Dogpiling

[Talkkno]

I think a new rule should be added concerning dogpiling(the act of multiple posters simultaneously engaging a single opponent.) as I feel its unfair to expect the person that is being dogpiled to respond, for example 6 people at the same time. (Not to mention retreading the same arguments again and again.)

[Serpentine]

Wait... You don't want multiple people to respond to a person? :smallconfused: If multiple people disagree with someone, they can't all explain why? :smallconfused:
Not sure what you're after.

[littlebottom]

Wait... You don't want multiple people to respond to a person? :smallconfused: If multiple people disagree with someone, they can't all explain why? :smallconfused:
Not sure what you're after.

yeah, i was wondering the same to be honest, its not like around these parts a disagrement turns into argument too often, so if its the prevention of flaming your thinking about, i dont think its nessisary in this case... but im not sure if that was what you were after

[Haruki-kun]

I think he means preventing people from ganging up on someone.

But that's against the rules already, if people are being trolly or flamey. And within the rules if they're respectfully stating their disagreement.

[Gorgondantess]

Well... at least in the RPG forums, it makes sense: much of the time somebody states an unpopular opinion (i.e. I don't use ToB) and you get about 10 people responding to the post saying why they're wrong in pretty much the same fashion. It's kinda sucky.
Of course, it's a pretty unrealistic rule to enforce.

[Serpentine]

Yeah, it sucks when it seems like you're the only person in the world who has a aprticular view. If anything, though, that means that other people should be encouraged to post, not discouraged just because someone else managed to express their opinion before you.

[Evil DM Mark3]

Before anything else, this rule is unenforceable. How, exactly, is committing the breach of the rules? Often you get a lot of replies all at once with much Ninjaing, so are people expected to delete their posts? And how many posts is too many? What if you have the same view but for different reasons? This would require serious levels of both Mod work and Mod discretion to a relatively small end.

[Mystic Muse]

Before anything else, this rule is unenforceable.

This is why this won't be added. Even if it were enforceable, we'd need about 30 more mods to be able to deal with it. Yes, I'm exaggerating but I don't think the current amount would be near enough to enforce this rule on top of all the others.

[Temotei]

This is why this won't be added. Even if it were enforceable, we'd need about 30 more mods to be able to deal with it. Yes, I'm exaggerating but I don't think the current amount would be near enough to enforce this rule on top of all the others.

Even with that many, I doubt they'd waste their time and efforts on it when they could be doing something better.

[Killer Angel]

I think a new rule should be added concerning dogpiling(the act of multiple posters simultaneously engaging a single opponent.) as I feel its unfair to expect the person that is being dogpiled to respond, for example 6 people at the same time. (Not to mention retreading the same arguments again and again.)

I think that (apart from flaming, harassment, etc), we already have something similar in the rules.
Poster A express an opinion.
Posters B, C, D, E, disagree, each one with different argumentations. They have the right to do so, and add something to the discussion.
Poster F, repeats exactly the concept of poster B ("QFT"). It's spam.

'til your post is civil and adds something to the discussion, "dogpiling" shouldn't be an issue. Poster A will answer only to the posts he finds interesting and worth a reply.

[happyturtle]

This would require lots of judgement calls for the mods, plus lots of judgement calls on the part of the posters trying to stay within the rules. I appreciate the spirit of this rule, but can't imagine it being workable in practice.

Are we dogpiling the OP now? :smalleek:

[Renegade Paladin]

Before anything else, this rule is unenforceable.
No, it isn't. I post at other boards that encourage a much more debate-oriented atmosphere, and such a rule is almost universal in those circles. It gets enforced just fine.

[hamishspence]

What about when a post is made, 5 or so people read it, simultaneously compose replies, and post them?

It's not intentional "ganging up" in this case- it's simply other posts being made while you're still composing yours.

In this case, people might put "EDIT: Ninjaed" or "EDIT: Swordsaged" rather than deleting their post.

[Totally Guy]

You guys, you look like a pile of dogs. :smalltongue:

[Serpentine]

No, it isn't. I post at other boards that encourage a much more debate-oriented atmosphere, and such a rule is almost universal in those circles. It gets enforced just fine.How, exactly? :smallconfused: "If there are X number of posts of one opinion, you may not make a post of that same opinion until someone of another opinion posts"?

[Tirian]

I think that the current rules are closer to being on the other side of the divide. If someone is engaging twenty posters with an indefensible position and getting called out on it -- that's not dogpiling, it's trolling.

There is also a very simple solution if you are in that situation and don't like it, which is to stop engaging that point in the thread. If you were to stop reading the thread, it would seem as if nobody responded to your posts (or it should be, as bringing that external baggage into another thread is explicitly forbidden). Dogpiling is annoying enough to require dealing with when it happens on a blog because it's "your" property getting mobbed in some weak virtual sense, but since the posters here don't own any of the threads here, that's not a strong argument here.

[happyturtle]

I'd be interested in seeing how that rule is spelled out.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

Poster A will answer only to the posts he finds interesting and worth a reply.
Good point here. There’s nothing obligating Poster A to respond to every point, even if every point is different. And if every point is the same, why should Poster A have to respond to each individual expression of that point rather than make a single rebuttal to begin with?

Another thing to consider is that sometimes it takes about the tenth poster re-expressing what is essentially the same point before Poster A really gets it. I’ve been in that position, and I’m sure pretty much everyone else has as well. Some people can just get certain wordings better than others.

[Tengu_temp]

From my experience, if a lot of people are dogpiling you, they usually have the same or very similar points. Just respond to all of them as a group instead of each poster separately. Or don't respond at all if it's too much hassle, nobody's forcing you to - I often lose interest in discussion threads after four or five pages, even if I were very active in them beforehand.

[Quincunx]

Even the mods, the only ones with a duty to respond when challenged, are permitted to submit a pre-written, time-saving response of "not going to engage this issue at this time".

[There was more to this post, but it was covered by others while I was writing it. Darn ninjas.]
[EDIT NONETHELESS: Also the point about not knowing whose particular response style will be the one which speaks to the original poster holds good.]

[Renegade Paladin]

How, exactly? :smallconfused: "If there are X number of posts of one opinion, you may not make a post of that same opinion until someone of another opinion posts"?
To quote one such policy:
Do not "Pile On". Also known as the "me too" or "dogpiling" rule. Don't post in threads just to say you agree or disagree with someone, or that you like or dislike something, without bothering to explain why. Put some effort into your posts.
In practice, it is enforced by simply stepping in when a bunch of people are repeating the same thing at someone and telling them to quit being redundant and let him answer.

[Serpentine]

Do not "Pile On". Also known as the "me too" or "dogpiling" rule. Don't post in threads just to say you agree or disagree with someone, or that you like or dislike something, without bothering to explain why. Put some effort into your posts.Uh... We've got that already.
Minor Spam
Minor spam refers to posts that do not add to any discussion; often, one word posts will fall under this ruling (outside of SMBG games which require one-word responses of course). For example, quoting another users post and putting "QFT" or "quoted for truth," or a similar agreement, without adding any additional information of your own would fall under this rule.Different angle of approach, same result.

[pendell]

I personally don't see the need for such a rule. Serpentine and I recently concluded a debate on parapsychology vs. real science. I had quite a few people disagree with me, but it was intelligent disagreement. I wouldn't want to silence a single one of those opposing voices in the name of 'dogpiling', because those who contributed had something useful to offer. And if anyone HAD come in with a me-too post -- well, I'd simply ignore them.

So I think such a rule would be more of a liability, silencing legitimate argument, than an asset for silencing trolls. I don't care if I wind up arguing with the whole board, I'm tough enough. The validity of an opinion is not reinforced by nose-counting.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Roland St. Jude]

Uh... We've got that already.Different angle of approach, same result.Sheriff: Indeed. It's not the additional disagreement we care about (if you're wrong ten different ways or provoke ten different thoughts, people should be able to says so), it's the "me too" without explanation that we don't want (largely because they tend to snowball).