Thread crapping

With the correct the records move by Clinton and other troll gangs that are known to be astrturfing the net these days, it might be a good idea for ATS to install some protocols to circumvent trolls from degrading threads. One such could a simple be limiting the number of posts per page, this would end the single user trolls from thread crapping.

Groups of trolls will need more elaborate methods to detect and stop them, one thing ATS has done right is having no downvote button.

Anyway just a thought for the admin.

Mods thanks!
and keep up the good work you do!

Does ATS not already have T&C's in place to take care of political trolling and baiting?

Also, can you define thread "crapping"? I've been called a troll because I am willing to engage threads, often alone, in which the OP wants nothing more than a thread to satisfy their confirmation bias. Any dissenting opinion is considered trolling.

a reply to: introvert

You've got a hard-headed opinion on the issues of the day. I would never ask you to stop for the reasons apparent in the OP.

That said, I know exactly what AlaskanDad is talking about. I am a much more avid reader of this site ... than a poster. I sometimes drop a thread when a slew of posts/replies from a single user ... or pair ... become too distracting.

-Cheers

... and a flag for the thread.

When you post as many threads as you do in one day, you're bound to get some people riled up.

Maybe we should limit the amount of threads a poster can post in a day?

a reply to: introvert

Thread crapping is a single user amassing posts to derail interest in a thread, it is a common tool of trolling.

I understand the technique, but personally I refuse to use it, as it detracts from the sites traffic and causes their storing more dead threads.

originally posted by: introvert
Does ATS not already have T&C's in place to take care of political trolling and baiting?

Also, can you define thread "crapping"? I've been called a troll because I am willing to engage threads, often alone, in which the OP wants nothing more than a thread to satisfy their confirmation bias. Any dissenting opinion is considered trolling.

I don't see any of your posting as a problem. You have your opinion and you are not bashful about putting it out there.
There is a member that tends to post multiple one line replies, sometimes the multiple one line replies only address a single post by another member. The replies often are vacuous.
That seems suspicious to me.

originally posted by: essentialtremors
When you post as many threads as you do in one day, you're bound to get some people riled up.

Maybe we should limit the amount of threads a poster can post in a day?

Threads bring traffic to the site, thread crapping detracts from the users experience and will decrease traffic.

a reply to: AlaskanDad

One person's 'troll' is another person's 'freedom fighter.' Some of the political threads attract a couple of dozen members from either side of the party political divide and they enjoy the combat. Restricting them to one post per page would be unfair - it'd be a total killer to any conversation too.

The same applies in the conspiracy, UFO and ancient civilisations forums. We've always had groups who gravitate to threads on topics that interest them.

If you think about it, a lot of threads wouldn't get past the first page if members had to wait till page 2 to reply to comments on the post they made on page 1.

We are watchful for trolls who are disruptive and deal with them. At the same time, if someone is pro or anti Clinton, they're accountable to the T&Cs. Same goes for the supporters of any of the Presidential hopefuls.

a reply to: AlaskanDad

I am pretty sure a few of the old members are just as crappy as the new trolls?

a reply to: Kandinsky

I agree with what you have said, but one does not need to amass posts to the point the thread is inundated by a large block of their posts. ATS has been trying to build it's user base, how does that work when a reader arrives from a google search and the post that interested them is a OP and one other poster crapping all over the post?

Too often I find threads that degrade to two posters engaged in nonsensical bickering, does this add interest to the site?

I mean following ATS rules, I can wipe out a page with replies of two partial sentences, to avoid the no one liners rule and my replies need only in some remote way be indicative of the posts topic.

How many posts per page or in a row can a page handle, before it becomes disruptive?

Enough said, I just thought I would throw it out there and see how it was received.

a reply to: AlaskanDad

Thread-crapping huh? Flag for the title

a reply to: AlaskanDad

It's tough sometimes when a few members descend on an OP and throttle the discussion.

What I've noticed is similar mindsets occupy different sides of the debates. The pro-GOP members are as stubborn as the pro-Dem members and have the same compulsion to have the last word. Of course, 'stubborn' could easily be replaced with 'passion' because those same members have the courage of their convictions.

I understand where you're coming from and don't see a practical, reasonable way to apply brakes to people's ability to comment in threads that appeal to them.

originally posted by: Thetan

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: AlaskanDad

It's tough sometimes when a few members descend on an OP and throttle the discussion.

What I've noticed is similar mindsets occupy different sides of the debates. The pro-GOP members are as stubborn as the pro-Dem members and have the same compulsion to have the last word. Of course, 'stubborn' could easily be replaced with 'passion' because those same members have the courage of their convictions.

I understand where you're coming from and don't see a practical, reasonable way to apply brakes to people's ability to comment in threads that appeal to them.

It seems to me that you are saying that there's no way to practically and reasonably enforce the terms and conditions.

I don't see it that way at all. TC violations are usually dealt with rather quickly (including my own lol), and in an appropriate manner.

originally posted by: Thetan

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: AlaskanDad

It's tough sometimes when a few members descend on an OP and throttle the discussion.

What I've noticed is similar mindsets occupy different sides of the debates. The pro-GOP members are as stubborn as the pro-Dem members and have the same compulsion to have the last word. Of course, 'stubborn' could easily be replaced with 'passion' because those same members have the courage of their convictions.

I understand where you're coming from and don't see a practical, reasonable way to apply brakes to people's ability to comment in threads that appeal to them.

It seems to me that you are saying that there's no way to practically and reasonably enforce the terms and conditions.

We do a fine job of enforcing the T&C's. You may be hung up on what is against the T&C's.

Don't be offended when the crap you post daily attracts some flies

a reply to: Kandinsky



One last post to be sure I have been clear on what I meant to suggest; the adding of a few lines of code to limit either the number of posts in a row or the number per page, could be quite beneficial to the user experience here at ATS.


Some auto mod features could be quite helpful!

a reply to: AlaskanDad

We understand what you're asking and we don't think it would work. People have political beliefs and it's okay if they want to post them.

Automatically throttling conversations isn't what ATS is about.

That doesn't mean I don't share your frustration. We've all had those moments of irritation, but it's ebb and flow. It's the same as being in the bar with friends and having to accept that conversations are organic and not steered by a chairperson.