

fucking prick.

Awwww........If Perky is a "fucking prick", what does that make someone who follows people around calling them [post=32291850]fat[/post] [post=32332604] fucks[/post]. *snicker*



As far as the poll is concerned, I voted to enforce the rules. All personal attacks should be severaly punished across the board. That will silence any concerns of selective bias. The noise will abate, but so will page clicks. I guess it all depends what is more important to the management......

 

[JSt0rm]

Awwww........If Perky is a "fucking prick", what does that make someone who follows people around calling them [post=32291850]fat[/post] [post=32332604] fucks[/post]. *snicker*



As far as the poll is concerned, I voted to enforce the rules. All personal attacks should be severaly punished across the board. That will silence any concerns of selective bias. The noise will abate, but so will page clicks. I guess it all depends what is more important to the management......

weren't we supposed to meet up in November?