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"?
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.
PixelpeepS3 said:
and allow to to post again in NP&E for the love of god..
Ban me from the McCann thread specifically if that annoys you... (Anyone that's listening)
All I can offer is that if you were banned from the entirety of NP&E, I really cannot imagine just how badly you must have fBan me from the McCann thread specifically if that annoys you... (Anyone that's listening)
ked up. 
I think we should be able to up and down vote posts and even posters.
People post deliberately provocative stuff because they think they're around like minded people or even around a silent majority that agrees with them.
I don't want to see people banned but at least up and down voting shows if you're around linkeminded people and might reduce confrontations.
It seems to work on other forums like Reddit and keep a more pleasant atmosphere.
People post deliberately provocative stuff because they think they're around like minded people or even around a silent majority that agrees with them.
I don't want to see people banned but at least up and down voting shows if you're around linkeminded people and might reduce confrontations.
It seems to work on other forums like Reddit and keep a more pleasant atmosphere.
B'stard Child said:
Halb said:
Add a 'block user' button? That was there is no need to scroll past the offending waffle?
I appreciated the 
that went with your post but seriously that's not a great idea - just makes the forum "echo chambers" for those that can't stand an alternative view that they don't agree with - hardly makes for good discussion But they generally aren't much use because soon as an ignored post is quoted it becomes visible again.
The posters who contribute nothing and just play the "dick" card rely on people responding to them, so it's probably best to treat them like difficult 4 year olds and genuinely ignore them.
B'stard Child said:
Greg66 said:
B'stard Child said:
Halb said:
Add a 'block user' button? That was there is no need to scroll past the offending waffle?
I appreciated the that went with your post but seriously that's not a great idea - just makes the forum "echo chambers" for those that can't stand an alternative view that they don't agree with - hardly makes for good discussion But they generally aren't much use because soon as an ignored post is quoted it becomes visible again.
The posters who contribute nothing and just play the "dick" card rely on people responding to them, so it's probably best to treat them like difficult 4 year olds and genuinely ignore them.
But if I don't, the worst that happens is the four year olds get over excited.
They stay four years old though.
Gassing Station | Website Feedback | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff