When and how is the "don't be annoying" rule going to work?
Discussion
There is a small minority of posters in NPE who consistently behave like disruptive children. Sniping, snide, argumentative with the giveaway trademark of never contributing anything of substance to the discussion.
They are definitely annoying. But it takes reading a series of posts by them to spot it, so reporting a single post is a bit pointless.
How are the mods going to judge "annoying"?
They are definitely annoying. But it takes reading a series of posts by them to spot it, so reporting a single post is a bit pointless.
How are the mods going to judge "annoying"?
Greg66 said:
There is a small minority of posters in NPE who consistently behave like disruptive children. Sniping, snide, argumentative with the giveaway trademark of never contributing anything of substance to the discussion.
They are definitely annoying. But it takes reading a series of posts by them to spot it, so reporting a single post is a bit pointless.
How are the mods going to judge "annoying"?
To add some balance and a different perspective - I find your constant bickering with other posters in that thread annoying...... They are definitely annoying. But it takes reading a series of posts by them to spot it, so reporting a single post is a bit pointless.
How are the mods going to judge "annoying"?
There are sections of PH into which I rarely venture because the constant bickering is tiresome or the humour is juvenile but there are also the more serious areas, 'Health Matters' or 'Speed, Plod & the Law' for example, which (unfortunately) are now being increasingly populated by facile, unhelpful, ill informed or contrary replies seemingly just to boost post counts or argue for the sake of it.
It's a sad sign of the times that there are people who enjoy irritating others from behind the protection of the internet and I will, I suppose, just have to 'suck it up'.
It's a sad sign of the times that there are people who enjoy irritating others from behind the protection of the internet and I will, I suppose, just have to 'suck it up'.
Tankrizzo said:
I'm sorry, this just reads like "I want people banned with whom I don't agree".
To be fair Greg you give out just as much in those threads.
We have to be careful not to start reporting people just because we don't like what they're saying.
Do I?To be fair Greg you give out just as much in those threads.
We have to be careful not to start reporting people just because we don't like what they're saying.
This is the gripe underlying my question:
Greg66 said:
There is a small minority of posters in NPE who consistently behave like disruptive children. Sniping, snide, argumentative with the giveaway trademark of never contributing anything of substance to the discussion.
If you genuinely think that's an accurate characterisation of how I post, I'm am equally genuinely sorry, and perhaps I need to have a closer look at how my posts read. I am guilty of sniping and slagging people off from time to time, I accept. But from my pov I do try not to do that unless it is a last resort - start a talking point, someone comes in with a post which adds a little dig, unravel the point they make and they shift their ground (another dig), repeat, until they have nothing left but are simply arguing the contrary because they won't back down. By this point the insults are often flying thick and fast, and yes, I often don't/can't avoid getting stuck into that sort of spat.
But my point is targetted differently: it's the people who very rarely/never contribute to the discussion, but instead only offer up the sniping.
It's not at all that I want to shut up people I disagree with; on the contrary (perhaps despite appearances) I have a real interest in what others think and more importantly why they think it (it's that enquiry - the why - that often gets to "no real/good/logical/rational reason now just f
k off you libtard" or similar, IME). What I would like to shut up though is the "noise" so that the "signal" can be more clearly heard, if you see what I mean.
Didn't seem worth starting a new thread but I wonder if we'll all have to agree to new posting rules each time they change?
Rules 18 & 20 say
18. Do not choose a username which is the same as a company, website or trading name. Should you wish to sponsor your req'd username you will need to contact James Drake through info@pistonheads.com.
20. You may not promote charity events; recruit for charitable donations, surveys or petitions; or seek votes for competitions without prior permission. Nor may you promote events without seeking prior approval from James Drake through info@pistonheads.com.
If JD leaves then the rules will technically change and won't be what everyone has agreed to.
Rules 18 & 20 say
18. Do not choose a username which is the same as a company, website or trading name. Should you wish to sponsor your req'd username you will need to contact James Drake through info@pistonheads.com.
20. You may not promote charity events; recruit for charitable donations, surveys or petitions; or seek votes for competitions without prior permission. Nor may you promote events without seeking prior approval from James Drake through info@pistonheads.com.
If JD leaves then the rules will technically change and won't be what everyone has agreed to.
Vaud said:
Riley Blue said:
James Drake could be just a code name used for someone who fulfils a particular role.
He's a real person.I was going to post about this too. The real problem area (IMO) is the posts which go like this:
But you're stupider.I'm not as stupid as youDerrr, please show my where I was stupid?My Dad's bigger than your Dadad nauseam
If these sort of things kick off, can the posters involved just be banned from the thread. Instantly? There are some things on here I would genuinely like to read about (Trump, cyclists, etc) but it's just not worth wading through the dross to find the relevant posts.
As above, obviously there is the potential for it to be a charter for people just to point fingers but it shouldn't be difficult to identify a multi-nested quote and dig the key offenders out of it and chuck them out?
Caveat: of course I have bitten in the past when I've disagreed with something someone has said; who hasn't, and that's what debate is all about, but it's the ones which go on and on and on for pages, like the example above, which would be the low-hanging fruit for overall improvement of the PH experience.
poster2 said:
poster1 said:
poster2 said:
poster1 said:
poster2 said:
poster1 said:
You're stupid.
No, you're stupid.If these sort of things kick off, can the posters involved just be banned from the thread. Instantly? There are some things on here I would genuinely like to read about (Trump, cyclists, etc) but it's just not worth wading through the dross to find the relevant posts.
As above, obviously there is the potential for it to be a charter for people just to point fingers but it shouldn't be difficult to identify a multi-nested quote and dig the key offenders out of it and chuck them out?
Caveat: of course I have bitten in the past when I've disagreed with something someone has said; who hasn't, and that's what debate is all about, but it's the ones which go on and on and on for pages, like the example above, which would be the low-hanging fruit for overall improvement of the PH experience.
Myles Peraua said:
ad nauseam
If these sort of things kick off, can the posters involved just be banned from the thread. Instantly? There are some things on here I would genuinely like to read about (Trump, cyclists, etc) but it's just not worth wading through the dross to find the relevant posts.
As above, obviously there is the potential for it to be a charter for people just to point fingers but it shouldn't be difficult to identify a multi-nested quote and dig the key offenders out of it and chuck them out?
Caveat: of course I have bitten in the past when I've disagreed with something someone has said; who hasn't, and that's what debate is all about, but it's the ones which go on and on and on for pages, like the example above, which would be the low-hanging fruit for overall improvement of the PH experience.
Who's to decide what's "dross"?If these sort of things kick off, can the posters involved just be banned from the thread. Instantly? There are some things on here I would genuinely like to read about (Trump, cyclists, etc) but it's just not worth wading through the dross to find the relevant posts.
As above, obviously there is the potential for it to be a charter for people just to point fingers but it shouldn't be difficult to identify a multi-nested quote and dig the key offenders out of it and chuck them out?
Caveat: of course I have bitten in the past when I've disagreed with something someone has said; who hasn't, and that's what debate is all about, but it's the ones which go on and on and on for pages, like the example above, which would be the low-hanging fruit for overall improvement of the PH experience.
Far too often on here, simply disagreeing with someone gets you branded a "troll". There are too many people who cannot handle others disagreeing with them, and they don't see it as unreasonable to try and have those people banned.
Gassing Station | Website Feedback | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff