OFF TOPIC ON THE BOI

I will say this at the very beginning, I HAVE BEEN GUILTY OF MY OWN SHARE OF OFF TOPIC POSTS ON THE BOI.

IMO it is getting out of hand. There is a VERY serious thread going on now in there where a lot of money is owed to people and it is going off topic AGAIN.
This is not fair to anyone. Not to the people OWED the money or the people wanting to find out what is going on to have to wade through several pages of off topic crap.

My theory is that people know the BOI is the most read on this site and where better to get their jabs in but there.

NO, I do not have a solution to the problem but I do see that there is a problem and if it persists the BOI will turn into a laughing stock where people won't take anything seriously or WORSE won't even bother to read it anymore. What would have been something that started for the good of all herpers will be no more.

Off topic is fine and dandy for anywhere else on this forum, IMO, but NOT the BOI.

OK there is my rant for the day.

Your rant is my rant. Why on earth should people have to wade through all the crap being posted that has absolutely NOTHING to do with the topic in order to glean any form of factual information posted on the BOI??? It's a pathetic example of the lack of integrity of the BOI's purpose when members with serious legitimate issues have their threads turned into an arena at a sand-box circus.

... and some Fauna folks wonder why the BOI is sometimes considered nothing more than a joke. Sad. Very sad.

AHahahahhHAHAHahahhahAhhahahaha choke gasp ahahahahahahahahahahhah

The thing is, in order to keep in on topic you have to have BOI Police. With only the King, who has said many times he has no time to police his kingdom, and his Deputies 3, who though they try, simply do not have enough time to keep things well in hand, it simply hasn't been possible.

NOW we have deputy deputies and, frankly, most of them don't have the chops to lasso a thread and wrangle it into submission.

This MAY change with time and more ropes thrown around more threads. This will also result in more deputy deputies getting thrown (or pulled) from their horses which will result in either less deputy deputies throwing lassoes (?) or deciding that rope tricks are just not for them. Hopefully there will also be some few who find they not only can reign in an out of control thread, but have the chops and skill and wish to do so.

BUT, until it becomes the norm, this ropethrowing by deputy deputies, I don't see much changing.

If no one is in charge, then no one will muck the stall, so to speak.

Edit:

Like Rich said in his post below, the off topic line is not only veritably invisible until it's the size of my thigh (pretty fat) but agreement by more than two that it IS off topic is well neigh (more horse humor) impossible.

Like I said, it IS possible, I just don't really see it happening.

So tell me, what would YOU do about it?

There used to be a warning point infraction here for off topic posting, but the problem was that "topic drift" was normally the cause, and not just blatant malicious posting. For example, someone posts 13 different information items in a post where 12 of them are on topic, and someone replies to that 13th one that takes things OFF topic with 10 other replies related to this drifting off topic. Who is at fault there? And how do you STRICTLY define "on topic" anyway? There will be tons of gray area instances to have to deal with, so don't expect it to be simply a black and white situation.

Generally speaking, it isn't really recognized as being off topic in a LOT of cases until it has gone WAY off topic. Then, what do you do about it? Editing out the off topic posts is a lot of work, if even reasonably prudent to do. So you need some way to determine this problem VERY early on and nip it in the bud, otherwise ANYONE getting reprimanded for being off topic will squeal like a pig that their post is no different from what someone else did who got NO reprimand.

Generally it has been considered as fair game for anyone to attack the credibility of anyone posting pro or con info on a BOI thread. Is that considered as being off topic? I could argue either side of that point, but any definition of "off topic" will have to include this circumstance as well.

So, if you want, come up with a reasonable solution to this problem and I will implement it so anyone who doesn't like the problem can put themselves into a position to ENFORCE it. Been there, done that myself.....

Ask ANYONE who has tried to enforce the rules here how much FUN it is......

Originally Posted by WebSlave

So tell me, what would YOU do about it?

Well Rich... you may want to consider setting an example by not adding to your own problem:

Originally Posted by WebSlave

http://www.faunaclassifieds.com/foru...&postcount=292

Originally Posted by WebSlave

So tell me, what would YOU do about it?

There used to be a warning point infraction here for off topic posting, but the problem was that "topic drift" was normally the cause, and not just blatant malicious posting. For example, someone posts 13 different information items in a post where 12 of them are on topic, and someone replies to that 13th one that takes things OFF topic with 10 other replies related to this drifting off topic. Who is at fault there? And how do you STRICTLY define "on topic" anyway? There will be tons of gray area instances to have to deal with, so don't expect it to be simply a black and white situation.

Generally speaking, it isn't really recognized as being off topic in a LOT of cases until it has gone WAY off topic. Then, what do you do about it? Editing out the off topic posts is a lot of work, if even reasonably prudent to do. So you need some way to determine this problem VERY early on and nip it in the bud, otherwise ANYONE getting reprimanded for being off topic will squeal like a pig that their post is no different from what someone else did who got NO reprimand.

Generally it has been considered as fair game for anyone to attack the credibility of anyone posting pro or con info on a BOI thread. Is that considered as being off topic? I could argue either side of that point, but any definition of "off topic" will have to include this circumstance as well.

So, if you want, come up with a reasonable solution to this problem and I will implement it so anyone who doesn't like the problem can put themselves into a position to ENFORCE it. Been there, done that myself.....

Ask ANYONE who has tried to enforce the rules here how much FUN it is......

First off I would like to start off saying that at one point when I came back here I said something to the effect that absentee landlord was not bad. I take that back, I see now that it is bad as like it or not you are the originator of this site and should be at the top here AND show by example. I am eating my prior words.

Now on the "off topic", like I said I have no solution but I do have a suggestion.
As it would be ludicrous to adapt this "off topic" to all of fauna why can't we just adapt it to the BOI?
We all agree that the BOI is here to help people and people look to it for help. Now there are times when people have to get on people to get the truth out on the subject matter but when it strays off where two or more are bantering about nothing of the topic of the thread that is what I personally see as "off topic".
Sure there are going to be fine lines, like when people say something and incorporate it into the topic to get away with it but at least some of the blatant off topic can be eliminated.
I just feel that these people who are getting ripped off are getting the raw end now when their money is on the line and people care not about that as much as getting a dig in about someone who posted on the thread. It makes it look sloppy and unprofessional. Even the lawyer in court can say some unsavory things to get to the truth but still has to keep on topic because there is someone higher to make him/her do so.
I don't know, just throwing some thoughts out there...

Originally Posted by Stardust

First off I would like to start off saying that at one point when I came back here I said something to the effect that absentee landlord was not bad. I take that back, I see now that it is bad as like it or not you are the originator of this site and should be at the top here AND show by example. I am eating my prior words.

Now on the "off topic", like I said I have no solution but I do have a suggestion.
As it would be ludicrous to adapt this "off topic" to all of fauna why can't we just adapt it to the BOI?
We all agree that the BOI is here to help people and people look to it for help. Now there are times when people have to get on people to get the truth out on the subject matter but when it strays off where two or more are bantering about nothing of the topic of the thread that is what I personally see as "off topic".
Sure there are going to be fine lines, like when people say something and incorporate it into the topic to get away with it but at least some of the blatant off topic can be eliminated.
I just feel that these people who are getting ripped off are getting the raw end now when their money is on the line and people care not about that as much as getting a dig in about someone who posted on the thread. It makes it look sloppy and unprofessional. Even the lawyer in court can say some unsavory things to get to the truth but still has to keep on topic because there is someone higher to make him/her do so.
I don't know, just throwing some thoughts out there...

You're right. And I am guilty as charged.

I should not have stooped to the level of those who attacked me for questioning something that had been posted in that thread.

There are indeed many who want nothing more than to incite such activity and for engaging in such behavior I do apologize.

Originally Posted by Golden Gate Geckos

Well Rich... you may want to consider setting an example by not adding to your own problem:

Sorry, but I am just playing by the rules of engagement that other people are doing on the BOI. Robin made a false statement in order to elevate her credibility in that thread. I simply pointed out that it was false, and PROVEABLY so. IMHO, of course.

So, Marcia, is it your position that any posts refuting or interrogating the credibility or integrity of the poster (if not the TOPIC of that thread) are to be considered as being "off topic"? Meaning that anyone who is NOT the topic of the thread posting anything at all needs to be taken at face value without being able to be questioned about it? INCLUDING the person who STARTED that thread in the first place?

That will be a REAL interesting rule to try to enforce.......

And for the record, it's not MY problem. YOU all brought this up, not me. I gave up on worrying about it long ago. The ONLY way to deal with it would be to moderate EVERY post made prior to it being posted to determine if it is on topic or not. Which, quite frankly, is NOT going to happen.

That's all well and good, but no one has really come up with any suggestions on how to determine what is actually off topic or not.

Been there and done that myself, so good luck figuring it out. I decided it was not something that could realistically be done, and therefore removed it from the list of warnable offenses.

Now if you all who are capable of issuing warning points want to take a stab at it again, well, then come up with a plan on how to determine such things and I will consider implementing that warning again for you to utilize. But you need to show me FIRST that it is feasible to do by providing some definitions that can be posted and thereby enforced as black and white as possible.

So, Marcia, is it your position that any posts refuting or interrogating the credibility or integrity of the poster (if not the TOPIC of that thread) are to be considered as being "off topic"? Meaning that anyone who is NOT the topic of the thread posting anything at all needs to be taken at face value without being able to be questioned about it? INCLUDING the person who STARTED that thread in the first place?

No, Rich... not at all.
I apologize if it seemed that I was simply complaining without offering any constructive solution. My point was that fanning the flames, so to speak, simply adds to the threads spiraling out of control. There is a fine line between interrogating the credibility or integrity of the poster and the inevitable free-for-all poo slinging contests these threads sometimes evolve into.

Perhaps it's just me, but I thought that particular thread was about Justyn's potentially shady business dealings... not trying to prove someone else lied.