Outrage Threads.

kneemos · 01-08-2014 9:14am #1

Or ranting and raving about the latest court case where the "right sentence"wasn't given.

Don't get why these are allowed.I had the impression threads were supposed to be for the purpose of a discussion,all I see is a long line of the same very tired cliche responses.Even when posters point out the reason for the sentencing it's ignored and quickly returns to the cliched responses.

I must say I would be very annoyed if I was sentenced by a judge and some crowd on the internet were blatantly insinuating I didn't deserve it or I was guilty when acquitted.

Sorry it's AH I am referring to.

justsomebloke · 01-08-2014 11:50am

Go to the pub with alot of your friends and your family have a discussion with them about it. Chances are the 'discussion' would go very similar to this and a few of them would probably refuse to back down over what they believe.

I don't see why you would expect a thread on here especially in after hours to go any differently as it will have too many people shouting at the same time with lots of people refusing to back down from their position.

kneemos · 01-08-2014 11:59am

justsomebloke wrote: »

Go to the pub with alot of your friends and your family have a discussion with them about it. Chances are the 'discussion' would go very similar to this and a few of them would probably refuse to back down over what they believe.

I don't see why you would expect a thread on here especially in after hours to go any differently as it will have too many people shouting at the same time with lots of people refusing to back down from their position.

That's the point I was making though,there is no position or discussion just the same pointless cliches such as send them to Spike Island,two tier justice system,nothing changes,castration and on and on and on.

Insect Overlord · 01-08-2014 12:51pm

Simple solution: skim through the first page of the thread and see if it suits your tastes. If it doesn't suit you, then stop reading it.

kneemos · 01-08-2014 1:04pm

An File wrote: »

Simple solution: skim through the first page of the thread and see if it suits your tastes. If it doesn't suit you, then stop reading it.

Doesn't cure the problem though does it?
If you discover a lump and ignore it it just gets worse.

Insect Overlord · 01-08-2014 1:08pm

kneemos wrote: »

Doesn't cure the problem though does it?
If you discover a lump and ignore it it just gets worse.

Comparing threads you don't like on an internet forum to cancer. Awesome.

LoLth · 01-08-2014 6:29pm

he could have meant a lump in a mattress (princess and the pea?)

if the same users are posting the same cliché rage posts, why not just ignore them so that you don't have to read their posts anymore?

I agree that some users prefer to completely ignore rational discussion in favour of waving a pitchfork and brandishing a flaming torch and , while its not ideal , you'll often find that its exactly these users that you can safely overlook without worrying that you might miss some pearl of wisdom. Some people get on the internet and all filters and pretence of civility just disappears. They're not intentionally being dicks, some just have no idea how to behave any differently others are just panicked because some "hairy bits" started appearing and they don't know what anything means anymore....and a subset of both those camps just thinks its funny to get other people angry

kneemos · 01-08-2014 6:36pm

An File wrote: »

Comparing threads you don't like on an internet forum to cancer. Awesome.

Top ten most ridiculous things I've ever read.

kneemos · 01-08-2014 6:40pm

LoLth wrote: »

he could have meant a lump in a mattress (princess and the pea?)

if the same users are posting the same cliché rage posts, why not just ignore them so that you don't have to read their posts anymore?

I agree that some users prefer to completely ignore rational discussion in favour of waving a pitchfork and brandishing a flaming torch and , while its not ideal , you'll often find that its exactly these users that you can safely overlook without worrying that you might miss some pearl of wisdom. Some people get on the internet and all filters and pretence of civility just disappears. They're not intentionally being dicks, some just have no idea how to behave any differently others are just panicked because some "hairy bits" started appearing and they don't know what anything means anymore....and a subset of both those camps just thinks its funny to get other people angry

As I've said ignoring them doesn't solve the problem,any other thread that doesn't have a discussion point gets closed,why is endless ranting acceptable?

Turtwig · 01-08-2014 6:52pm

An File wrote: »

Comparing threads you don't like on an internet forum to cancer. Awesome.

It's a comparison not an equivocation. If anything what you imply by making this post is very unfair.

LoLth · 02-08-2014 12:01am

There's a difference between a thread without a point and a thread where some users refuse to accept an alternative opinion.

the former is a waste of space for everyone unless its just a random post thread and then its just a way to pass time , the latter is a thread about a topic where some users may have a useful discussion and a non-posting third party may still find interesting points of view and information on a topic.

As you say yourself, in many cases a full explanation is posted by another user. Just because one poster ignores the information, it doesn't mean no reader will find it useful.

What alternative would you suggest? How would you decide which threads should be closed? (also, endless ranting is not acceptable. that's why a ranting and raving forum was created so those that needed to vent could do so away from the general community and those that don't want to read it , what you are describing sounds very like soapboxing , which is also not allowed and has earned more than one poster a ban , temporary and permanent, from forums such as religion and politics and after hours.)

Calhoun · 02-08-2014 5:01am

An File wrote: »

Simple solution: skim through the first page of the thread and see if it suits your tastes. If it doesn't suit you, then stop reading it.

Pretty much this, honestly OP don't take this in the wrong way but are you auditing boards for stuff you don't like?

The nature of AH is that it's repetitive, thing pop up over and over, the same jokes , the same rants ect.

To change it would be to destroy the forum as we would run out of stuff to talk about eventually.

kneemos · 02-08-2014 5:20am

LoLth wrote: »

There's a difference between a thread without a point and a thread where some users refuse to accept an alternative opinion.

the former is a waste of space for everyone unless its just a random post thread and then its just a way to pass time , the latter is a thread about a topic where some users may have a useful discussion and a non-posting third party may still find interesting points of view and information on a topic.

As you say yourself, in many cases a full explanation is posted by another user. Just because one poster ignores the information, it doesn't mean no reader will find it useful.

What alternative would you suggest? How would you decide which threads should be closed? (also, endless ranting is not acceptable. that's why a ranting and raving forum was created so those that needed to vent could do so away from the general community and those that don't want to read it , what you are describing sounds very like soapboxing , which is also not allowed and has earned more than one poster a ban , temporary and permanent, from forums such as religion and politics and after hours.)

The "Enjoy the Community Service"thread is a perfect example of what I'm talking about.It's just constant criticism and cliched responses of the judged decision and the people involved,when a few posters bother to point out the reason for the judgement it's ignored and returns to it's default setting.
"Callely Moved to Mountjoy's Medical Unit is another one.I don't know if the man is ill or not but but the sole purpose if the thread seems to be to imply he's getting an easy time,one poster at least tried to imply that maybe he was ill but was ignored.
"What a Sick Prick"seems to exist for the sole purpose of slagging off somebody that posted something on Facebook.

These are in the last day or two,if you can find a discussion amongst them your a better man than me.
As for what should be done about it it's not for me to say,but there is no shortage of rules or ability to enforce them for other types of wrongdoings.

Nodin · 02-08-2014 7:50am

kneemos wrote: »

As I've said ignoring them doesn't solve the problem,..........

The problem seems to be your inability to ignore threads you've no interest in.

Gordon · 02-08-2014 8:59am

kneemos wrote: »

That's the point I was making though,there is no position or discussion just the same pointless cliches such as send them to Spike Island,two tier justice system,nothing changes,castration and on and on and on.

So people are replying to the OP? Can you define where discussion stops in an online thread exactly? Surprised you haven't laid this out as a charter tweak suggestion, by stating exactly what you think the charter should state, but instead you give an ambiguous suggestion.

kneemos · 02-08-2014 10:39am

Gordon wrote: »

So people are replying to the OP? Can you define where discussion stops in an online thread exactly? Surprised you haven't laid this out as a charter tweak suggestion, by stating exactly what you think the charter should state, but instead you give an ambiguous suggestion.

Discussion doesn't stop,it doesn't start.

Gordon · 02-08-2014 11:36am

So your suggestion is what exactly?

kneemos · 02-08-2014 11:52am

Gordon wrote: »

So your suggestion is what exactly?

Don't know why you're insisting on a suggestion I'm just giving feedback.As I say methods of dealing with it or not is up to yourselves I would have thought?However other rubbish threads can be locked I don't see why it couldn't apply to the type of threads I've mentioned.

Gordon · 02-08-2014 12:02pm

kneemos wrote: »

Don't know why you're insisting on a suggestion I'm just giving feedback.As I say methods of dealing with it or not is up to yourselves I would have thought?However other rubbish threads can be locked I don't see why it couldn't apply to the type of threads I've mentioned.

I think maybe the thing is that you're not explaining exactly what 'it' is, maybe if you tried to define it into something that we can work with it'd help get your point across.

kneemos · 02-08-2014 12:22pm

Gordon wrote: »

I think maybe the thing is that you're not explaining exactly what 'it' is, maybe if you tried to define it into something that we can work with it'd help get your point across.

I've given three examples of threads I'm talking about.They mostly arise from a court case of some sort where the sentencing appears to be lenient.
They all contain the same hang em flog em responses and belittling of the court decision and the person or people involved.
They don't contain any discussion,indeed any attempt at common sense is totally ignored.

dar100 · 02-08-2014 12:27pm

kneemos wrote: »

As I've said ignoring them doesn't solve the problem,any other thread that doesn't have a discussion point gets closed,why is endless ranting acceptable?

It would seem you're doing the very thing that you're complaining about, on this thread

Gordon · 02-08-2014 12:36pm

Sorry, I'm not sure what your feedback is exactly, whether it's certain topics should be shut down, or certain responses deleted. One person's "discussion" is another person's "talkin'".

Insect Overlord · 02-08-2014 1:34pm

People seem to have forgotten all about the Politics forums, Legal Discussion, Humanities, Philosophy. If you want to take the threads from After Hours and start them again with the view of achieving academic discussion, then those are the forums to go to. AH can be like that too, but shouldn't be expected to be exclusively so.

kneemos · 02-08-2014 1:49pm

dar100 wrote: »

It would seem you're doing the very thing that you're complaining about, on this thread

If I've repeated myself it's because I keep getting asked the same questions.

LoLth · 02-08-2014 3:45pm

kneemos wrote: »

The "Enjoy the Community Service"thread is a perfect example of what I'm talking about.It's just constant criticism and cliched responses of the judged decision and the people involved,when a few posters bother to point out the reason for the judgement it's ignored and returns to it's default setting.

I just read that thread:

OP posts about what he sees is a miscarriage of justice

another poster posts that they believe its typical of the irish justice system

another posts that 411 people were jailed for not paying their TV license

you weigh in with a sarcastic comment about the justice system

someone else points out that the jail time was not for no tv license but for not paying a court mandated fine

discussion moves on to whether the law is equal for all and if it is beign applied equally.

the only cliché I'm seeing in there is that every now and then some users post "witty" asides that have nothing to do with the actual discussion. If that's a perfect example of the outrage thread you want closed / removed / made against the rules then I'm afraid I don't follow your logic at all. I thought I did but now that you have clarified exactly what you mean it seems I was completely mistaken. That's actually one of the more interesting discussion on legal issues that I've read. It went a bit off topic there near the end and one user in particular seems to not want to discuss but to soapbox their opinion but apart from that, what EXACTLY in that thread do you think warrants it being disallowed ?

kneemos · 02-08-2014 4:53pm

LoLth wrote: »

I just read that thread:

OP posts about what he sees is a miscarriage of justice

another poster posts that they believe its typical of the irish justice system

another posts that 411 people were jailed for not paying their TV license

you weigh in with a sarcastic comment about the justice system

someone else points out that the jail time was not for no tv license but for not paying a court mandated fine

discussion moves on to whether the law is equal for all and if it is beign applied equally.

the only cliché I'm seeing in there is that every now and then some users post "witty" asides that have nothing to do with the actual discussion. If that's a perfect example of the outrage thread you want closed / removed / made against the rules then I'm afraid I don't follow your logic at all. I thought I did but now that you have clarified exactly what you mean it seems I was completely mistaken. That's actually one of the more interesting discussion on legal issues that I've read. It went a bit off topic there near the end and one user in particular seems to not want to discuss but to soapbox their opinion but apart from that, what EXACTLY in that thread do you think warrants it being disallowed ?

Glad you agree the legal threads are not very interesting,hut I have to totally disagree on your assessment of the thread.It does read totally differently when following it than reading it back.

There was a few people trying to counteract the usual retheric at the start but were outweighed by the jail em brigade and some nonsense about TV licenses.
If it's OK with Boards for the judges verdict and peoples sentencing to be questioned and declared not harsh enough then so be it.

Shakespeare's Sister · 02-08-2014 5:24pm

I agree those threads where people just post to register their outrage seem utterly pointless, but not sure they should be banned. And ignoring is a pretty sound strategy.

kneemos · 02-08-2014 6:54pm

Magaggie wrote: »

I agree those threads where people just post to register their outrage seem utterly pointless, but not sure they should be banned. And ignoring is a pretty sound strategy.

I dunno if they should be banned either,but they are utterly pointless and generally unfair and unkind to whomever they are aimed at.

LoLth · 02-08-2014 7:34pm

kneemos wrote: »

Glad you agree the legal threads are not very interesting,

I didn't say that, I said it was one of the more interesting legal threads. that does not in any way mean I think legal threads as a whole are not interesting

hut I have to totally disagree on your assessment of the thread.

and you have every right to

It does read totally differently when following it than reading it back.

so basically objective vs subjective appraisals? on reading it back is it still a waste of discussion? or can you see any merit at all to the information posted?

There was a few people trying to counteract the usual retheric at the start but were outweighed by the jail em brigade and some nonsense about TV licenses.

I think the "nonsense about TV licenses" was a comparison. Be involved in bankruptcy and illegal practises and you get 240 hours of community service but don't pay a court mandated fine (on the foot of not possessing a tv license) and they spent time in jail.

If it's OK with Boards for the judges verdict and peoples sentencing to be questioned and declared not harsh enough then so be it.

its called people having an opinion and we encourage them to post it and discuss it. As long as they are open to discussion then I cannot see the harm. (for what its worth, when I read, in the same day, a person get 30 years for hacking a banking system and then another person get 5 years for beating some poor guy to a pulp I have to wonder myself at the decision process).

kneemos · 02-08-2014 8:20pm

LoLth wrote: »

I didn't say that, I said it was one of the more interesting legal threads. that does not in any way mean I think legal threads as a whole are not interesting

and you have every right to

so basically objective vs subjective appraisals? on reading it back is it still a waste of discussion? or can you see any merit at all to the information posted?

I think the "nonsense about TV licenses" was a comparison. Be involved in bankruptcy and illegal practises and you get 240 hours of community service but don't pay a court mandated fine (on the foot of not possessing a tv license) and they spent time in jail.

its called people having an opinion and we encourage them to post it and discuss it. As long as they are open to discussion then I cannot see the harm. (for what its worth, when I read, in the same day, a person get 30 years for hacking a banking system and then another person get 5 years for beating some poor guy to a pulp I have to
wonder myself at the decision process).[/quuote]

Wouldn't see any merit in the thread apart from the few who were trying to explain court ruling.

As for the TV license comparison people are fined for not paying a court fine regardless of what it's for,saying it's on the back of not paying for a TV license is just being melodramatic.
As far as I know the two were not on trial for bankruptcy in any way.
I'd have much more faith in a judges knowledge of commercial law and the law in general in this and other cases than Boards.ie.
I know some judgements can seem strange but I believe there's pretty much always a reason for them,but for the most part these threads tend to follow the routine of flog em and send them to Spike Island without having or caring about the details of the case or any knowledge of the law that resulted in the judgement.

IMO if people want to rage about these cases it should be directed at the judicial system and not unfairly at the individuals involved who have little or no control over the outcome of their case.

Calhoun · 02-08-2014 9:51pm

You may have such overwhelming fate in the judicial system that you will agree to the decision of a court judge but allot don't, i don't believe there is harm in a little folk vent considering the amount of crap they have gone through over the past number of years related to the institution these folk are apart of.

If you don't like the nature of AH, don't post there but i would hate for it to be ruined because one poster doesn't agree with how people are raging.

Why don't you create a thread in AH on the judicial system, maybe change peoples minds that way?

Outrage Threads.

Comments