Alternative to "click bait" rule: block threads

[robvalue]

I feel the click bait rule is a bad idea and a bad direction for the forum to go in, so I have a possible alternative.

Just like you can put people in your "ignore" group and "buddy" group, have another group called "block threads" or similar.

When you put someone in this third category, any threads they start will be removed from view when you look at the list of threads.

In this way, people need to take ownership of the quality of their posts, threads and titles in general. If you decide someone doesn't make good threads for whatever reason, including because you think they are "click bait", you just shut them out. So the reward for writing bad stuff will be that less and less people will be reading it. You then just have a nice clean list of topics, started by people you still want to read, and there's no need to start judging the quality of titles as staff.

[Aoi Magi]

What about people who post 70% clickbaity things, but the remainder good discussion worthy threads? Instead of blocking altogether, why not just leave it up to people to report which titles they find clickbait and threads with enough votes will require the original poster to change the title

[robvalue]

Well, that's another problem with this. The amount of reports that the staff receive could significantly increase. It's a lot of extra work, and I just don't see the benefit personally.

For example, if they needed five reports before they altered a title, that involves an awful lot of work behind the scenes to link that all together. Each report requires filling in paperwork, whether or not anything was done with it.

And because this is all so subjective, people could be reporting titles left right and center.

I suppose if someone makes some threads you like and some you don't, just ignore their stupid ones. I'm not getting why it matters if there is more explanation in the post... I mean, that's always going to be the case. If it's an obvious baiting silly title, then it's obvious you can ignore it.

---

Plus the staff then have to discuss how they are going to alter the title... which is again somewhat infringing on free speech, unnecessarily in my opinion.

[brewer]

How about just post "Thanks for the 'click bait'" and move on?

Drama, drama, drama.

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

What's wrong with click baity threads in the first place....?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Well, that's another problem with this. The amount of reports that the staff receive could significantly increase. It's a lot of extra work, and I just don't see the benefit personally.

For example, if they needed five reports before they altered a title, that involves an awful lot of work behind the scenes to link that all together. Each report requires filling in paperwork, whether or not anything was done with it.

And because this is all so subjective, people could be reporting titles left right and center.

I suppose if someone makes some threads you like and some you don't, just ignore their stupid ones. I'm not getting why it matters if there is more explanation in the post... I mean, that's always going to be the case. If it's an obvious baiting silly title, then it's obvious you can ignore it.

---

Plus the staff then have to discuss how they are going to alter the title... which is again somewhat infringing on free speech, unnecessarily in my opinion.

Do them good to have some extra work, what with the vast pay they get just for being on staff. If they didn't spend all their time driving round in flash cars and jetting off to Monte Carlo to drink peppermint schnapps out of Gigi Hadid's brassiere, they might be able to monitor a post or two.

Come on.

Boru

[robvalue]

What's wrong with click baity threads in the first place....?

I don't know. But if something has to be done, I'd rather it wasn't the current rule.

[abaris]

I don't know. But if something has to be done, I'd rather it wasn't the current rule.

It reminds me a bit of something we have a saying about: "Vurschrift is Vurschrift". Translates into law is law and is used if one's at a loss explaining the purpose of some regulation and resort to saying it's the law, so put up and shut up.

[Catholic_Lady]

I honestly don't understand why this rule has been so controversial lol.

[abaris]

I honestly don't understand why this rule has been so controversial lol.

Because it's boring as hell.

Just to give one example, which, in my case would fall under the new rule.

I made a thread called "Saved by his enemy". It was about a neonazi having a car accident and been saved by Syrian refugees he campaigned against. So, under this rule, I had to call it: "Neonazi saved by refugees".

That's boring and I don't see why people can't take the few seconds to check if the thread's interesting or not.