Mod Sponsored Community Poll - Your Input is Requested

[RabidMongoose]

Add in InfoHawk and what appears to be his 15 posts, and the total goes up to 47.3%, or nearly half of all of the posts in this thread by just four people.

 

[umbrella39]

Honest question. Are you talking about when people say things like "loliberals" or similar things about conservatives? Or something else?

lol no, those little quips are just silly and funny sometimes... no, more referring to posts where all conservatives or all liberal are painted with the same vitriolic, insulting brush. No need to drop names, very clear who employs this tactic far too often.

The mods, however, cleaned them right up last night/this morning which was very welcome and appreciated.

 

[umbrella39]

Mods really shouldn't be immune to the ignore function if they are going to post as regular users.

This 100000000% Rather annoying that you cannot put mods posting in P&N as regular users on your personal ignore list.

 

[JSt0rm]

Updated posting predominance stats. We have a new leader:

cybrsage -- 34 posts
dmcowen674 --32 posts
JSt0rm -- 25 posts

At the 224 post mark, these three posters above have now accounted for 91 of them, or 40.6% of all the posts in this long, long thread.

I wasnt available for the input thread. In fact you all asked me to come here and post. So I really dont get where you are coming from? Aside from someone wanting to debate religion (i didnt start that) Ive been on topic.

 

[cybrsage]

Updated posting predominance stats. We have a new leader:

cybrsage -- 34 posts
dmcowen674 --32 posts
JSt0rm -- 25 posts

At the 224 post mark, these three posters above have now accounted for 91 of them, or 40.6% of all the posts in this long, long thread.

What is your point with this? When the thread title is "Mod Sponsored Community Poll - Your Input is Requested", one should expect input and discussion of the poll.

It appears you are simply using the Poisoning the Well logical fallacy. Since you still refuse to say what you consider noise and what you consider signal, it is impossible to pin down exactly which logical fallacy you are employing this time.

Care to actually tell us exactly what you mean by signal and what you mean by noise, or are you going to continue pretending we can read your mind?

EDIT: I fully expect you to not say, but please surprise me.

 

[Pens1566]

What is your point with this? When the thread title is "Mod Sponsored Community Poll - Your Input is Requested", one should expect input and discussion of the poll.

It appears you are simply using the Poisoning the Well logical fallacy. Since you still refuse to say what you consider noise and what you consider signal, it is impossible to pin down exactly which logical fallacy you are employing this time.

Care to actually tell us exactly what you mean by signal and what you mean by noise, or are you going to continue pretending we can read your mind?

EDIT: I fully expect you to not say, but please surprise me.

Just a guess, but that you have been very prolific at providing no substance.

 

[cybrsage]

Just a guess, but that you have been very prolific at providing no substance.

This post would fall into the "Cannot post a lie" category. Why did you lie?

 

[Steeplerot]

I went with go by the rules, but mods are human, you can only expect so much, I dont think anyone is gonna hate on mods for slipping up now and again seeing as how this is a volunteer thing. But yeah. Some work needs to be done. I myself will stop cursing and even calling morons..morons so much to try to do my part.

 

[Doppel]

You are still up to your talking out of your ass and posting your shit right after my posts.

The sh*t is your posts. I consider myself the toilet paper.

No Mod said they were going to ban me.

Even a ~ in front of this lie wouldn't round up to a truth. You were told in post 87 that your behavior was leading to exactly that. In post 90, either as a result of faulty reading comprehension or deliberately missing the point, you responded as if this plain fact were not plain. And so, I corrected you in post 98.

No Mod said a fucking thing about my sig.

I told you in no uncertain terms (posts 24, 39) that your signature would be changing. You responded defensively both times. Your signature has now changed as I told you it would. Therefore, you did it either willingly as a kind gesture, or you were told to (if not explicitly by a mod, implicitly). I don't think your jailhouse grade expletives belie a hidden endearment of anybody, so my money isn't on the kind gesture.

 

[dmcowen674]

Quote:
Originally Posted by dmcowen674
You are still up to your talking out of your ass and posting your shit right after my posts.

The sh*t is your posts. I consider myself the toilet paper.

Even a ~ in front of this lie wouldn't round up to a truth.

You were told in post 87 that your behavior was leading to exactly that. In post 90, either as a result of faulty reading comprehension or deliberately missing the point, you responded as if this plain fact were not plain. And so, I corrected you in post 98.I told you in no uncertain terms (posts 24, 39) that your signature would be changing. You responded defensively both times.

Your signature has now changed as I told you it would. Therefore, you did it either willingly as a kind gesture, or you were told to (if not explicitly by a mod, implicitly). I don't think your jailhouse grade expletives belie a hidden endearment of anybody, so my money isn't on the kind gesture.

Quoting and bolding this turds continuing crap.

 

[EagleKeeper]

I didn't say $4.79 was a fact.

I said $4.79 is my opinion.

So are you saying Opinions are not allowed on Anandtech Forums?

Quote:
Originally Posted by dmcowen674

You are still up to your talking out of your ass and posting your shit right after my posts.



Quoting and bolding this turds continuing crap.[/QUOTE]

Dave, all you are doing is painting yourself into a corner. Doppel is identifying what both of you have posted.

After that it becomes a matter of reading the posts, observing reactions and comprehension.

Because your statements are continually quoted, they can be referenced.
They have been entertainment, but are now coming have to haunt you when you can not back them up or do not preface the statements with a disclaimer or waffle.

 

[Idontcare]

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

 

[cybrsage]

I prefer discussion over a lack of discussion by the OP.

 

[MotF Bane]

..

 

[sandorski]

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

The OP in the first Thread is on my Block list for a reason.

 

[spittledip]

I don't think it is a big deal if the OP doesn't post much of anything after opening up a topic for discussion. If the discussion goes rolling along without him, does it matter who started it? I can only see this as a problem if the thread seems troll-ish.

 

[monovillage]

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 the OP links an article, then anything in the article should be open season. The idea that the OP gets to define what can be discussed in a thread is much too confining.

 

[JEDIYoda]

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

I think there needs to be more commentary that just posting an article and stating in one sentence-- they are joking,right?

Yet if the OP posts a link then whatever is in that link is open to discussion.......mainly because it is very possible in the same article that the article also brings up the other side of the point....

No, the Op should not be allowed to define what is discussed in the article!!

 

[Whiskey16]

If the OP links an article, then anything in the article should be open season. The idea that the OP gets to define what can be discussed in a thread is much too confining.

If the OP cannot present the small time to sufficiently comment, let alone selectively quote topical points of the chosen article, then the thread is clearly a wasteful link-and-run and undeserving of a thread. If one cannot start a discussion then there's far less of an expectation to witness a discussion.

An easy moderation call to be judged.

Beyond that new thread futility, more often than not, those end up being troll threads with the OP rarely returning until they start up yet another thread in the hope of witnessing some more disrupting carnage.

 

[Infohawk]

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

Not a big deal. More important is whether they ever come back to the thread and have actual discourse. The current rule that you need a little commentary is adequate.

 

[JSt0rm]

What I hate about those threads are the bullshit misleading titles of the thread. Projo was a expert at this.

 

[Infohawk]

What I hate about those threads are the bullshit misleading titles of the thread. Projo was a expert at this.

Yeah that's worse. I don't care if they're not even trolling. The title should make it clear what you're talking about.

 

[dmcowen674]

You are still up to your talking out of your ass and posting your shit right after my posts.



Quoting and bolding this turds continuing crap.

Dave, all you are doing is painting yourself into a corner. Doppel is identifying what both of you have posted.

After that it becomes a matter of reading the posts, observing reactions and comprehension.

Because your statements are continually quoted, they can be referenced.
They have been entertainment, but are now coming have to haunt you when you can not back them up or do not preface the statements with a disclaimer or waffle.[/QUOTE]

So your are saying Doppel is a Mod?

 

[randomrogue]

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

It's generally fine. Too many variables. Sometimes posters clearly just want to get the topic up there quick.

Also, not everyone can be on for extended periods of time to be part of the discussion. Then when you come back the topic has taken on a life of its own and isn't particularly on topic or interesting any longer.

Too much work for you guys to have to judge which topics are worthy. If it's an obvious troll you can just lock it. If it means that much to them they can PM you to have it re-opened.

 

[JEDIYoda]

It's generally fine. Too many variables. Sometimes posters clearly just want to get the topic up there quick. --which is why there needs to some form of commentary! That keeps the threead starter spammers at bay. It prevents one person from starting 40 threads in 10 minutes!

Also, not everyone can be on for extended periods of time to be part of the discussion. Then when you come back the topic has taken on a life of its own and isn't particularly on topic or interesting any longer.-- nobody said the OP needed to take part in the discussion. -- The OP just needs to post his or her thought when they start the thread. If they have time to sstart a thread then they have time to post some commentary!

Too much work for you guys to have to judge which topics are worthy. If it's an obvious troll you can just lock it. If it means that much to them they can PM you to have it re-opened. -- nobody said anything about a worthy topic....but no commentary means not a worthy topic without commentary!!

lolol