Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I recently had a pretty good thread locked because one person came in and started throwing gak around in it. It had been going pretty well and discussing what new scientific or technological breakthrus would help the world the most, but then it got locked because onew user who has a history of gak posting on threads i make came in and wrecked it.

I'd like to ask there by a policy of telling people to quit posting in otherwise good threads they've disrupted instead of blocking the threads be insitutued. SOme boards do this and it can keep a good thread being being killed by one person.

No, you are not going to get a forum policy where you're allowed to post things like your absurd "haul batteries by train" idea without having anyone point out that it's not something that resembles a viable idea or survives even superficial analysis. If you don't want your ideas discussed in a public forum then you're free to not post here.

Also, I'd like to point out that you're the one who decided to make it personal and derail the thread into complaining about how you can't ban me from seeing your posts instead of addressing my very on-topic comment that your idea is just reinventing conventional transmission lines with much higher complexity and inefficiency.

 Peregrine wrote:
No, you are not going to get a forum policy where you're allowed to post things like your absurd "haul batteries by train" idea without having anyone point out that it's not something that resembles a viable idea or survives even superficial analysis. If you don't want your ideas discussed in a public forum then you're free to not post here.

Also, I'd like to point out that you're the one who decided to make it personal and derail the thread into complaining about how you can't ban me from seeing your posts instead of addressing my very on-topic comment that your idea is just reinventing conventional transmission lines with much higher complexity and inefficiency.

Trains have alot of large flat surface areas for solar panels, unlike most transport vehicles. So if you are completely against fossil fuels its not really a bad idea i don't think.

 Peregrine wrote:
No, you are not going to get a forum policy where you're allowed to post things like your absurd "haul batteries by train" idea without having anyone point out that it's not something that resembles a viable idea or survives even superficial analysis. If you don't want your ideas discussed in a public forum then you're free to not post here.

Also, I'd like to point out that you're the one who decided to make it personal and derail the thread into complaining about how you can't ban me from seeing your posts instead of addressing my very on-topic comment that your idea is just reinventing conventional transmission lines with much higher complexity and inefficiency.

Pretty much this. I'm sure he's blocked you at this point so it's really his own baggage if he can't just ignore your replies when others talk to you. It does tie into the previous issue of him feeling too much ownership over threads, when its really less about the OP and more about the discussion it engenders.

Also, can't help but laugh at how he gets fussy about others and "snark" when he left on a pretty rude note and made a big deal about him leaving but now's he come crawling back nonetheless.

It makes me sad to see your threads constantly getting locked to your visible frustration and you obviously, clearly do not understand why they are getting locked.


"I think peregrine is even less familiar with civility than engineering."

beyond being a rule 1 violation, this is off topic, and it engenders more off topic responses. You kicked open a door and now are complaining about what came out.


I get you have a problem with Peregrine. You gotta engage in a way that argues with the ideas and doesn't invite further off topic insults and squabbling, or put people you clearly detest on ignore. Report them if it's personal attacks or threadjacking. You have to work within the system if you want your threads to survive.

For bickering, squabbling, and sidetracking, I have the same problem, and I have sometimes contributed to the exact same conclusions sometimes when I get all heated up, but I'm never like, mystified as to what happened and you always seem to be when they get closed. It's hard to watch, man.

Blocking specific users from your threads is an objectively terrible idea and it's not going to happen.

If we could block specific users from specific threads, we'd still have a US Politics thread.

There’s an ignore button. Even if you choose to “unignore” a post, it can be useful to mentally prepare yourself for what you see.

If you think something is rude, report it. Or ignore it, disengage... the thing is a thread doesn’t “belong” to the person that starts it. It’s an idea shared with the community that takes on a life of its own. You open the door, and anyone can walk in.

I’ve said it before, but Dakka is like a bar, or an inn, or hotel lobby. Anyone can walk in off the street, but if you misbehave there can be consequences. And it’s not all fair and even. The bar owner may like you and cut you some slack. The innkeeper may dislike you and keep you on a short leash. That’s their prerogative because it’s their establishment, and if you want to be there you have to live with their rules.

Best advice is to offer favours to the person behind the bar. They’ll let you do almost anything for a quick handy.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
If we could block specific users from specific threads, we'd still have a US Politics thread.

*presses F to pay respects*

 Ouze wrote:
It makes me sad to see your threads constantly getting locked to your visible frustration and you obviously, clearly do not understand why they are getting locked.


"I think peregrine is even less familiar with civility than engineering."

beyond being a rule 1 violation, this is off topic, and it engenders more off topic responses. You kicked open a door and now are complaining about what came out.


I get you have a problem with Peregrine. You gotta engage in a way that argues with the ideas and doesn't invite further off topic insults and squabbling, or put people you clearly detest on ignore. Report them if it's personal attacks or threadjacking. You have to work within the system if you want your threads to survive.

Yes he shouldn't have retaliated but he was responding to a post where she addressed him in an uncivil manner.

Sometimes in the past, we have asked someone, well, told them, to stop posting in a particular thread. It’s a pretty sub-optimal approach IMO. Practically speaking, the issue is very rarely down to a single person, as Ouze mentioned above. So while we have sometimes tried it previously I don’t think it’s something that we are going to apply widely going forward, if at all. Probably not at all, TBH.

Best practice is simply don’t engage points/posters if doing so just contributes to de-railing.

And the OT deathclock ticks forward one more click.
Can't wait to see the back of it.
If you guys enjoy that subforum then you'd best start behaving yourselves.

The politics-free OT has a very secure future as far as I can tell.

 Manchu wrote:
The politics-free OT has a very secure future as far as I can tell.

I suppose you're right.
Maybe it's just easier to tidy it up with the Banhammer?

A more desirable result would be folks just following some ofmthe useful advice posted ITT.

 Manchu wrote:
Sometimes in the past, we have asked someone, well, told them, to stop posting in a particular thread. It’s a pretty sub-optimal approach IMO. Practically speaking, the issue is very rarely down to a single person, as Ouze mentioned above. So while we have sometimes tried it previously I don’t think it’s something that we are going to apply widely going forward, if at all. Probably not at all, TBH.

Best practice is simply don’t engage points/posters if doing so just contributes to de-railing.

Thing is....that doesn't work. Someone always takes the bait, and then we've got yet another thread dragged down by one of a tiny handful of serial offenders who just can't make the effort to be civil. (And I guarantee that nearly everyone who read this knows exactly who I'm talking about.) Maybe they've got an actual point, I couldn't tell you, because they express it so ineptly and with so much needless snark, bad faith and hostility that they're just not worth the effort.

I have those posters on ignore and I avoid engaging with them, but it just doesn't make any difference. I can still see their posts, because people quote them. I still have to stop reading fun threads because a Usual Suspect showed up, someone indulged their childish desire for attention, and now this thread has gone to hell, in the exact same way as the last few on the same topic did. I could try to continue the original discussion, but now most civil posters have abandoned the thread, and it's a handful of shouty people yelling at each other and drowning out any actual useful discussion.

And the response of the mods seems to be to lock threads for being "heated", while seeming to pay no attention to the fact that the heat usually comes from one of the same few serial offenders wandering in with a box of matches and can of petrol. If they're even getting warnings for what they're doing, it's clearly having no effect. The message being broadcast to me and other new members seems to be that I can be as abrasive, hostile and aggressive as I want under the pretence of "just tellin' it like it is, some folk can't handle the truth yo", and there are no consequences for constantly increasing the heat level of discussions and dragging down thread after thread in flaming ruin.

Yes, I'm getting quite frustrated with this, how could you tell?

Jerram wrote:
Yes he shouldn't have retaliated but he was responding to a post where she addressed him in an uncivil manner.

Let us review the posts that got us to this point:

OP: [terrible idea involving hauling batteries on a train instead of just building transmission lines, one that gives a strong impression of having a random impulse and going straight to dakka to post it without spending any time thinking first]

Peregrine: "Congratulations, you've just invented a transmission line that is vastly more complicated and inefficient."

That's hardly "uncivil" to the degree that the OP is complaining about. It's critical, yes, because the idea was terrible. But it's also completely on-topic and critical only of the idea and not the person posting it. Now the OP responds:

OP: I think this board could use a block function like facebook has that keeps blocked users from seeing the posts of the people who blocked them.

On-topic? Nope. Civil? Perhaps in the literal words used, but the thinly-veiled "I want to ban Peregrine from my threads" attack is at least as uncivil as anything I said. This is exactly what Ouze was talking about with "You kicked open a door and now are complaining about what came out. " Rather than staying on-topic and responding to the on-topic criticism of an idea (probably because the OP's idea is fatally flawed and they know they can't defend it) OP derails the thread into their dislike of me, and is outraged when this derailment leads to locking the thread. Things escalate from there, but the initial cause of it all was 100% the OP's inability to stay on topic and keep their personal vendetta out of the thread.

It's funny that I didn't have to even finish reading the OP's post to know exactly who and what happened.

Why people bother to engage that individual is beyond me, one of the grand questions for the ages.

The only thing more baffling is why said individual remains here.

Mods, it's kind of pointless to have conversations on this forum when certain people can go in and deliberately derail it.

 Ouze wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
If we could block specific users from specific threads, we'd still have a US Politics thread.

*presses F to pay respects*

There are frankly, several topics that would benefit from specific people being asked to stay out of them, and almost every section of the forum has at least one "TFG" who seems to post solely to derail threads.

Sadly I don't think there's any technical thing Lego can do to make that happen. We'd need mods to start operating like beat cops, making sure all the kids are in the places they're supposed to be, which isn't really what they signed up for and would probably end up taking all their time.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
Mods, it's kind of pointless to have conversations on this forum when certain people can go in and deliberately derail it.

I suppose you didn't read my post where I quoted what happened in the original thread, and it was very obviously the OP derailing their own thread into an attack on me instead of responding to my 100% on-topic disagreement with their idea.

 Manchu wrote:
A more desirable result would be folks just following some ofmthe useful advice posted ITT.

Manchu, "just ignore it and it will go away" has been you guys' advice for a long, long time now. Obviously that's not working. Time for you guys to start making decisions.

I mod a Toronto Maple Leafs forum, it has a user-specific thread ban.

DakkaDakka doesn't appear to use the same... host? though.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
A more desirable result would be folks just following some ofmthe useful advice posted ITT.

Manchu, "just ignore it and it will go away" has been you guys' advice for a long, long time now. Obviously that's not working. Time for you guys to start making decisions.

We have decided, many years ago.

When a poster decides to reply to someone, that is their choice. Engaging someone in a thread is ENTIRELY OPTIONAL. I've done it myself, and I have to say it works nicely. Focus on what you want the conversation to be, not how you can correct another poster. Think about how far off the rails a conversation can go if you continue down a path.

If our advice isn't working, that's to do with the individual poster, not the policy.

 Lorek wrote:
If our advice isn't working, that's to do with the individual poster, not the policy.

Well, then that settles it. Your solution isn't flawed, it's all the people who post that's the real problem!

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 Lorek wrote:
If our advice isn't working, that's to do with the individual poster, not the policy.

Well, then that settles it. Your solution isn't flawed, it's all the people who post that's the real problem!

Yes, it is the people. We have a problem with certain individuals who feel compelled to post about how they think a person is "not constructive" or "always causing trouble" or whatever, even though it has nothing to do with the thread they're posting in. Things would work much better if they left moderation to the moderators.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
It's funny that I didn't have to even finish reading the OP's post to know exactly who and what happened.

Why people bother to engage that individual is beyond me, one of the grand questions for the ages.

The only thing more baffling is why said individual remains here.

Mods, it's kind of pointless to have conversations on this forum when certain people can go in and deliberately derail it.

The lack of self awareness in this post is hysterical.

You're exactly the same, with the exception that Peregrine constructs her arguments better than you do.

 Crimson Devil wrote:
The lack of self awareness in this post is hysterical.

You're exactly the same, with the exception that Peregrine constructs her arguments better than you do.

[citation needed]

There's a lack of a lot of things in your posts, but I'll keep that to myself.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 Lorek wrote:
If our advice isn't working, that's to do with the individual poster, not the policy.

Well, then that settles it. Your solution isn't flawed, it's all the people who post that's the real problem!

I mean, they're not entirely wrong. The fact that people speed isn't an argument against having regulations on how fast you can pilot a ton and a half of metal along streets lined with meatbags.

But, on the flipside, a rule that is in practice routinely ignored by users and mods alike, as all Dakka rules are, is a bad rule and ought to be reviewed.

Okay, we're done here, but this has certainly been some food for thought.