Shit n' Run

[Cinjin]

I propose a 3-strike policy for Shit n Runs.

Theist or Heathen - it's just fucking rude.

That is all.

[robvalue]

Sounds like a good idea to me.

I've been thinking we need something like a "not interacting properly" rule, of which this is the most extreme example.

[brewer]

They need to be warned. Some may not have the mental capability of understanding rude.

[robvalue]

Indeed yes, if something like this was to be implemented it would require warning people that they're not acting in the spirit of the forum.

[LastPoet]

Indeed yes, if something like this was to be implemented it would require warning people that they're not acting in the spirit of the forum.

And that would require said member to acknowledge said wairnings.

[robvalue]

Sure, yeah. Well, they could be made clear via PMs as well as messages in their threads. If people ignore staff warnings, for any rule, they are generally going to be removed eventually.

[Joods]

Yes but then you run the risk of arguing semantics over what constitutes not interacting properly. One might start a thread and then have some RL issues pop up only to not respond in their own thread days later.

So, do we give them a time limit or some sort of minimum post requirement in order for them to be considered a shit and run thread?

[LastPoet]

Sure, yeah. Well, they could be made clear via PMs as well as messages in their threads. If people ignore staff warnings, for any rule, they are generally going to be removed eventually.

So basicly the rules in place already cover that. Suggestion granted.

[robvalue]

Yes but then you run the risk of arguing semantics over what constitutes not interacting properly. One might start a thread and then have some RL issues pop up only to not respond in their own thread days later.

So, do we give them a time limit or some sort of minimum post requirement in order for them to be considered a shit and run thread?

Well, I'd say the time limit is starting another thread. If they've opened up a "discussion" and then run off to start another one before bothering to reply to anything in the first one, I'd call it a shit and run. I mean, I wouldn't personally want to clamp down on this happening right away, but instead look for trends. Is the person doing this a lot? If so, warn their ass to put some effort in instead of shitting everywhere.

This could then be viewed as spam, I suppose.

I agree "not interacting properly" is very subjective, and I'd have to work out what the hell that's actually meant to mean. Just an idea in progress.

[Tiberius]

I disagree with making this a rule, the main reason being that when members have done this in the past, the staff have debated whether to do anything, and when we look at the threads they create, most of them actually create discussion.

In my view, a discussion forum shouldn't require the OP to be involved in a thread they create, because the point of threads is that anyone can contribute, and discussions generally evolve out of the original topic.

Nobody is required to be involved in discussions, not even the OP.

Edit: Just to add, if a member creates several threads about the same subject in a short space of time, this is already covered by the "Spamming" rule: https://atheistforums.org/rules.php#spamming