Tired of Thread Crapping

[Mistwell]

I am getting tired of the thread crapping that seems to be increasing on these forums lately.

For those who are not familiar with the term, I will offer a definition from a Google search of the phrase (feel free to offer another if someone has a better one):

Thread Crapping

"Thread Crapping" occurs when a person comes into a thread and posts something contrary to the spirit/intent of the thread, often derailing the discussion or turning it into an argument.

For example, coming into a thread about "The Greatest Beatles Album" and posting "The Beatles were overrated" is a thread crap. Another example: In a thread titled "I love my new Apple Macintosh!", someone posting "PCs are better and cheaper" is a thread crap.

This sort of stuff is happening a lot lately. Here are some examples:

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=190680

Original Poster asks for folks to check the formula he is using for the creation of a new magic item.

Second response is how the item should be avoided, it's too cheap, and unbalancing.

Or this one:

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=190033

Original poster asks what new rules people want to see in 4e, and some people answer that they don't want to see 4e at all.

And it isn't just in the rules forum. For example, this thread I started with a preview of the upcoming movie 300:

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=189969

...and an explanation up front that the movie wasn't about historical accuracy, and the spirit of the thread was clearly not "how historically accurate is this". And then, a slew of responses about how the movie sucks because it's not historically accurate.

And I have seen this sort of thing happen in the General forum as well.

I don't mean to be calling out those particular people, as I think it happens a lot and it's not just those people (nor do those particular people even necessarily often do it).

Sometimes, I feel like some people come into a thread whose subject matters do not interest them just to be negative to the people who do like that subject matter, and with no intent to contribute anything useful to the thread beyond making their voice heard about how everyone else's opinion or interest is wrong.

And I feel it detracts from the value and utility of these boards. If I am going to post asking about X, and people respond about Y just to convince me that posting about X was a bad idea, I am less inclined to post a new thread or new opinion about things in the future.

So, I guess my main question is "Is this already against the rules". And if not, am I just wrong in thinking it should be? Is this just too subjective, and the line between contribution and this sort of stuff is just too fuzzy to enforce effectively or consistently?

 

[diaglo]

Is this just too subjective, and the line between contribution and this sort of stuff is just too fuzzy to enforce effectively or consistently?

i'd like to think this is the case.

when someone posts about how great there 100th lvl pc is and all the things he can do and... how are you supposed to add to the spirit of the thread? posting anything would be a threadcrap by your google definition since no one else is playing that particular 100th lvl pc.

if however people are talking about the price of magic items in their campaign and some says they don't sell magic items in their game and someone posts about the next book out on magic items and then someone posts about the rules concerning the pricing of magic items in the DMG and why they think it should be X instead. um... who is threadcrapping?

if though a poster came into that thread and started asking someone to join their PbP campaign on another site.

threads are conversations that aren't necessarily static sometimes.

 

[billd91]

I think diaglo is right and we shouldn't have a rule to bar the drift of conversation, particularly since the threadcrapping may be in the eye of the beholder. I think the second example isn't really a threadcrap, or if so, it's a very mild one since it answers the question: None.

If you see it happening, particularly in a thread you started, then nudge the conversation back on topic just like a facilitator would do at a group discussion.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

In the first thread you linked about the magic item, Hong answered the question. So, at that point should the thread be closed? Anything more would either be redundant or a threadcrap. I think the second poster has a valid point that the item, while technically correct, seems out of balance and implementation of it might have consequences in the game. Maybe it could have been said differently, but to me it wasn't so far off point as to be a threadcrap.

In regards to other thread crapping, at what point does a contrary position move from sparking debate to being a thread crap? I wouldn't want to only read threads that are love fests. You don't learn as much from everyone agreeing with each other.

 

[Nifft]

IMHO, once a question has been answered, meta-questions can be addressed.

In the case of the first thread, hong's post (#2) addressed the main question, and then folks felt free to address the meta-question ("should this exist at all?").

It would be threadcrapping to have put something snarky in before the poster got his info; afterwards, it's conversation. This is my humble opinion.

Cheers, -- N

PS: Now that you have your information, all following posts shall be snarky...

 

[Umbran]

So, I guess my main question is "Is this already against the rules". And if not, am I just wrong in thinking it should be? Is this just too subjective, and the line between contribution and this sort of stuff is just too fuzzy to enforce effectively or consistently?

The Rules don't specifically state that one's post has to be "constructive", for (among others) the very reason others have cited - such a rule would be too subjective, and impossible to enforce fairly.

The point of moderation, honestly, is to keep ideas flowing. We are not particularly concerned if the ideas "stay on track". So individual posts that don't seem to quite fit, or which brings up something tangential to the original conversation, are well within bounds. Some of the best ideas you don't think of yourself come from topic drift.

A pattern of threadcrapping that is distinctly for the purpose of derailing conversation is a separate issue.

 

[diaglo]

if i may, Mistwell, (which i guess by the google definition is a threadcrap) what you think constitutes ownership of a thread? i see this as part of the basis of the discussion. if the OP feels they own the thread and only things they asked can be answered or talked/discussed. or if the other participants feel the thread is open for discussion and any similar things can be addressed in the thread. (kinda like Nifft is saying)

edit: i guess what i'm saying is would you like to see 1 thread with several different posters involved having a drifting conversation. or multiple threads with similar topics but only a few posters in each?

 

[Umbran]

if i may, Mistwell, (which i guess by the google definition is a threadcrap) what you think constitutes ownership of a thread? i see this as part of the basis of the discussion.

Traditionally, the OP has only small number of "ownership rights". We have a bit of a tradition (not a rule, or anything that formal) that we will close a thread at the OP's request, if it seems like they've got a decent reason. If the OP makes a special request in the first post to avoid disruptive behavior (like, "I don't want to see this turn into an Edition War"), then we may take the issue more seriously in the thread.

Other than that, though, the OP does not "own" a thread. At least traditionally. While we could consider a policy change, I think it'd have a pretty hefty impact on the culture of the boards that we might not like...

 

[Nifft]

While we could consider a policy change, I think it'd have a pretty hefty impact on the culture of the boards that we might not like...

Let's not, please?

Thanks, -- N

 

[Deset Gled]

Of the three examples given, I would only classify the third as thread crapping. For the first two, the answers given were perfectly legitimate responses. If people don't want to hear responses they don't agree with, they shouldn't be posting on the internet.

In the case of the third, there are a couple of things to consider. First, you actually encoraged the discussion of realism in some of your responses (ex: http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=3384581&postcount=19). Second, if you are really upset by it, you can simply ask people do not discuss it, or start a different thread for the different discussion. If things get out of hand, contact a moderator for help. There are a number of policies already in place that should take care of any issues without need for new policy. Finally, remember that you're on a D+D board, which is always going to attract the history nuts. If you want discussion of cinematography and film only, you would probably have better luck at a different locale.