Dealing with waste of time threads and their posters...

Loudmouth as some very good points. I am especially concerned about his point 3.The other control measure we can all use (from any side of the debate since we do get some nutty "evos" as well) is to simply control our inclination to over respond and waste our time (I am more guilty than most).How about we designate 1 to 3 of us to test out a new poster. See how well they behave. Let them know what is going on and if they don't do well all ignore the junk.Again, a larger set of "suggestions" might be useful. In addition, a few "testing" threads like the fossil sorting one might be useful and not time consuming.

---

Common sense isn't

I'll get back to other points of messages 30 and 31 later, but for right now...

quote:

---

The other control measure we can all use (from any side of the debate since we do get some nutty "evos" as well) is to simply control our inclination to over respond and waste our time (I am more guilty than most).

---

Over respond? Does that really happen?If so, might it be defined as the "Crashfrog/NosyNed Syndrome"?Adminnemooseus

I seem to have started something that may end up wrecking a good thing.The idea of a NewPosts area, that is then checked, is not necessarily a bad idea, but I feel it has the potential of changing the vibe of EvC. This may leave a bad taste in the mouths of regulars, as well as keep new people from coming in.I guess what I am saying is that I think Loudmouth's assessment (namely points #2 and 3) accurately shows that particular fix may cause more problems in the long run than what it was trying to fix.The main problems as I saw it were posters that were pretty clearly creating threads designed to go nowhere (usually many of the same), or new posters that start out redoing stuff we already have out there. That's why I thought it would be easier to handle on a poster by poster, or thread by thread issue as they came up.If everyone must suddenly change how they are doing things, because of the acts of a few, I don't think I'll be able to respect myself. I'd rather withdraw my complaint and take a chill pill like Ned suggests.Maybe something could be done like have admins warn a poster that they need to stick to one thread (if more than on of the same issue was created by the same poster), or point out that these questions have already been dealt with elsewhere (kind of a set pointer to a collection of "done" topics) and the poster should read up on the subject and add something new (if they have something new to add).

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Hey, I demand the billing be changed to NosyNed/CrashFrog syndrome. humpf

I kind of wondering if you all feel JM should be given a warning, do you feel it would be appropriate to take JM mug with a dunce cap as your avatar, I don't feel Joe deserves to be banned, but think a warning is appropriate, etc...[This message has been edited by whatever, 02-05-2004]

I haven't been able to post to the shallow seas threads???Admin help??But this is what I wanted to post.We've had concerns about how to control those who don't post or debate in good faith.I'd say this thread and originator are a case in point. Perhaps we could hold off taking time with this until after simple has demonstrated good faith by answering the fossil sorting question?

---

Common sense isn't

I was able to post there Ned, but I can't help you....they are scared to give me any REAL power

---

AdminAsgara
Queen of the Universe

Well, I don't really want to post there or have anyone else post for now either.and OMG, you mean this is you without REAL power??? yikes.

Look for reverant references to Kent Hovind, Ron Wyatt or Carl Baugh. Anyone who gives those jokers credibility is likely to be on the far side of wacko.From another thread where it was off topic (which I started)I think the problem is that you can't judge right off the bat based on that. Some people have never been exposed to anything but that kind of stuff. It depends on how they react to early discussions of the issues that are enclosed in the junk that Hovind et all spoat.

---

Common sense isn't

Holmes, I think you are more correct than you realize.I think that it is not an accident that we have whatever, simple and skeptick here all at once.The style of play (and even the names whatever and simple - chosen without any care -- are related) is too alike. They are not independent arrivals. This is a deliberate game and needs to be dealt with in an appropriate manner.

---

Common sense isn't

Write on! (pun intended) As a new junior member, I see that it would take days to read through the many (sometimes hundreds) of posts for a topic. My I suggest that you integrate Tetris into the topic threads to compress the list to just the meaningful points?

Well, if no one said anything welcome.A suggestion that might work for somethings:use the Search Forums command under Forums Nav at the top of the Topic List for All Forums page. If you enter a keyword or two about what you want to discuss you might find the previous discussions.If not well then you could open by asking if the topic has been discussed and offer a bit of what you want to talk about.If no one offers anything after a bit, then dive right in.

I've heard that there's some sort of data mining utility called Tetris. Is that what you're talking about? If so, how does it work? Do you know of a message board where it's used?

By "Tetris", I meant the computer game that has falling rocks that either pile up or pound them down.If something like that could be used to eliminate worthless messages like this one, then new readers would not have to wade through so much fluff.

I would never have guessed. I know the game you're talking about, but I'm pretty sure that there is a data mining utility of the same name. It's used on some college network servers and I think it's supposed to be useful for certain types of research. From what you'd said I thought perhaps there was some new version out there for use on message boards. My mistake.