|
Author
|
Topic: Dog piling
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
|
Message 24 of 89 (619524)
06-10-2011 8:10 AM
|
Reply to: Message 1 by Panda
06-06-2011 9:54 AM
|
|
good idea
Hi Panda, Just so you know, I have read through the whole thread so far (23 posts) to get an idea of the other responses before dogpiling on you here ... 
If you are new to this forum, then it can be quite a shock to the system to see the level of detailed knowledge that is required to debate here. I fear that 'dog piling' would scare people off before they have a chance to up their game.
Message 6: I do agree that some people can make a single post with many, many errors, but I am concerned that swamping the poster with criticisms is counter-productive. Even if you are an old poster but take a position that is contrary to a majority position you can get dogpiled - I've been there. The view from the bottom of the pile can be intimidating, yes, but also the feeling that each reasonable response needs a reasonable reply can be daunting, and for the newbie\noobs trying to explain their position, each of their responses getting many replies means that demands on their time and ability to explain keep mushrooming.
Something like:
No more than 2 people are allowed to reply to a new member in a single thread. see my response to Moose ( Message 25). Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : added link to moose reply
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1 by Panda, posted 06-06-2011 9:54 AM | | Panda has seen this message but not replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
Question on an automatic mechanism
Hi Moose, Would it be possible to limit the number of replies to a post? Say 5 posts in reply? Probably need to exception the first post of a thread, but that would put a no-moderator-needed control on massive dogpiling. Enjoy.
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
Re: Same Old Responses
Hi purpledawn, Just a quick point:
Basically if the newbie feels overwhelmed or is harassed for not responding, then they need to call an Admin. Most often newbies\noobs do not have any idea of the forum guidelines nor of ways to contact admin or where to ask for assistance. I try to provide some information when I post to newcomers, and will add now something to guide them to admin and complaint thread Enjoy
... as you are new here, some posting tips: type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quotes are easy or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:
quote:
quotes are easy
also check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window. For other formatting tips see Posting TipsFor a quick overview see EvC Forum PrimerIf you have problems with replies see Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0 If you use the message reply buttons (there's one at the bottom right of each message): ... your message is linked to the one you are replying to (adds clarity). You can also look at the way a post is formatted with the "peek" button next to it.
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 13 by purpledawn, posted 06-06-2011 5:00 PM | | purpledawn has not replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
|
Message 27 of 89 (619527)
06-10-2011 8:11 AM
|
Reply to: Message 22 by Phat
06-07-2011 7:57 AM
|
|
Re: It's a faster than the speed of moderation thing
Hi Phat,
My topic about the economy got derailed by a few trite off topic posts and thus you closed it. I wish we could delete the off topic posts and resume the topic before it went south...but of course, some would cry discrimination. Happens, has happened to me many times. Another way to handle this is to give the topic originator semi-moderator status, with the power to hide off-topic messages - they would still be available to read with peek, but would not be visible to new people reading the thread. And yes some people may abuse the power and some people may complain that their precious posts were hidden, but it could result in more readable threads. Enjoy.
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 22 by Phat, posted 06-07-2011 7:57 AM | | Phat has not replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
|
|
Message 28 of 89 (619529)
06-10-2011 8:21 AM
|
Reply to: Message 23 by NoNukes
06-07-2011 12:26 PM
|
|
"gentlepeople behavior" suggestion
Hi NoNukes,
If we are supposed to take our ratings seriously, I'd like to see evolution and creationist members not give out "1" ratings based on their lack of agreement with the message content. Good luck with that -- it's not just creo\evo it's done to try to influence others to toe your line of thought. To me there should be one and only one option: is this a good post.
In some cases posting limits would make threads drag out. How so?
We may also want one leading responder to be able to do most of the responding. Good idea, but how would you apply it? Have a "peanut gallery" for each newbie\noob and a discussion about each thread, and selection of a prime responder? Enjoy.
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 23 by NoNukes, posted 06-07-2011 12:26 PM | | NoNukes has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 33 by NoNukes, posted 06-10-2011 5:35 PM | | RAZD has replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
|
|
Message 30 of 89 (619546)
06-10-2011 10:10 AM
|
Reply to: Message 29 by Theodoric
06-10-2011 8:57 AM
|
|
Re: Question on an automatic mechanism
Hi Theodoric,
This seems to be a major response to a minor issue. This could potentially change the whole course of conversations. Maybe the 6th response is POTM quality an/or the best response. Maybe that would encourage people to put a little MORE QUALITY into their posts rather than just post off the cuff remarks and snide comments?
Maybe the 6th response is POTM quality an/or the best response. You get another chance when the first person posts again, PLUS you can see if they have taken any new information into account in the interim. Enjoy.
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 29 by Theodoric, posted 06-10-2011 8:57 AM | | Theodoric has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 32 by Wounded King, posted 06-10-2011 2:44 PM | | RAZD has seen this message but not replied | | | Message 38 by xongsmith, posted 06-15-2011 3:49 PM | | RAZD has seen this message but not replied | | | Message 53 by Buzsaw, posted 06-23-2011 10:39 PM | | RAZD has seen this message but not replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
|
|
Message 39 of 89 (621033)
06-22-2011 10:16 PM
|
Reply to: Message 33 by NoNukes
06-10-2011 5:35 PM
|
|
subtitles and subtopics
Hi NoNukes,
If the OP is the main proponent of some position, don't we want the OP to post as often as possible? I still don't see how having a limit to the number of replies a (after message 1) message receives causes a problem? Each post on the thread would have the same limit(s), so this would not prevent the OP from making replies to others that are trying to get him to explain\substantiate his position. Think of as a median between what we have now and a Great Debate thread, where the opponents are more like a tag-team, where the tag-team members are ad hoc, chosen by timing after each reply. Perhaps we could trial this with a Tag-Team forum, with perhaps only 2 replies allowed to each message?
I don't believe it is reasonably possible to apply it on an automated basis. That's why I don't like fixed posting limits as a solution to dog piling. If the argument is mostly between the OP, and one or two posters, why do we want to limit how often they post? How many times have you had a point you wanted to make on a subtopic derailed by other posters? You start a reply with a specific subtitle to address a point and when you return there are 15 posts talking about any number of different things. If replies to the OP are unrestricted, but subsequent messages are, then restricting replies could allow each member to drill down on the subtopic issue they are interested in from the OP . . . if the OP person is willing to answer. That to me would be a plus. Enjoy
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 33 by NoNukes, posted 06-10-2011 5:35 PM | | NoNukes has seen this message but not replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
|
|
Message 40 of 89 (621035)
06-22-2011 10:44 PM
|
Reply to: Message 35 by Trae
06-14-2011 8:55 AM
|
|
perhaps some clarification needed . . .
Hi Trae,
If this is implimented let's not make an exception for the person up the chain. That way if someone asks me a question and five people reply to the person, I'll (not) be blocked. (edited to snarkily suggest correction . . . ) Good point, the counter reply should always be allowed.
See snarky and informative. Perhaps there are times when snarky is appropriate, but there should also be some content with the snarkyness, such as a recommendation to learn the substance one is trying to discuss?
Message 34: . . . If you limit thread replies to two people then you can wind up with a first come first serve mentality. You also reward whoever pounces on a message first. You may even wind up with people essentially tagging a thread to ‘claim’ it. . . . That would be a problem. The way I envisage a mechanism to reduce (but not eliminate) dogpiling would be to restrict the number of replies to follow-up messages, rather than to specific people.
You can even penalize those who might spend an hour or hours researching a reply, only to find that someone posted before they were able (that would piss me off). Yep, that would annoy me too. One work-around would be to "tag" it (per your comment) with a place-holder note (" more to come, stay tooned"), which you then edit to place your erudite, well researched, substantiated and informative POTM when it is ready.
One approach (in that it is easier, more manageable and less likely to piss off people) would be to give new members their own sandbox and then flag who can interact with new members thereby creating participation ghetto. IIRC, the sandbox idea failed by discouraging the sandboxed people from posting. If we had a "Tag-team" forum, where number of replies is restricted, then admin could decide if a proposed new thread would be better served in general forum or as a tag-team thread, based on content of the proposed post. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : potm
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 35 by Trae, posted 06-14-2011 8:55 AM | | Trae has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 41 by Adminnemooseus, posted 06-23-2011 12:58 AM | | RAZD has seen this message but not replied | | | Message 62 by Trae, posted 06-24-2011 6:07 AM | | RAZD has seen this message but not replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
|
|
Message 72 of 89 (621348)
06-25-2011 8:37 AM
|
Reply to: Message 70 by Chuck77
06-25-2011 1:24 AM
|
|
why dogpiling occurs
Hi Chuck77 Please use quote boxes when you quote people (ie Taq in the second paragraph of your post) to prevent confusion. type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quotes are easy For example, " Where did Cain's wife come from if they were all related" is a very easy to understand argument. Irreducible complexity, specified complexity , and The design inference is not easy to understand, much less how humans fit into these classifications and how Creationism produces these relationships. We are asking evolutionsists to move away from something that is easy to understand to something that is, at first glance, impossible to understand. Dog piling only worsens the problem. Dog-piling occurs in any forum when you express an opinion that is not held by the majority of the participants - you get more posts attacking your position than defending it. The uneven mismatch of pro vs con is made worse when others do not defend a position, so it becomes one against many in the debate. Dog piling occurs when a poster makes a number of false\wrong statements, as responders will pick up on different mixes of the statements to attack. Dog piling also occurs when PRATTs are posted, as more people are familiar with the answers to PRATTs than with the finer points of the science/s involved. For a list of PRATTs see An Index to Creationist Claimsand
Arguments to Avoid Topic
| Answers in Genesis
"Irreducible complexity" is a PRATT btw (see acid test) . . . The real question here is whether there is a need to have 5 or more posters point out that "irreducible complexity" is a failed concept in ID (and would be discarded if ID were science), or whether one or two responders are sufficient. Instead you could have a specific subthread (with subtitle to identify it) on "Irreducible complexity" and one on "specified complexity" and one on "the design inference" Enjoy.
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 70 by Chuck77, posted 06-25-2011 1:24 AM | | Chuck77 has replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 79 of 89 (622669)
07-05-2011 9:35 PM
|
Reply to: Message 77 by Trae
06-28-2011 7:49 AM
|
|
Re: why dogpiling occurs
Hi Trae,
It seems to me that with this discussion that some sort of mini-comments feature might be helpful. Stackoverflow.com has some interesting approaches one of which allows other members to place comments on posts. I could see something along this line as a way to point out fallacies, other threads, off-topic, casual comments not worth an entire post, etc. Interesting idea. Notification could be like Facebook (qwrtl has commented on your post) and the comments could be inserted\done like footnotes and shown at the end of the post. Should they be limited in length? Enjoy.
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 77 by Trae, posted 06-28-2011 7:49 AM | | Trae has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 81 by Trae, posted 07-27-2011 1:16 AM | | RAZD has replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 80 of 89 (622674)
07-05-2011 10:11 PM
|
Reply to: Message 73 by Chuck77
06-27-2011 1:18 AM
|
|
Re: why dogpiling occurs
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 73 by Chuck77, posted 06-27-2011 1:18 AM | | Chuck77 has not replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 82 of 89 (626629)
07-30-2011 4:49 PM
|
Reply to: Message 81 by Trae
07-27-2011 1:16 AM
|
|
Re: why dogpiling occurs
Hi Trae,
That seems kinda cool. Would let you do things like:
@Razd Perhaps Razd will see this and reply. That would be cool. But it doesn't solve dogpiling, and may contribute by asking more people to participate. The plus is that, done properly, this would mean "paging" the local expert on the topic at hand rather than have a bunch of answers from others.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 81 by Trae, posted 07-27-2011 1:16 AM | | Trae has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 83 by Trae, posted 08-01-2011 2:16 AM | | RAZD has replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
(2)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 84 of 89 (626986)
08-01-2011 8:16 AM
|
Reply to: Message 83 by Trae
08-01-2011 2:16 AM
|
|
Re: why dogpiling occurs
Hi Trae
>>12 people view this post as containing a strawman fallacy. Wonder if that could be worked into where the (new revised updated improved?) rating system is (perhaps listing reasons for likes\dislikes) Enjoy
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 83 by Trae, posted 08-01-2011 2:16 AM | | Trae has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 85 by Trae, posted 08-02-2011 12:44 AM | | RAZD has seen this message but not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2