Community archive

Ask something
Discussion Locked

carpetbombing

0 helpful
5 replies

by apotheon

Closed to new repliesThis discussion is closed. It stays readable, but it takes no new replies.

What's the likelihood that we could get some kind of official rule against carpetbombing in discussion threads? The signal-to-noise ratio in some discussions is decreasing dramatically, all thanks to the cut-and-paste post-count campaign of one member (yes, I'm talking about deepsand).

I'm not sure whether he thinks he's actually helping anything by taking it upon himself to inform the whole world of what he perceives as their horrible flaws, or just trying to up his post-count, but in either case he has become a plague in more than one discussion that I'll likely be largely abandoning thanks to the lack of interest I'm able to summon for a discussion that's mostly static. The average IQ level of TR discussions is dropping like a rock down a well.

5 replies

by oz_media

There I was thinking that the Iraqi's had found a way to retaliate.

Sorry that's racist and uncalled for, but I laughed all the same. :)

Just to be really racist some more while I'm here, there's an unoccupied lot across from Sikh temple in Surrey and every weekend there is a foreign importer who sells Indian rugs (very nice ones and very expensive ones at that).

So as you're driving by looking at all the carpets hanging over the fence beside the Sikh temple, it's almost impossible not to think to yourself....'parking lot'.

So your carpet bombing post had a different meaning to me.

The only time I have noticed anything similar from deepsand, and I have commented on it before, was that he'll make a post and then instead of reiterating himself or explaining a point he's made, he just links to his other comments, which I refuse to go read, you want to say something, say it. Said it before? Then either choose not to repeat yourself or retype your comments, I don't like the one comment fits all stuff. But other than that, there has been an "I've had enough of Oz post" we don't need an "I've had enough of deepsand post too", let's all just play ball. You can tell there's not much to discuss on TR when all we do is discuss each others posting ettiquette though.

After this, everyone becomes overly politically correct and overly sensitive to everyone's feelings, then it all goes back to normal again. Seen it before more than once, see it happening again.

by apotheon

This isn't anything like "I've had enough of deepsand." I have no problem with reading a post of his [i][b]once[/b][/i]. Seventeen friggin' times, or even seventeen post titles that are identical, just drives me away from a thread entirely, and it doesn't even do any good since the next guy that won't read the rest of the thread won't read his carpetbombing either. Thus, deepsand isn't actually preventing anything other than participation by those who might otherwise have something interesting to say.

That's a problem.

I'd like to see him start posting something intelligent, as he is sometimes known to do, and stop posting links to his earlier posts without anything added to it. It's just mindless repetition, and it even ends up being inappropriately targeted quite a lot.

All of this, of course, is completely aside from the fact that I find any such transparently asinine attempts to up post counts that could be achieved by bots to be pathetic and wastes of bandwidth. Why don't we just replace deepsand with a bot if this is all he's going to do now?

by oz_media

As I said, the one thing I've noticed is simply posting a link to a previous post. Like "nuff said" but each post deserves it's own reply in my words, there's no 'blanket' reply for all comments, if so I don't need it.

I don't mind someone making a comment and adding a link to a previous post to show example though.

I thought you were disagreeing with the Surrey Parking lot comment.

by deepsand

1) We're to be able to differentiate between those who will and those who will not read a response to their post.

2) For the former, we are to either craft a personalized reply or, failing that, make no reply.

3) For the latter, we are to make no reply.

Did it ever occur to you to simply [i]ignore[/i] posts that offend your sense of procedural propriety?

As for your "[i]transparently asinine attempts to up post counts[/i]" allusion, such is not even worthy of rebuttal.

by apotheon

No, I just wasn't really addressing the parking lot thing. I found it amusing, actually, but figured I'd be better off not commenting. Heh.

Yeah, like you said: if it doesn't say anything new, it doesn't need to be said.

This discussion is closed to new replies.