Shit n' Run

[robvalue]

I suppose it depends to some degree to what the OPs are like. If they contain something vaguely interesting which could be discussed, that's one thing. It's another if it's just a load of crap or preaching, which is unlikely to lead anywhere.

[Tiberius]

It's another if it's just a load of crap or preaching, which is unlikely to lead anywhere.

The problem is, it's not easy to determine whether something will lead anywhere until you see whether it does. We've had huge threads spawn from bizarre content, and equally, we've had threads that gain no responses at all.

The threads that fail to gain attention quickly drop to the bottom of searches, forum listings, etc. so they are dealt with automatically anyway.

[Joods]

Discussions are one thing. Creating threads with the intent to get people riled up for no good reason, is entirely another.

I guess everything has to be looked at on a case by case basis.

[robvalue]

Right. A post that says "Atheist R gay" is likely to get a large number of responses, mostly negative.

[Minimalist]

How would you give "3 strikes" to a shit and runner who makes one post and leaves?

[Tiberius]

Right. A post that says "Atheist R gay" is likely to get a large number of responses, mostly negative.

Right, but that's still discussion. I'm really adverse to the idea of trying to determine the worth of individual threads; I would prefer to leave that to the regular forum membership. If a thread doesn't deserve responses, it won't get any.

[robvalue]

Fair enough

I understand where you're coming from. I suppose if the person is causing massive upset across the board, they will be breaking at least one other rule anyway.

[downbeatplumb]

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?

Indeed, Sometimes I see a news or science tid bit I think people may like and pop it here and will not look at it again for a while.

[robvalue]

I really respect the efforts that are made to keep discussion and speech as free as possible. It's awesome, and I can see why Tibs wants to put as few restrictions as possible on posting behaviour.

I've been on a forum before where the moderators were a real bunch of pricks, and they'd close down threads because they deemed them "not good enough". Not for lack of replies, or anything like that. They just didn't like them.

[Ravenshire]

Discussions are one thing. Creating threads with the intent to get people riled up for no good reason, is entirely another.

I guess everything has to be looked at on a case by case basis.

Creating threads just to rile people up is the definition of trolling. Isn't that already against Da Rulz?