In terms of improving behaviour, the only thing I'd be a bit stricter on is banning trolls much quicker.
If someone is continuously starting arguments, and not adding anything in any of the threads they post to, ban them before they ruin the discussion.
They are adding their point of view, why shouldn't they.
What sad little lives they must have if they've nothing better to do.
I understand users can't be banned just for having a different point of view
when they themselves make a glaringly obvious error that shows they really don't know what they're talking about either claim they didn't say it, or fail to acknowledge being called out.
many threads descend into the online equivalent of a loud argument between opinionated bores.
If someone is continuously starting arguments, and not adding anything in any of the threads they post to, ban them before they ruin the discussion.
We don't need anything on this discussion board other than magnolia, pc and established opinion.
One could, I would argue, reasonably ask of someone with in excess of 3,000 posts in just over two years whether your life's "balanced score card" is doing ok?
Ohhthat hurts.
And I am referring to myself there, no one else.
but when they themselves make a glaringly obvious error that shows they really don't know what they're talking about either claim they didn't say it, or fail to acknowledge being called out.
2. The information dissemination role performed by AAM is very useful and helpful. However, personally, what I most enjoy in AAM are those threads with a bit of an edge and/or passion to them.
But that is the problem.
How do we stop that?
Ban users?
Close threads after two pages?
In most threads on "opinion" type issues, I stop reading after two or three pages.
Brendan
Would you have any specific examples?
You recently try to call me out for trolling, but failed to back it up with specifics. This is not untypical with alot of posters. Another poster randomly posted that I was deflecting, when asked specifically to identify where I deflected they never responded.
A key question for me is what to do with this behaviour which happened today on another thread?
Poster A makes a statement to support his narrative?
Poster B points out the factual error in Poster A's premise.
Poster A does not acknowledge his error but simply attempts to make his point again - this time free from obvious errors.
. Did he (a) know he was making things up (not good!) or more likely, (b) did he not know what he was saying and therefor should have acknowledged the new, to him, information?
Poster A makes a statement to support his narrative?
Poster B points out the factual error in Poster A's premise.
Poster A does not acknowledge his error but simply attempts to make his point again - this time free from obvious errors.
Going over points like this is my personal bugbear. So they failed to specify. Move on, and remember readers can see what is happening and make up their own minds.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?