Vote on Adopting "No Thread-crapping, etc" Rule (A Mod Sponsored Community Poll)

[Pliablemoose]

One person's thread crap/troll is another person's valid post, the problem is perspective, and who decides what's a troll and/or thread crap.

Obviously, someone posting "First" in a thread is a problem, but I don't see that here and it's something easy to fix without yet another rule.

 

[JEDIYoda]

One person's thread crap/troll is another person's valid post, the problem is perspective, and who decides what's a troll and/or thread crap.

-- Thats not always true! A thread crap is very obvious! Most not all - Thread crappers are not subtle....

 

[Jaskalas]

The misinformation rule is a grey as hell area.

Example, was the Civil War to free slaves, or did Lincoln wish he could save the Union and keep them in chains? Both sides cannot be true, but both sides would be argued in P&N.

Should P&N Formally Adopt a "No Thread-crapping/Derail/Off-topic/Trolling/etc" Rule?

I support this rule UNTIL you get to the 'etc'. Then I must decline.

 

[dmcowen674]

Not voting on this one.

It is way to subjective to the whims of those in power.

The personal attacks issue is much more important and a real problem.

 

[JEDIYoda]

The misinformation rule is a grey as hell area.

Example, was the Civil War to free slaves, or did Lincoln wish he could save the Union and keep them in chains? Both sides cannot be true, but both sides would be argued in P&N.

-- Not true at all! Both sides back up there points with supporting links...what is the issue? It`s real easy to see if the link is bogus.....

 

[Jaskalas]

-- Not true at all! Both sides back up there points with supporting links...what is the issue? It`s real easy to see if the link is bogus.....

Ah that's the crux of it, isn't it?

The requirement to post would then be for every poster to maintain a very well organized and easy to access catalog of specific links for each subject of argument.

Then for every poster to construct EACH post containing statements with online references specific to each point made. Valid posts will look like wiki articles themselves. Prevailing 'wisdom' need not apply, but everyone else will risk sanction otherwise.

 

[Infohawk]

Is it so hard to ignore a thread that has irrelevant information?

Apparently it is. There are always new or infrequent posters who will get side-tracked by a troll. Someone in the other thread asked why people can't be polite and engage in personal attacks. For as long as there has been anonymous internet, people have been doing this crap. The only reason this forum isn't a complete madhouse like the comments on most major news sites is moderation.

 

[sandorski]

The first definition is a bit different than the rest but they're all bad and I would probably vote for all of them.

Now that I know what thread-crapping is, I guess to save time it seems like "No Thread-crapping/Derail/Off-Topic/Trolling" are all related and can be voted on here.

"Logical Fallacies/Misinformation" are the odd men out. You said logical fallacies wouldn't be enforced. That seems realistic to me. (Wouldn't mind if they were enforced but it would be a dramatic change and actually require education of many members if not mods not to mention honest mistakes by people familiar with the fallacies.)

What about misinformation? What is that exactly? It's already been said posters can't misrepresent posters. Is this something different?

Pretty much this, but I would break it down this way:

The first 3 are pretty obvious things to recognize
"Trolling" is a little more gray, but is recognizable
The last 3 are pretty murky and would require active Investigation(aka, Work for Mods)

 

[sandorski]

-- Not true at all! Both sides back up there points with supporting links...what is the issue? It`s real easy to see if the link is bogus.....

Supporting Links are dumb. Mainly because one can find a Link to support anything, the mere act of a Link is meaningless.

 

[sandorski]

Absolutely not as things stand.

Before you consider such an action there will need to be a rule about provocation and trolling on the part of the OP?

You will need to ban most religion threads. Then you will have to do away with insulting thread premises. Allowing people to troll and then punishing them when they get called on it?

Bad idea, at least as things are permitted now.

Besides this is a political forum, not a technical one. These are emotional topics as well as rational and in the history of political discourse it is always been so and should be. The subjects discussed can markedly change how we are required to live and not something like video cards which can be talked about in terms of specs and we all know how even that can be difficult to handle.

Will "Is God a Rapist" threads be allowed to exist? What objective standards will there be to prevent provocation?

Please eliminate the forum before you adopt this.

In that vane, would a "Draw Mohamed" thread also be a Troll?

I admit the "Is God a Rapist" thread is very provocative and the responses are predictable, however, the question is pretty straight forward and supported by the OP with good Reasoning. It may Offend, but the question is a Good one, given what the purported "facts" are and how we define "Rape".

 

[waggy]

do we really need yet another vote on this? last one out of 4 choices it took the majority.

 

[Infohawk]

do we really need yet another vote on this? last one out of 4 choices it took the majority.

Interesting point....

 

[cybrsage]

Will "Is God a Rapist" threads be allowed to exist? What objective standards will there be to prevent provocation?

That thread is an obvious troll thread. Rape requires sexual intercourse, everyone knows this, even the troll who created the thread. No sexual intercourse, no rape. He created that thread simply to mock religion.

In that vane, would a "Draw Mohamed" thread also be a Troll?

Yes.

I admit the "Is God a Rapist" thread is very provocative and the responses are predictable, however, the question is pretty straight forward and supported by the OP with good Reasoning. It may Offend, but the question is a Good one, given what the purported "facts" are and how we define "Rape".

He has to show sexual intercourse happened (which we all know did not) in order for there to be a rape. Rape is clearly defined and well known, no grey areas there at all. You cannot have an opinion on what rape is or is not, it is clearly codified in law. The question is an obvious troll question whose only intent is to mock the beliefs of others.


If creating threads simply to mock things are fine, watch out, the forum will turn into a 4chan house.

 

[Craig234]

Why the hell would anyone vote no on this?

See my and others' posts. Because it's overly broad. Too much lumped together.

The next time someone starts a thread about a talking point being spread in right-wing media, and I want to point out that they're parroting, I don't want it to be 'off topic'.

The next time someone posts saying we should nuke Iran and I want to make a comment about militarism, I don't want it to be 'off topic'.

 

[fskimospy]

I'm definitely supportive of 'no thread crapping'. It's really gotten out of hand here lately from a small minority of posters.

 

[Infohawk]

The next time someone posts saying we should nuke Iran and I want to make a comment about militarism, I don't want it to be 'off topic'.

I don't see any reason to believe those things would be off-topic.

 

[cybrsage]

The next time someone starts a thread about a talking point being spread in right-wing media, and I want to point out that they're parroting, I don't want it to be 'off topic'.

What is the difference between posting something the GOP has put forth and something MSN has put forth, provided both are true of course?

On that same note, what if Obama says something? That instantly becomes a DNC talking point, should we be able to simply say people are parroting?

 

[JSt0rm]

These polls should be open. Why can't we see all the voters and there stances. How do we know a certain group isn't maneuvering in the background and all voting a certain why?

 

[Infohawk]

These polls should be open. Why can't we see all the voters and there stances. How do we know a certain group isn't maneuvering in the background and all voting a certain why?

It's open. Click on the numbers. What kind of group would be maneuvering?

I've shared where I'm coming from. Since no specific rule has been proposed, it probably makes sense for as many people as possible to be specific about what they think is an issue so the mods know why people are voting for the option they're voting for.

 

[RabidMongoose]

One person's thread crap/troll is another person's valid post, the problem is perspective, and who decides what's a troll and/or thread crap.

Yup, even for going off-topic. I think that sometimes it's also an issue of personal vendetta. For example, one time I was accused by someone of going off-topic on an issue that I had never mentioned in that thread but issue was only mentioned by one other person and that person who accused me!

It was very odd.

I would like this to be enforced, but I do think that it's going to be more difficult to evenly enforce this than, say, personal attacks.

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

See my and others' posts. Because it's overly broad. Too much lumped together.

The next time someone starts a thread about a talking point being spread in right-wing media, and I want to point out that they're parroting, I don't want it to be 'off topic'.

The next time someone posts saying we should nuke Iran and I want to make a comment about militarism, I don't want it to be 'off topic'.

Yeah, I guess. But it's not like there can't be amendments or it can't be edited to make it more specific.

 

[CanOWorms]

He has to show sexual intercourse happened (which we all know did not) in order for there to be a rape. Rape is clearly defined and well known, no grey areas there at all. You cannot have an opinion on what rape is or is not, it is clearly codified in law. The question is an obvious troll question whose only intent is to mock the beliefs of others.

Rape is not clearly defined on this forum. Which law's jurisdiction are we going to be referring to? Moreover, maybe he's not talking of a legal definition, but a cultural one.

 

[RabidMongoose]

The next time someone starts a thread about a talking point being spread in right-wing media, and I want to point out that they're parroting, I don't want it to be 'off topic'.

I think that would also qualify as a personal attack. If you disagree with the person and feel that they are just repeating something that is a media misrepresentation, then I think that you should be able to use a better phrase than 'parroting' as that has a very negative connotation and does nothing but attack someone.

 

[JSt0rm]

It's open. Click on the numbers. What kind of group would be maneuvering?

I've shared where I'm coming from. Since no specific rule has been proposed, it probably makes sense for as many people as possible to be specific about what they think is an issue so the mods know why people are voting for the option they're voting for.

I see. I didnt realize you had to click the numbers. I will send papa johns cheese pizzas to all who vote no!

 

[sandorski]

I see. I didnt realize you had to click the numbers. I will send papa johns cheese pizzas to all who vote no!

:|

I chose, poorly