Going through a poster's previous posts.

osarusan

Hi,

not sure if this is the place for this post, as it isn't exactly feedback, but hey, maybe I can get some feedback.

I've seen on more than one occasion people being told not to bring posts that a poster may have made in a different thread into the current thread. I've often wondered why this is said, and if it is an actual rule.

I mean, if I can show, by highlighting a poster's posts in another thread (or in the same thread, say 6 months ago) that they are actually lying/talking crap/contradicting themselves/being hypocritical, what is the problem with this?

Czarcasm

As far as I'm aware, the rule only applies between forums, as in for example using information from their post in the Personal Issues forum in a discussion in the After Hours forum.

I imagine it could depend on context too though as to whether it may be infractable or not, depending on the perceived motivation of the poster. A persons opinion can change a lot in six seconds, let alone six months.

tbh

osarusan wrote: »

Hi,

not sure if this is the place for this post, as it isn't exactly feedback, but hey, maybe I can get some feedback.

I've seen on more than one occasion people being told not to bring posts that a poster may have made in a different thread into the current thread. I've often wondered why this is said, and if it is an actual rule.

I mean, if I can show, by highlighting a poster's posts in another thread (or in the same thread, say 6 months ago) that they are actually lying/talking crap/contradicting themselves/being hypocritical, what is the problem with this?

Attack the post, not the poster. If someone is talking crap, it should be easy to demonstrate this by quoting the post you think is crap. It is coincidental that I've quoted your post.

osarusan

But the post may only be crap in the light of another post. If, for example, on a thread about, say, auctions, a poster says "I've been an auctioneer for 10 years and let me tell you....." but a month ago (in a different forum, to test czarcasm's understanding of the rule), there was a thread about, say, cars, and the same poster was saying "I've been a mechanic for 10 years and let me tell you...."

Both posts are relatively innocent by themselves, but together, indicate that the poster is lying.

I don't see it as 'attack the poster' as much as highlight their bull. But I await feedback.

seamus

General rule of "don't be a dick" applies basically. This is one of those things that's impossible to formulate into a hard and fast rule, instead when someone's being an asshole about it, you know it when you see it. Typically there's no issue about pointing out a poster's hypocrisy by comparing posts on the same thread, or even threads on the same topic in the same forum, within a reasonable timeframe. Across forums is sometimes OK, providing that the information is directly relevant to the topic at hand - like your example.
But even then, if you believe that a poster is deliberately bull****ting/trolling, you can raise it privately with the moderators. Calling it out on-thread will just destroy the thread.

A different example may be a political discussion where poster X, e.g. states support for a political position on account of it being in line with his religious beliefs. Then poster Y quotes a post from an unrelated forum on an unrelated topic where said poster X expressed support for a position which was not in line with his religious beliefs, and uses that to discredit him or attack him. Well that's not relevant to the discussion and is nothing more than an ad hominem attack.

That's a bit obscure, but that's because it's not a one-size-fits-all issue.

A more obvious one would be a poster calling for Bertie Ahern's head on a pike. Then someone else comes along and quotes a post from 8 years ago where the original poster said Bertie was a "grand lad" who did great things for this country and should be left alone. Dragging up information like that is just being a dick.

Czarcasm

osarusan wrote: »

...Both posts are relatively innocent by themselves, but together, indicate that the poster is lying.

I don't see it as 'attack the poster' as much as highlight their bull. But I await feedback.

The internet being the medium it is and all, there's not a whole pile you can do about the Walter Mitty Syndrome except take their opinion with a pinch of salt.

YOU know they're full of shìt, THEY know they're full of shìt, the only difference is who wants to "win an argument on the internet" more.


I believe rule number ten of the world's saddest internet argument techniques applies in this case.

5starpool

I have never come across that in my time on the site, and I can only imagine it is something mods say when a poster is being unnecessarily argumentative or annoying. I doubt there is a hard and fast rule that you can't link to a posters post in a different forum, but I also doubt there are many reasonable circumstances where it would be relevant.

Overheal

I've seen it and participated in it. I can see the relevance where a poster brings their own character into a discussion, at which point it would seem its fair game to refute their argument - their argument being their self.

As an example a poster once brought into argument that they had never treated a particular religion with anything less than humility and respect, when in fact they had boasted just months earlier how they regularly offended such people in public intentionally.

My take on it, is if you don't want to be the subject of the conversation, don't drag yourself into it. Discuss the central argument without exemplifying yourself. Walking into the argument boasting your credentials is kind of an invitation for people to inspect your name badge

anncoates

Don't think it's exactly wrong but there's a certain amount of effort that presumably goes into dredging up multiple old posts just to "win" an argument that would make you think that people need to relax a little.

K-9

anncoates wrote: »

Don't think it's exactly wrong but there's a certain amount of effort that presumably goes into dredging up multiple old posts just to "win" an argument that would make you think that people need to relax a little.

I have seen this stuff go on, and God forbid you change your opinion on a subject. It is well known on the internet, once you state a position you must stick to it all times under any circumstances. Changing ones mind is a weakness to be exploited and stalking posters across different totally unrelated forums to make such a point is perfectly reasonable.

OldGoat

K-9 wrote: »

I have seen this stuff go on, and God forbid you change your opinion on a subject. It is well known on the internet, once you state a position you must stick to it all times under any circumstances. Changing ones mind is a weakness to be exploited and stalking posters across different totally unrelated forums to make such a point is perfectly reasonable.

QFT, just in case I need to throw this back in your face sometime in the future and then I'll win the internet.

nesf

K-9 wrote: »

I have seen this stuff go on, and God forbid you change your opinion on a subject. It is well known on the internet, once you state a position you must stick to it all times under any circumstances. Changing ones mind is a weakness to be exploited and stalking posters across different totally unrelated forums to make such a point is perfectly reasonable.

Conversely I've seen it pointed out to a user that this was the tenth time that they'd started a thread like this and were they going to disappear after the current turned against them again. This was fair I thought.

Nodin

nesf wrote: »

Conversely I've seen it pointed out to a user that this was the tenth time that they'd started a thread like this and were they going to disappear after the current turned against them again. This was fair I thought.

Theres also the kind of interchange that goes

'I believe we should only allow in Canadians, British, Australians and Americans'

'Why is that?' (x 2 or 3, with either no answer or evasion)

Is it because you believe "them blacks will destroy the place" (quote/link etc)

nesf

Nodin wrote: »

Theres also the kind of interchange that goes

'I believe we should only allow in Canadians, British, Australians and Americans'

'Why is that?' (x 2 or 3, with either no answer or evasion)

Is it because you believe "them blacks will destroy the place" (quote/link etc)

Yeah, a common one I've seen is someone comes onto Christianity or wherever and starts a thread with an innocent looking question. Within a page or two they've twisted it into a stick to beat the forum regulars/believers with. The thread descends into chaos, gets locked and the poster fecks off for a while. Then they come back and ask another innocent question etc. It keeps happening, I personally think users in this kind of situation are entitled to bring up the poster's history.

What I don't like seeing is a poster's history being brought up to score points or undermine them. But when a poster is being disingenuous I think they lose the right to this protection.

K-9

nesf wrote: »

Conversely I've seen it pointed out to a user that this was the tenth time that they'd started a thread like this and were they going to disappear after the current turned against them again. This was fair I thought.

In fairness politics has that well covered with the soap boxing rule, if somebody is making a nuisance of themselves posting about a single issue, we'll usually notice it. It is best to report to the mods posters like that, though I perfectly understand the frustration participating in threads with posters who continuously soap box.

People can have fixed positions but still have a good debate/discussion, others just want to preach.

osarusan

nesf wrote: »

What I don't like seeing is a poster's history being brought up to score points or undermine them.

My OP was aimed at discussing statements of fact (or apparent fact) rather than opinions, which can obviously change.

If a poster's history can show that they are lying (and not, for example, a mechanic for the last 10 years, which is the 'fact' the poster is using to give their opinions/posts legitimacy), I don't really see what's wring with 'undermining' them.

RoundyMooney

osarusan wrote: »

My OP was aimed at discussing statements of fact (or apparent fact) rather than opinions, which can obviously change.

If a poster's history can show that they are lying (and not, for example, a mechanic for the last 10 years, which is the 'fact' the poster is using to give their opinions/posts legitimacy), I don't really see what's wring with 'undermining' them.

This times eleventy

nesf

osarusan wrote: »

My OP was aimed at discussing statements of fact (or apparent fact) rather than opinions, which can obviously change.

If a poster's history can show that they are lying (and not, for example, a mechanic for the last 10 years, which is the 'fact' the poster is using to give their opinions/posts legitimacy), I don't really see what's wring with 'undermining' them.

I'm not talking about that so much as dragging up someone's opinion from several years back and throwing it in their face. Like trying to discredit someone because they said they voted for FF in the last decade and similar.

RoundyMooney

Opinions change, sometimes from post to post, not to mind over a more extended period-such is the nature of discussion. This is a trend in debate that we're all familiar with and agree upon, I imagine.

My personal opinion was and is, that calling out someone on blatant falsehoods, as opposed to an ongoing evolution of their mindset, opinion or values, is fair game. And that trawling through past posts to draw attention to a natural, commonplace and normal discrepancy between some view or opinion they may have held previously, as opposed to one they are holding forth on presently, in the discussion at hand, is not.