Thanks system and politics/group think

Dudess

stovelid wrote: »

It isn't really nice when a 'combatant' thanks a mod for punishing another 'combatant' who has overstepped the line in an exchange or argument - unless it's the punishment of an obvious troll or something.

This. Plus, when people with personal vendettas use it to take a dig at their "nemesis", but again, that might not always be what it seems. There are people whom I don't get on with and I may thank people who disagree with them, but not as a dig; I would also thank people I don't get on with, if I agreed with their point. Wouldn't be surprised if apparent thanks-whoring/licking-up/clique-reinforcing were overwhelmingly a product of the imagination. It's a system of expressing appreciation of a post - I think it's safe to say the vast, vast majority of the time that's all it's used for.

Would those who have a big issue with it prefer not to get thanked? And would they refuse to thank others? What makes them exempt from these apparent groups of thanks-whores/lick-arses?

Ickle Magoo

^^ Agree.

I have thanked posters that I've never gotten on with and would clash with on most issues - if they post something that's funny, clever or took time and effort to compose - I thank their post as way of expressing appreciation. I've had posters who don't agree with me most issues thank certain posts and I'm certain that's a site-wide phenomena. I would think (hope?) that those who only thank posters in their circle or equally refuse to thank those who do not share their political or moral beliefs are very much in the minority.

There are times posters thank for infractions, bans or warnings but that's not necessarily a bad thing. It's difficult to argue you were a valuable contributor in the thread and weren't annoying anyone when news of your ban gets thanked by 20 other contributors.

Iwannahurl

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

^^ Agree.

I have thanked posters that I've never gotten on with and would clash with on most issues - if they post something that's funny, clever or took time and effort to compose - I thank their post as way of expressing appreciation. I've had posters who don't agree with me most issues thank certain posts and I'm certain that's a site-wide phenomena. I would think (hope?) that those who only thank posters in their circle or equally refuse to thank those who do not share their political or moral beliefs are very much in the minority.

There are times posters thank for infractions, bans or warnings but that's not necessarily a bad thing. It's difficult to argue you were a valuable contributor in the thread and weren't annoying anyone when news of your ban gets thanked by 20 other contributors.

Perhaps less than, say, 20 thanks in such a scenario might just be a sign of group-think and power cliques though, which is where the OP started?

Dudess

I think Ickle is referring to when someone gets banned for trolling, insulting other posters etc (not merely disagreeing) - there's nothing cliquey about that, it's just appreciation for a person who's acting the twat being shown the door.

Iwannahurl

I have no reason to dispute that most bans for trolling are warranted.

However, given the OP's starting point I cannot rule out that a "power clique" might just decide that somebody they don't like is "trolling".

Ickle Magoo

Power-cliques don't get to decide who is trolling - the relevant charters spell out what is considered trolling and the mods who are charged with trying to see the charters are adhered to can see who is trolling. I've seen instances when posters lose the head and end up being infracted or getting a ban but trolls are trolls, nobody can make someone troll a thread.

It's a common complaint of those who seem to manage to make themselves unpopular either through general posting-style or what they are posting who then attract mod attention that rather than it being anything to do with them, they are in fact the victims of cliques and mod impartiality and bullying - when it's usually a case of someone acting the muppet and neither the other posters nor the moderators appreciating it.

Some choose to use the thanks system to thank a mod when a disruptive poster is either warned or banned - some choose to use the thanks system to thank a post that has earned a ban or infraction. Swings and roundabouts. For the majority, it's just a handy system that lets posters show appreciation without having to add a ream of +1's, I agree's, what he saids, etc, etc. :cool:

Iwannahurl

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Power-cliques don't get to decide who is trolling - the relevant charters spell out what is considered trolling and the mods who are charged with trying to see the charters are adhered to can see who is trolling. I've seen instances when posters lose the head and end up being infracted or getting a ban but trolls are trolls, nobody can make someone troll a thread.

It's a common complaint of those who seem to manage to make themselves unpopular either through general posting-style or what they are posting who then attract mod attention that rather than it being anything to do with them, they are in fact the victims of cliques and mod impartiality and bullying - when it's usually a case of someone acting the muppet and neither the other posters nor the moderators appreciating it.

1. Do all Charters define trolling? I know of at least one where the rule merely states "no trolling". If there is no 'independent' or 'impartial' definition of trolling in a forum, then who decides whom is a troll in any given forum or thread? And who might draw a Mod's attention to alleged trolling? A "power clique" perhaps?

2. The OP specifically referred to the way "debates turn into popularity contests". Is there a rule against being "unpopular"? And who decides (a) that a poster is "unpopular" and (b) that unpopular viewpoints should not be admitted in a forum?

3. What is the Boards definition of "acting the muppet"? Who determines that any poster is behaving in that manner?

4. Is there an approved Boards "posting style"? Does Boards insist on uniformity and conformity or does it encourage/welcome/tolerate diversity?

Wolfe Tone

I say people thank mods for taking action against a post they reported too.

LoLth

Iwannahurl wrote: »

1. Do all Charters define trolling? I know of at least one where the rule merely states "no trolling". If there is no 'independent' or 'impartial' definition of trolling in a forum, then who decides whom is a troll in any given forum or thread? And who might draw a Mod's attention to alleged trolling? A "power clique" perhaps?

perhaps but the mods are chosen to be mods precisely because they have demonstrated community participation without favouritism or being part of a clique. Se, even though the "power clique" may draw the mods attention to something they consider to be trolling, the mods are trusted to make the call on whether the post actually is a troll or not, not the users reporting. Additionally, abuse of the reporting system is against the rules. Cliques engaging in bullying tactics or trying to exclude a user by repeatedly reporting a post or claiming a user is trolling may well find themselves on the receiving end of a ban instead of their target.

2. The OP specifically referred to the way "debates turn into popularity contests". Is there a rule against being "unpopular"? And who decides (a) that a poster is "unpopular" and (b) that unpopular viewpoints should not be admitted in a forum?

There is no rule against popularity or displayign your support for a post you wish to thank. *unless* the view expressed goes against the terms of use agreed to when the user signed up. then, no matter how popular the opiion, its not allowed.

3. What is the Boards definition of "acting the muppet"? Who determines that any poster is behaving in that manner?

acting the muppet: a user disrupting a community for his/her own amusement or just to take away from other users' enjoyment. Who decides: the employees, the admins, the category mods, the mods and the users. This is a community. there are checks and balances at all levels to try to keep the community running smoothly.

4. Is there an approved Boards "posting style"? Does Boards insist on uniformity and conformity or does it encourage/welcome/tolerate diversity?

there is no approved "posting style" other than "polite". Even then, the level of politeness is up for discussion. Generally, anything above abusive will do. I would say the vast majority of boards mods would welcome and encourage diversity however, the mods have to cater for the community as a whole and if a user cannot present his or her diverse opinions in a way that fits the community as a whole then the mod has the option of askign the user to change they way they post. If requests for change are ignored then the mod may have to take other measures.

think of boards like a building.

Each category is a floor

Each forum is a room

Each thread is a group of people in that room talking about a topic

Each post is a person in that group making a contribution

now, which is more acceptable for the community as a whole:

a user joining a group (say soccer thread on physical contact) and listening to their conversation (reading the posts in the thread) before giving their opinion (posting)

or

user walks into the room , walks up to a random gorup, overhears their covnersation and screams "all footballers are f*****s" at the top of his lungs repeatedly.


in this scenario I suppose the thanks feature would be the others in the group nodding in agreement

Bottle_of_Smoke

I don't think it encourages group thinks. Though there's one forum in particular where you often see multiple posters thanking anyone on one side of the argument no matter what they say. That is just pathetic. Not politics btw