(Site is a graveyard - How can boards save itself?) Any update?

Thanks for the reply.

Just one other question as a volunteer here has there been any discussions behind the scenes about the use of twitter posts to post an opinion whatever side it's from?

As it has turned into a cestpit lately I see it being used to link to some fairly dubious accounts without much comment attached.

It seems to be a roundabout way to push some fairly dodgy agendas.

If the poster is previously thread banned would it not make sense to delete the post and just add a note to state why the post was deleted.

This would still act as a reminder to all.

Also any feedback regarding the twitter link dumping?

I actually don't agree. I think if you express an opinion there is onus on you to back it up, especially if it's contentious one, or an opinion that is provably incorrect. It is a discussion forum.

The threadban could be because of an accumulation of lesser transgressions, rather than an one outright offensive post.

It's not a black and white issue, someone could just be a timesink over a period of time and haven't adjusted their posting style despite repeated warnings.

I posted 7 times in a feedback thread each time addressing other posters and raising questions.

Thanks for your feedback.

Of course, I'm not suggesting that people should be forced to reply, but if I express opinion on here I do feel an onus to back it up when asked and I think most people do too.

It's kind of the nature of anonymous discussion boards though isn't it: a lot of people are going to claim things as fact that they can't really back up.

It's irritating for sure, but the way I read what BBoC had to say was that you have to accept after a while that if the evidence to back up claims isn't forthcoming then there isn't much at the end of the day that you can really do about it. It isn't a court of law, you can't force people or obligate them to supply references or evidence etc.

It would be great if everyone was stringent about it and posted only verifiable facts, but, let's face it, a lot of the appeal for some people about places like boards is that you can just say things, without having much to back it up.

I don't disagree, but I think if a poster continuously did this I think it would be OK if other posters pointed it out to them. Would that be derailing the thread? Possibly.

I'm thinking of a very specific example in a forum on here where a poster(a/c closed a long time ago) would continuously post very reactionary comments, but hardly ever reply if those posts were challenged. It went on for years, changed the whole tone of that forum and imo had a detrimental affect on the whole culture of the place. I always thought that this was called "soapboxing", but I now think I might be getting my internet forum definitions mixed up.

One of the biggest complaint of some in this discussion is been asked to support their claims with evidence. This is because a lot of posters are arguing purely from opinion and claiming it as fact.

Should we accept that this sort of soapboxing as acceptable behaviour within a discussion ? It's highly disruptive to developing a discussion and yet it's what many want to be given a free pass on.

So in the context of this discussion I think soapboxing in this way should be actionable and should not be accepted behaviour. We can't force a person to support their position but we should be able to sanction and complain when it's the whole basis of a person's debate.