OFF TOPIC ON THE BOI

[Stardust]

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.

 

[Golden Gate Geckos]

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.

 

[Wilomn]

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.

 

[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......

 

[Golden Gate Geckos]

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:

http://www.faunaclassifieds.com/forums/showpost.php?p=514667&postcount=292

 

[Stardust]

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...

 

[Scott Ashton]

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.

 

[WebSlave]

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.

 

[WebSlave]

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.

 

[Golden Gate Geckos]

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.

 

[walker75]

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.
__________________
So did I

 

[WebSlave]

That seemingly is not how the BOI works. For better or worse, anyone posting there opens themselves up for a credibility check on whatever it is they say. So anyone making a claim that they don't lie, and attempting to use that as a method of weighting the credibility of what they post, certainly opens themself up to being DISCREDITED by someone else who has evidence disputing that claim.

This sort of thing has taken place since day 1 on the BOI, and I doubt anyone is going to find a justifiable reason to successfully campaign to terminate it. And in my opinion, this particular kind of situation HAS to take place there. Otherwise each thread would need to be limited solely to the person making the initial post, and the person or business who is the topic of that thread. Although some people feel it would have a lot of merit running the BOI that way, I feel it would be unsuitable and immensely ineffective in that manner. The BOI, after all, is really all about peer pressure and exposure to the public. So someone seeing thousands of views and hundreds of posts in a thread about THEM most certainly has to consider the possible consequences of their actions and how they deal with a problem. Even with off topic posts, each and every post, whether off topic or not, STILL drives the thread about THEM to the top of the BOI, putting THEIR name in bright lights.

Yep, some people are afraid to post on the BOI for this very reason concerning credibility checks. But as long as your ducks are all in a row, and what you claim is supportable with evidence, if requested, you've really got nothing at all to fear.

 

[christopher66]

..... But as long as your ducks are all in a row, and what you claim is supportable with evidence, if requested, you've really got nothing at all to fear.

 

[Wilomn]

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.
__________________
So did I

This is the perfect example of why the BOI is as it is.

Facts unrelated to the thread topic come up in a thread. The fact that those facts are not relevant to the thread they come up in does not in any way diminish the fact that those facts are important.

What do you do with an important yet irrelevant fact? Start another thread? Forget it? Persue it in the thread it came up in?

Starting another thread would be the best alternative but many can't/won't do that.

IF it was nipped in the bud, the first time and everytime it happened in every BOI thread, then it would become known that there was a process to deal with off topic postings.

Since this has never been done, and I really don't see it ever being done only because of the sheer speed and complexity of some of the BOI threads, I think we may just have to suck it up and when it gets REALLY bad, speak up and say so.

Or, someone should just start a thread about that off topic fact and keep pointing out that there is NOW a place for such conversations to take place that will not further hijack someone else's thread.

 

[Stardust]

The problem with just starting a new thread is that Rich would prefer if people use threads already in existance, so that is not a viable option.
If the BOI threads are allowed to go off into any direction people see fit then why even have a specific topic line? Just let everything run amok and people will just have to do a search on the name and hope they get what they are trying to find, isn't that much the same as what is going on in a particular thread anyway now?
Believe it or not there ARE people who just want to go on there and know what is going on without having to read page after page of unrelated stuff. Some people actually have other things to do as well.
I am totally aware and understand that you have to get down in the mud, but there are guidelines and rules. I am not a perfect mod but I try, that is all that can be asked and that is all I can do, mistakes and all.
If someone is off topic and caught lying why not bring up THEIR thread and call them on it with a link?
I just feel bad for these people who are out a lot of money and their thread is getting hijacked and that puts a damper on everything they are trying to accomplish. Or the people looking up someone to see if they are good or not and can't get through all the off topic junk to keep the main topic in their head straight to get the answer they are looking for.
I don't know, maybe I am totally off base here, maybe wrong for trying to bring this up, I do not know, but I can only say what I think on this subject.

 

[WebSlave]

Well, all I have to say on this matter is that if this site were frequented ONLY by perfect people (myself included) then this could be made into a perfect site. I seriously doubt that any subset, much less the entirety, of humanity will attain that realm anytime in the foreseeable future.

And with that fact in mind, TRYING to make this site perfect with the rules and guidelines thought to be necessary to do that, will be a futile, frustrating, and wasted endeavor. Those rules and guidelines will be violated, sometimes accidentally, and sometimes purposely, several times a day. Quite simply, the act of making rules and guidelines implicates the ability and willingness to enforce them. Personally, I decline. However if YOU wish to pursue this, then simply lay out specific guidelines so a person of average intelligence will know where the line is, so I can post them publicly, and by all means, have at it.

As for the past rule about insisting members use currently existing threads on the BOI, please note that this was also a futile effort and was NOT included in the current round of enforceable rules here for that very reason. This proved to be very time consuming to enforce and I just gave up on it.

 

[Mooing Tricycle]

About the weeding out thing... and finding out what people want to know

i mentioned this before, and it was not... exactly shot down. but said to be hard/impossible/impractical to do. Was to make a list, of KNOWN bad guys that would come up when somone searched. Something that can be edited by rich only say, so that people dont have to read all the threads if they dont want to.

Again, it was just a thought, but since this comes up from time to time, i figured id bring it back up just as a mere mention at least. ( i need no explanations why it cant be done) its just a thought. ^_^

 

[Stardust]

As for the past rule about insisting members use currently existing threads on the BOI, please note that this was also a futile effort and was NOT included in the current round of enforceable rules here for that very reason. This proved to be very time consuming to enforce and I just gave up on it.

I didn't say insist, I said that you prefer it. Not too long ago that is what one of your posts said.
I thoroughly understand what you are saying I am just trying to figure out something that would make the BOI more user friendly when getting down to the bottom line of who is good and who is bad without all the off topic drama in between.
It appears to me that it is now becoming a free for all just like hell but with a few exceptions thrown in.
I like this site and just wish it doesn't have to be this way.

 

[hhmoore]

Unfortunately, from a practical perspective, there isn't a whole lot we can do to keep things on track. Sure, we can recognize that things have gone too far astray, and "suggest" that the thread be directed back to the titled subject...but there really isn't anything we can do about if posters choose not to comply.

I agree that the Off Topic Posting on the BOI warning is not without inherent fairness concerns, but perhaps it could be brought back for use after a moderator has stepped in and noted that things needed to be put in check (to be applied to those that just ignore the advice). Another possibility would be something along the lines of a Failure to Comply warning.

 

[WebSlave]

Unfortunately, from a practical perspective, there isn't a whole lot we can do to keep things on track. Sure, we can recognize that things have gone too far astray, and "suggest" that the thread be directed back to the titled subject...but there really isn't anything we can do about if posters choose not to comply.

I agree that the Off Topic Posting on the BOI warning is not without inherent fairness concerns, but perhaps it could be brought back for use after a moderator has stepped in and noted that things needed to be put in check (to be applied to those that just ignore the advice). Another possibility would be something along the lines of a Failure to Comply warning.

This would be OK, but for the fact that no one has actually indicated a definition of what "off topic" really is for members to have an idea of where that line is in the sand. Even after the warning has been made in the thread by a mod, what determines whether the next post is off topic or on topic?

Sometimes a person can actually build a case of hard facts by taking a convoluted path through some apparently off topic issues in order to paint someone into a corner. I would be reluctant to nip this off because of warning points inhibiting that sort of method. We just can't assume we will all immediately know where such an angle will ultimately end up and how on topic it could potentially wind up being.

Heck, take the Neil Gubitz break-in thread as an example. There were so many twists and turns in that thread that it was ridiculous. Many of them actually let nowhere, but they were instructive in painting an overall picture that would have been difficult with stricter controls in place putting tunnel vision on the direction of the posting.

Yeah, I agree that some off topic posting is bad, but at this point, I don't know how to accurately tell the bad from the good and afraid squelching the "good" may be counterproductive in the long run.