|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,419 Year: 3,676/9,624 Month: 547/974 Week: 160/276 Day: 34/23 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Dog piling | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3734 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
(I have not thought long and hard about this, so I expect and appreciate some criticism.)
Could we have a new forum guideline regarding new members? Something like:
No more than 2 people are allowed to reply to a new member in a single thread. 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. I am not sure that any good comes from 'dog piling' new members.(But I do kinda feel that if someone has posted here for years and says something 'stupid' then they deserve to be jumped on. ) What do you people think? Edited by Panda, : Tyops
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3734 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
Straggler writes:
I presume it could be enforced by hiding posts that are dog piling? Not sure how this could be enforced exactly. Or whether moderators would really want to be responsible for enforcing it.As to whether the mods want to do it - I guess we will have to see... Straggler writes:
Me too. But maybe I shouldn't have. I am sure I have "dog piled" before. The smell of fresh blood just too much to resist. And I have also not posted because I felt there was too many posts already. Straggler writes:
Not specifically, no.
Were you thinking of new members Chuck77 and Portillo by any chance?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3734 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
Theodoric writes:
Why do you think it is unenforceable? Unenforceable and this site already panders to the creo side. If they make an argument that can be refuted then any member should feel free to post. I do think it is important not to harp on the same thing someone else already has. But many of the ramblings of the newer members have many avenues by which they can be refuted. I agree with your sentiment, but feel the limitations imposed would be to great. Also, this would empower an even lower class of poster than we are seeing now. I think the vast majority of us have been dogpiled in the past. We made it through. If they don't have the stones for it then this is not the place for them. I think the dogpiling helps separate the wheat from the chaff. Aaron is still posting. And I am not suggesting that we pander to any particular side, I am suggesting that we 'pander' to new members. 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.I also do not think that having 'stones' should be a requirement to post on this site. I think that being able to learn is a far more important attribute. But dog-piling can put people's defences up and discourage them from learning.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3734 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
purpledawn writes:
I do not understand the point you are trying to make. Unfortunately we found out in another thread that common courtesy isn't necessarily on everyone's to-do list. IMO, just because we survived it, doesn't mean we have to dish it out. Can you re-phrase please?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3734 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
purpledawn writes:
I agree with the principle you have stated, but both of your replies seem not to be replies to my post. Just because someone gets dog piled when they were a new member doesn't mean they have to return the favor. It appears that you are accusing me of dog-piling others as some kind of petty revenge due to me being dog-piled when I was a new member?This seems far removed from the altruistic suggestion I have made. *shrug* Well, no-one else seems to think my suggestion is viable, so I will leave it as food for thought. Edited by Panda, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3734 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
purpledawn writes: Ah..ok. There's no accusation. I was not offended - just confused.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3734 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
GDR writes:
There are certain threads where I don't understand the question, and the answers make even less sense...
There is no law that says you have to reply to every post. Personally I leave out the difficult ones.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3734 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
Straggler writes:
I would suggest first come first served basis. I am not sure mods could (or would want to have to) judge posts. Fair enough. Would you suggest a first come first serve basis or would you prefer the moderators select the best two dog pile responses and hide the rest? As fearandloathing suggested (above) it might be simpler to just hide repeats.
Straggler writes:
Since you are actually the 2nd smartest guy in the room, it would be appreciated if you would stand back and let me through! I should probably pay more heed to such things. But as the smartest guy in the room I always think I have something of value to add. I do know what you mean though.But I have deleted a couple of my posts because they were too similar to the posts before them. I will try and keep an eye open for more of this kind of thing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3734 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
fearandloathing writes:
I have had the same experience. I often see people who will repeat what others have just got done saying/asking. I have done it more than once, often because I was failing to look at previous post, other times because I felt I could state a question better.But I am wondering if 'asking a question better' actually makes that much difference. Sure, we could maybe get to an quicker answer by asking a better question, but by adding an extra person (ourselves) to the debate we instead slow things down. fearandloathing writes:
Something like that sounds like it could be workable.
Maybe when The same basic question is repeated by a number of people moderation could request that that people refrain from doing it, I think it is a rule. Also letting the person who faces the dog-pile know that he can choose to respond to the question in a group reply, not everyone needs to have their version of the same question answered individually. fearandloathing writes:
This does seem to be the most difficult to restrict. When the dog-pile consists of different valid questions I guess the person in question will just have to suck it up and choose where to start. It starts verging on censorship.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3734 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
Trae writes:
Yes, any change would need to be thought through. Problem with ideas is they often have unintended emergent behavior. 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. 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). To quote my OP: "I have not thought long and hard about this, so I expect and appreciate some criticism." Trae writes:
I agree that there can be unforeseen consequences to 'change', but there are also unforeseen consequences to 'no change'. When making rules always try consider their negative impact. How much effort can you expect people to expend to make sure they’re conforming to rules? No matter who the person is, there always seems to be some set of possible rules the person will find not to their liking and decide to move on. There is almost no new rule that won’t cost you one or more existing member. As you say, all rule changes will upset someone - and I would assert that trying to 'please everyone all the time' is an exercise in futility. Rules can be changed with the overall result being positive (more people join than leave). When you aren't trapped trying to keep everyone happy, you can choose other criteria when deciding which rules to have. I was looking to make EvC less intimidating. 'No change' (by definition) wouldn't accomplish that. Trae writes:
I am not a new member so the reply limit doesn't apply.
This is the sixth reply to your post. Should I have not posted?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024