Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Anti soap boxing or filibuster rules.

  • 15-04-2018 11:03pm
    #1
    Franz Von Peppercorn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,070 ✭✭✭


    A filibuster is where law makers keep talking to see out or time out a vote. It stops rational discussion.

    For here I mean it where certain posters, however much a minority, tend to dominate a discussion by posting (literally) 24/7.

    There are threads where the majority of posters believe A bit the vast majority of posts (from 1-3 posters) are for B.

    We should have a mechanism to stop posters posting on the same thread more than 3 times an hour, 10 times a day or 25 times a week.

    Would stop any supposed “bots” out there too.
    Post edited by Shield on


Comments

  • #2
    Beasty
    Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 78,393 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    This could not work across the site. Take Soccer for example where you get fast-moving match threads with users posting about numerous incidents in quick succession

    I doubt there would be an easy way to enforce any such rule, other than via mod scrutiny/intervention. Any such a limit could end up being quite arbitrary when it bites.

    I think the better solution is direct intervention by mods if/when they think someone's dominance within a thread is becoming unreasonable. Mods can issue in-thread warnings to ask posters to back-off or even invoke a thread or forum ban.

    I really have not seen any evidence of "bots" anywhere on the site


  • #3
    Gatling
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,291 ✭✭✭✭Gatling


    It's a simple case of wanting censorship against posters who can hold their own against several others ,
    Restriction on how and where a poster can engage on boards is a rediculous idea .
    This isn't china or Moscow .
    360_F_102352090_ie3kLjDIvgrT1sxVDknWCUh8PxgMYzM7.jpg




  • #4
    LuckyLloyd
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 36,434 ✭✭✭✭LuckyLloyd


    The right to express minority opinions is extremely important for a discussion forum and needs to be closely guarded. Not ignoring that today's consensus opinion can always be upended down the road by new information coming to light.

    The key word being "opinion". People should be shut down quickly where they are espousing information that is verifiably false. And certain forums on practical topics that leave less leeway for personal musings should definitely have bespoke local rules that reflect such a reality.


Advertisement