Ranting and raving forum

Ponster

Slidey wrote: »

That is already the case and has being done numerous times already

Maybe that could be added to the charter ?

To me, as an outsider to the forum, it isn't obvious that is I really have a problem with a rant that I should create a new counter-rant thread.

Reporting the thread is pointless as it will only result in it being closed where as if the OP is really ranting about something that upsets them yet that they don't fully understand, there is no method to counter the rant and maybe help the OP.

shellyboo

Ponster wrote: »

Maybe that could be added to the charter ?

To me, as an outsider to the forum, it isn't obvious that is I really have a problem with a rant that I should create a new counter-rant thread.

Reporting the thread is pointless as it will only result in it being closed where as if the OP is really ranting about something that upsets them yet that they don't fully understand, there is no method to counter the rant and maybe help the OP.

I don't think ANYONE in R&R starts a thread without knowing that they're overreacting and being silly. I think if they genuinely thought they had a grievance, they would take it to a forum where it could actually be debated.

I wouldn't take anything I read in R&R as serious or a real grievance... it's people hamming up the anger for a laugh, and people replying in a similar manner.

The very fact that it's posted in R&R to begin with indicates that they KNOW there's another side to the story... they just don't want to hear about it right now. They want to rant. They don't *want* help... that's why they post in R&R.

I think R&R is great because I know everyone in there is mostly taking the piss. AH on the other hand makes me unbelievably angry because I know half the posters in there actually believe in what they're saying; and that makes me despair for mankind. Hence... I don't go into AH.

I really don't see why a forum should be made to change just because people find it difficult to step away from their computer.

Handsome Bob

So we're pissed because we can't respond to what some might define as "ill-informed" ranting? There's a simple solution to that; start a counter-rant thread.

Berty

What is so difficult to understand about R&R?

Rant and/or Rave.

Get with it or like my mother said "If you have nothing good to say then say nothing at all."


I also think my mothers wisdom should be a word for word part of the Charter.

Bonavox

Ludo wrote: »

OK...I completely fail to see the point of this forum and how it is allowed on a website which prides itself on DISCUSSION. It is great fun to read at times but it can also be incredibly frustrating. According to the charter you are not allowed disagree with the rant in any way or you will be banned.
So basically anyone can start a thread (or join in an existing thread) and state the more rediculous rubbish and no-one is allowed contradict them or point out the error in their "facts".

Let's take this trivial issue on the thread about "dressing your kids the same":



Being a parent of twins myself, who insist on dressing the same a lot of the time, I find this statement completely ignorant. How do I address it within the charter?

Why does a discussion website host a forum which actively bans discussion?

It allows people to get things off their chest. Simple.

DeVore

Shouldnt this be in the .... hmm.



Its for Ranting. Its not for discussion. Surely having the rest of the site to discuss things is enough...

DeV.

Banter Joe

I completely agree with no counter ranting being allowed on thread.

Just a thought, but with regard to starting a thread to counter-rant, what if each approved thread was duplicated, one being given a RANT tag, and the other a COUNTER-RANT tag. This would still allow people to rant without being asked to discuss their point, and might make things easier for the mods.

If you really feel the need to rant against the topic of someone elses rant, this would then allow you to do it more easily.

AlmightyCushion

DeVore wrote: »

Shouldnt this be in the .... hmm.



Its for Ranting. Its not for discussion. Surely having the rest of the site to discuss things is enough...

DeV.

Damn feedback and it's lack of a thanks button.

bigeasyeah

What I find and like about the R&R forum is that it is a means of getting things off of ones chest.There is plenty of general and topic specific chat threads elsewhere on boards.
All one needs to know is contained in the charter however there seems to be an increase in the amount of posters in complete ignorance of its existance.

Ludo

bigeasyeah wrote: »

All one needs to know is contained in the charter however there seems to be an increase in the amount of posters in complete ignorance of its existance.

Most people don't read charters if they are simply going to reply to a thread. People who haven't specifically gone looking for the R+R forum will prob come to it from the front page or the new posts page by clicking on a title that catches their attention. They will reply without stopping to read a charter...human nature.
Most people won't even spot what forum they are in while posting and therefore won't realise they are in the one and only forum on the discussion board that doesn't allow discussion or disagreement with the OP.

Would it be possible to put a big warning on the reply page when posting in this forum?

bigeasyeah

Ignorance is not an excuse.

DM_7

The Ranting and Raving forum works very well.

In fact the Mods asked what people wanted before enforcing the complete no counter argument rule within a thread.

But you know what, if you don't like a rant you are allowed start your own thread to counter it. Simple.

I don't get how the concept of a place to rant and rave about a subject where you will only get replies from like minded people is so hard to accept.

If enough people agree with your rant it lives on. If not it dies. Simple.

pickarooney

Pre-moderation of threads is idiotic. The whole point of a rant is that you want to be able to shout about something right here, right now. By the time it's approved you no longer have that pain in your foot from the upturned plug and probably feel a bit silly about the initial rant.

Why not simply disable ALL replies to threads and save yourselves some hassle. Having to post a response in such a forum while respecting some petty rules is second in idiocy only to point 1 above.

DM_7

pickarooney wrote: »

Pre-moderation of threads is idiotic. The whole point of a rant is that you want to be able to shout about something right here, right now. By the time it's approved you no longer have that pain in your foot from the upturned plug and probably feel a bit silly about the initial rant.

Why not simply disable ALL replies to threads and save yourselves some hassle. Having to post a response in such a forum while respecting some petty rules is second in idiocy only to point 1 above.

Its not idiotic. The mods didn't decide to pre mod threads for a bit of fun, it was for the good of what has become a fast moving forum.

As a way around the waiting period Open a Random Rant thread. A place you can rant, where you want to get something off your chest without waiting for pre moderation.

If you want to hear from like minded people after your rant then you can start a thread and wait for the moderation.

pickarooney

DM-ICE wrote: »

If you want to hear from like minded people after your rant then you can start a thread and wait for the moderation.

To hear from like-minded people? Is that your concept of a rant?

Galvasean

DM-ICE wrote: »

As a way around the waiting period Open a Random Rant thread. A place you can rant, where you want to get something off your chest without waiting for pre moderation.

Good idea in theory, but in practice it isn't so good.
A thread like taht would be easily abused by people trying to get around the rules in the Charter.
Pre-modding rants allows us to filter out racist/sexist/bigoted (more common tahn you'd think) rants.

DM_7

Galvasean wrote: »

Good idea in theory, but in practice it isn't so good.
A thread like taht would be easily abused by people trying to get around the rules in the Charter.
Pre-modding rants allows us to filter out racist/sexist/bigoted (more common tahn you'd think) rants.

Thanks.

I did imagine that a thread like that would already exist if it was practical

DM_7

pickarooney wrote: »

To hear from like-minded people? Is that your concept of a rant?

No. That bit you quoted was part two of a scenario based on a random rant thread being used. As it turns out thats not workable.

I do think the idea of a forum where no replies can exist as a way of not needing pre moderation isn't sensible. The pre moderation would still need to happen to stop the posting of they type of threads Galvasean has mentioned above.

pickarooney

DM-ICE wrote: »

No. That bit you quoted was part two of a scenario based on a random rant thread being used. As it turns out thats not workable.

I do think the idea of a forum where no replies can exist as a way of not needing pre moderation isn't sensible. The pre moderation would still need to happen to stop the posting of they type of threads Galvasean has mentioned above.

There's nothing in place to stop people posting the same rubbish in any other forum (except Soccer, PI and the like) though, so why does R&R need all these special exceptions.

To take orestes' analogy of walking out into your garden and screaming - pre-modding is like walking into your garden and having someone get you to write down your thoughts on a piece of paper, read through them a couple of hours later and then decide whether or not your thoughts are worth letting you shout. Hardly a great method of stress-relief, is it?

Red Sleeping Beauty

I'd be in the "If you don't like it, don't read it" camp. Don't get so worked up about it. Kind of ironic though that the anti-Rant forum people are having a rant about it. Pre-modded threads are to weed out the objectionable stuff . Also, it's against the rules to have a political rant which answers Ponster's fear that youcan post whatever you want without any factual basis and there's no way for anyone to prove you wrong.

It's just a fun forum like, bit of a laugh.

PhysiologyRocks

I love to rant. I'd love to start a rant about how much I love to rant. It's very therapeutic. I'm positive enough. I do enjoy ranting, though. I also like raving.

I completely see the reasons for which many might disagree with my rants. I don't want to see them in the lovely forum. Agree. Let the love flow. If you disagree, rant elsewhere.

pablomakaveli

Personally i love the R&R forum and am a regular there. I like the fact that i can get a rant off my chest and find that there are other people woh also hate the thing in question.

When i am ranting however i don't like having someone disagreeing with me and then dragging me into a debate which defeats the purpose of ranting. If i want a debate i'll go to AH, politics or another relevant forum.

I don't understand people who want to counter the rant. No one is making you read it so just ignore it. I often see thread titles ranting about things i like but i don't read them i ignore them. It's not hard.

Anyway to summarise ranting and raving kicks ass.:D

Penn

Galvasean wrote: »

Good idea in theory, but in practice it isn't so good.
A thread like taht would be easily abused by people trying to get around the rules in the Charter.
Pre-modding rants allows us to filter out racist/sexist/bigoted (more common tahn you'd think) rants.

Besides, if you have a picture of what you want to rant about while you wait, there's the picture thread. No pre-modding, no chat, but great for just getting things out there quickly

longshanks

i posted in a thread recently about people who use big words to look good.
in it i said something along the lines of an embiggened vocabulary is perfectly cromulent.
six words, two of which only exist in the simpsons.
obviously a piss take (within the rules though) yet it was deleted.

dr.bollocko

longshanks wrote: »

i posted in a thread recently about people who use big words to look good.
in it i said something along the lines of an embiggened vocabulary is perfectly cromulent.
six words, two of which only exist in the simpsons.
obviously a piss take (within the rules though) yet it was deleted.

How is that within the rules? Cromulent an embiggened were tacitly defined in that episode of the simpsons. The rules are get with the rant or do not post. Simple. Did you get with the rant?
No!
I mean with the announcements, the warnings on every thread, the stickies, the constant constant discussion, why is there any way in which you would think that that post would be within the rules?
Really?

longshanks

ever heard of sarcasm?

Slidey

No, I have never ever heard of this sarcasm you speak of.

faceman

I think the R&R forum is great. I never post there but often read. Its like the boards.ie of the "Grumpy Old Men" tv series that ran on the telly a few years ago.

Sometimes I completely disagree with some of the posts there but i respect the need of the OP to have a rant.

Surely allowing someone to counter their rant is just creating Thunderdome Mk. II

Galvasean

longshanks wrote: »

ever heard of sarcasm?

Oooh, a sarcasm detecter, thats a real useful invention :rolleyes:

Damnit, now you have me quoting the Simpsons! :mad:
To the point, I really dont see how throwing in a Simpsons quote i getting with the rant.

longshanks

Galvasean wrote: »

Oooh, a sarcasm detecter, thats a real useful invention :rolleyes:

Damnit, now you have me quoting the Simpsons! :mad:
To the point, I really dont see how throwing in a Simpsons quote i getting with the rant.

seriously? in a thread about pointlessly long words?