Dog piling

Enter the General Reply Dogpile.....{Give message a "1" - Adminnemooseus}Edited by Adminnemooseus, : 1

Sorry RAZD, nothing short of a personal visitation from God could stop me from posting snide comments, and probably not even that.TTFN,WKp.s. It isn't my fault, I was born with an overactive snark gland.

If the OP is the main proponent of some position, don't we want the OP to post as often as possible? 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?

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).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.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.Hide posts. [Emergent behavior] Others repeat what has been previously said since they didn’t see the message. More people think they’ve been ignored, they have, those posts were hidden. People spend time going back trying to figure out if their message was hidden. Moderators hide messages they shouldn’t have (it’ll happen).******This is the sixth reply to your post. Should I have not posted?

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 be blocked.See snarky and informative.

Yes, any change would need to be thought through.
To quote my OP: "I have not thought long and hard about this, so I expect and appreciate some criticism." I agree that there can be unforeseen consequences to 'change', but there are also unforeseen consequences to 'no change'.
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. I am not a new member so the reply limit doesn't apply.

I think a visitation from God would guarantee a snide reply from you.It would certainly tap the vast life-time store of snark I've set aside for that eventuality.Frankly, I don't see dog-piling as a problem here. My recollection is that most newbies are advised fairly soon to take their time, make a general reply to the salient points from multiple posters, etc.Truly rabid dog-piling only occurs here when someone arrives, loins pre-girded, determined to show you, show you all with lame rehashes of material seen a thousand times: that's true on any long established forum, and it ought to be. I lurked here for weeks before registering and participating; any newbie with much to contribute will scout the ground before joining the fray. If they don't, they earn a free educational experience."It's an ass whuppin'! It's supposed to hurt!"

---

Dost thou think, because thou art virtuous, there shall be no more cakes and ale?
-Shakespeare

​

Real things always push back.
-William James

RAZD asks: I'm with WK on this. I live for the snarkiness here. So I might as well pack up my suitcase and leave.

---

- xongsmith, 5.7d

Hi NoNukes, 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? 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)

Hi Trae, (edited to snarkily suggest correction . . . )Good point, the counter reply should always be allowed. 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? 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. 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. 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.EnjoyEdited 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)

Upthread I proposed some variety of limiting a members posts per time period.Another concept would be to limit a members posts per topic, subject to review and a reset/extension. Say, a member was limited to 5 posts per topic. S/he would be wise to not squander his/her messages on a dog pile.Just a rough idea.Adminnemooseus

I vote no on restricting dog piling.I only wish that the pack would stop imposing their science on the creationist minority.The pack I led by the pack leader/s gets to dictate what science is and is not.The pack gets to dictate what is evidence and what is not. I read over and over, "Buzsaw, how many times have you been told......?" Translation: How many times have you been told from the pack's hypothetical perspective?The pack rejects any evidence implying the existence in the Universe of a higher intelligence. To do so shoots down their secularistic hypothetical perspective, rendering them, perhaps accountable to a higher power.The pack rejects any hypothetical perspective supportive to the Biblical record as non-evidential.Case in point: THE EXODUS THREAD where not one of my acclaimed evidences were considered evidence by the pack.CASE IN POINT: Message 252 after which I got ousted from science forums.

quote:

---

Zen, my position has never been that the rain or flood skewed the dating. It has always been that the implications of the make-up of the pre-flood planet and atmosphere would be the reason for skewing the conclusions reached via research methodology of conventional science.

---

Yet the pack considers the Singularity event, having no space into which have happened, no time in which to have happened and no outside of into which to expand, as evidence based.The pack awards the notion of Multi verses the Singularity events the status of theory, applying abstract methodoloy which defies logic.To the best of my recollection, the pack has never addreassed the above to any extent.After 30 or so pages of debating the pack as to what property of space makes it curve, the pack's consensus amounted to something like, the property of space that makes it curve is that space curves.The first ever EvC Great debate was when the pack's Pack Man Jar was to debate me, Buzsaw on the 3LoTs, whether my hypothetical creationist perspective satisfied the LoTsThere was to be two judges to judge the debate. Pack Man Jar boasted that he'd trounce the creationist man in a couple of messages. I was to compose the OP. The rest is history, Pack Man Jar calling it quits on page two. As for the judging, nary a peep. Consensus: Pack Man Jar did poorly.It wasn't long after that debate that the minority winner having no suspensions received the first permanent banning.It wasn't long after I debated the pack on the property of space to curve that I was again permanently banned, still having no suspensions on my record. I'm not claiming to have won that debate. My claim is that my counterparts didn't win it either. Thus the length of it.I've said all of the above to say that all we creationist minority members need is the for the pack to allow us to debate from the creationist hypothetical perspective, relative to science and evidence.I'm not asking anyone to accept anything relating to the creationist perspective as to whether it's evidence or not. All we ask of the pack is to allow us to air our POV, debating from our hypothetical perspective relative to evidence and science. Lennart Moller, renowned marine biologist claims to have photographed corral shaped forms citing numerous corroborative acclaims to evidence. From the perspective of many creationists, scientist Moller has cited evidence from scientific research. Counterparts argue that none of it is considered evidence, ordering Buzsaw to produce what is considered by the pack as evidence or leave off debating the topic,Imo, that's not just a dog pile. That's a pack of coyotes bringing down the deer, when about all one Coyote Hi, Coyote could manage would be to bloody up the deer's heel. Edited by Buzsaw, : Fix sizeEdited by Buzsaw, : restore accidently deleted word, Edited by Buzsaw, : fix word in last paragraph

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

quote:

---

only wish that the pack would stop imposing their science on the creationist minority.

​

The pack I led by the pack leader/s gets to dictate what science is and is not

---

So you want people to stop telling the truth and pretend that crap that you just made up is real science.

quote:

---

The pack rejects any evidence implying the existence in the Universe of a higher intelligence. To do so shoots down their secularistic hypothetical perspective, rendering them, perhaps accountable to a higher power.

---

Again, you want people to prefer your inventions to the truth. And accept your opinions no matter how poorly-reasoned.

quote:

---

Case in point: THE EXODUS THREAD where not one of my acclaimed evidences were considered evidence by the pack.

---

Indeed, it is a case which supports my reading.

quote:

---

CASE IN POINT: Message 252 after which I got ousted from science forums.

---

As does this. You cannot give a valid reason why the Flood should have the effects you claim. It is nothing but invention.

quote:

---

Yet the pack considers the Singularity event, having no space into which have happened, no time in which to have happened and no outside of into which to expand, as evidence based.

---

By which you mean that "the pack" accept the opinions of leading, expert, scientists over that of some ignorant guy on the internet. This would seem to be a rational position.

quote:

---

After 30 or so pages of debating the pack as to what property of space makes it curve, the pack's consensus amounted to something like, the property of space that makes it curve is that space curves.

---

No, it wasn't. That was the misrepresentation you kept appealing to.

quote:

---

The first ever EvC Great debate was when the pack's Pack Man Jar was to debate me, Buzsaw on the 3LoTs, whether my hypothetical creationist perspective satisfied the LoTs

---

And you managed a draw because you were fortunate enough to have a weak opponent. Despite the fact that your assertion is actually false.

quote:

---

It wasn't long after I debated the pack on the property of space to curve that I was again permanently banned, still having no suspensions on my record. I'm not claiming to have won that debate. My claim is that my counterparts didn't win it either. Thus the length of it.

---

But you did lose. The length of the debate was governed only by your willingness to go on boasting nonsense. That only proves your unwillingness to accept defeat.

quote:

---

I've said all of the above to say that all we creationist minority members need is the for the pack to allow us to debate from the creationist hypothetical perspective, relative to science and evidence.

---

By which you mean that they should accept your fabrications as fact.
That isn't going to happen, and it shouldn't happen.

quote:

---

'm not asking anyone to accept anything relating to the creationist perspective as to whether it's evidence or not. All we ask of the pack is to allow us to air our POV, debating from our hypothetical perspective relative to evidence and science. Lennart Moller, renowned marine biologist claims to have photographed corral shaped forms citing numerous corroborative acclaims to evidence. From the perspective of many creationists, scientist Moller has cited evidence from scientific research. Counterparts argue that none of it is considered evidence, ordering Buzsaw to produce what is considered by the pack as evidence or leave off debating the topic,

---

Of course you are telling untruths here. Moller is NOT renowned as a marine scientist. The existence of the coral forms has generally been accepted. What has NOT been accepted is the assertion that the coral forms were built around ancient Egyptian chariot wheels. And that is because the evidence that would allow us to conclude that has not been presented. Apparently the "renowned marine biologist" can't even give us the growth rates for the coral in question....Look, there's no point getting frustrated because people prefer facts and sound reasoning to your imaginings. That's the way it has to be on ANY forum which tries to get to the truth. So stop whining and demanding that the forum must be biased in your favour. Accept your (many) defeats and move on.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

HahahahYou made that sound like we are Jehovahs witnesses.Have you read your encyclopedia Britannica today sir, no what about Charls Darwin's book on the origins of species no well you are in luck sir i came to introduce you to science and tell you there is no god. *door slams in to my face* Edited by frako, : No reason given.Edited by frako, : No reason given.

I hear a Moose (proper noun, capitalized) in the bushes.I think this thread is about to get moosed (verb, not capitalized).I am glad to see that Buzz now agrees that "science" is what real practising scientists say it is and not what some small vocal cult of *** religionists would want it to be.Back to topic:The dog pile aspect of these discussions can be a cruel teacher if one is not ready with a consice, factual and logical defense. So be it.This is preferred to letting those ***, **** and ***** creationists ****** continue their **** ways unchallenged to the maximum extent possible.