Don't TREAD on my THREAD!!

[VaHawk]

Who owns an open thread?

 

When someone opens a thread on this board why do some think posts on that thread should be restricted to those who agree with the original post? Why do they get upset when the thread spins off onto another topic? Why do some consider it a personal affront when others post a question/opinion that they don't like and feel it way okay to spin out of control and launch a "witch hunt" against that poster "because it's my thread and you are pissing on my parade"? Perhaps, there should be a mechanism in place that restricts who can post a response to that thread?

 

IMO, when you open a thread, then it is open to everyone and you can expect all kinds of posts in response. If you want to hear only positive posts, agreeing with you, then set up a group on yahoo and screen/select those who can respond. On a public internet board, you don't own the thread and if you can't deal with the reality of that then indeed "pick up your toys and move to a new playground".

 

Nothing wrong with getting pissed and venting, as we all do it, but to do so because you feel "it is your personal thread on which no one is allowed to post a negative response or pose a question" or "spin off" is not realistic.

 

I can't speak for everyone, but I know that I have received privates asking me why did "you try to ruin my thread". It isn't YOUR thread it is the BOARD'S thread. Deal with that fact.

[+ deej]

TECHNICALLY Hooboy owns the threads.

 

Beyond that, they're driven by participants. Management may step in from time to time, but the rest is totally community-driven.

 

The only way ANYONE can hijack a thread is if they get responses.

 

If you don't want someone to hijack (Hi Jack!) a thread, don't respond. That's pretty much it. It has been that way since the earliest days of usenet newsgroups. If you feed the trolls they'll figure out where your buttons are and keep pushing them.

 

The thing is that some threads benefit from hijacking, so banning it would be a bad thing.

 

What you're really asking is how to get rid of trolls. The answer is don't respond to them.

[axebahia]

>When someone opens a thread on this board why do some think

>posts on that thread should be restricted to those who agree

>with the original post? Why do they get upset when the thread

>spins off onto another topic? Why do some consider it a

>personal affront when others post a question/opinion that they

>don't like and feel it way okay to spin out of control and

>launch a "witch hunt" against that poster "because it's my

>thread and you are pissing on my parade"?

 

I think the reason is that some people here are very lonely, unsuccesful and unfulfilled in their personal and professional lives so the threads that they start here are the only things that they feel they "own". Imagine living a life where you had nobody to talk to, or listen to so that you feel personally hurt when somebody posts something that you disagree with in a thread that is "important" to you? It is truly pathetic, but such is their life, I guess.

 

Bring back Woodlawn, I am beginning to miss him. He may at times be disagreeable, but he takes as good as he gives.

[duke37]

>Bring back Woodlawn, I am beginning to miss him. He may at

>times be disagreeable, but he takes as good as he gives.

 

 

Did he leave?

 

Jeff

[+ Lucky]

RE: Don't READ my THREAD!!

 

Homer Simpson. Now there's a guy I wish posted here in Hooville!

[JamesK840]

You and I have disagreed about this before, but this seems like a good topic and I hope you don't object to my opinion in 'your thread'... :7

 

The tendency I think I regret most is when something, especially an argument/flame war spreads into several completely unrelated threads. I suppose it's unreasonable to expect people to have a knock-down fight in one thread and a civil conversation in other threads, but it'd be nice.

 

I think of the MC like this: it'll be here for years, long after petty disagreements have faded, as a resource for guys curious about escorts or escorting. How useful can it be if every interesting topic diverts into a flame war, and the animosity is so spread out over time and across threads/forums you can't even see why it happened if you cared to?

 

The system itself has some bugs, but overall it's a great resource I wish I'd discovered years ago. That's the other part of my feelings on this subject, as I've been checking the site regularly for years and had stumbled into the MC a couple times, not seen anything of interest and probably a good deal of negativity, and wandered out again. So I try to welcome new people and regret things I see as likely to discourage them, and especially the outright hostility some new posters get. It'd be nice if they searched before posting, but then again the search system is far from perfect even if they pick the correct one for what they're trying to do. Who knows what they could contribute if given encouragement?

 

So these views sum up into trying to keep things related to the subject at hand, and trying to be civil. Why not start a new topic if you want to discuss something different, and put it in 'religion and politics' if it's likely to be controversial? Even that forum has some good discussion though, and I think there's plenty to be learned in the civil parts of the disagreements, I know some of my views have been modified, and I've been exposed to ways of thinking I hadn't considered.

 

That's my $0.02 anyway, from a relative newcomer's perspective.

[Prime Muscle]

I personally think free speech is over-rated. Censorship has a lot of benefits that are often over looked.

[FrancoDiSantisxxx]

An Example

 

The search function on here is something which people do not know about. I certainly did not know about it when I joined and one of the "rules" I broke was bringing up "old" or "dead" threads, particularly in the ASK AN ESCORT lounge and responding to them. My first "flame" came from a prior incarnation of Little Woodies and my first defense (in that same thread) came from Rick Munroe (Woodie attacked me for being a newbie and resuscitating a dead thread, Rick suggested Woodie should cut me some slack since I had some interesting or new takes on topics).

 

In any event, the only comment offered about the search function is buried in the Message Center Rules under the sub-heading of ICONS, ICONS EVERYWHERE which states as follows:

 

The search icon lets you search previous posts. Newcomers often overlook this option and post questions that have been thoroughly beaten to death previously. We do not want to discourage posting questions. But there is a treasure trove of information out there in past posts. Leverage that if you can.

 

The FAQ's, at least as far as I could discern, do not cover how to much less suggest good search models. In fact, it appears the FAQ's are written generically for this software as opposed to specifically for THIS board.

 

My entire post is an example, albeit a gentle one, of hijacking your thread Hawkster. I went off from something James wrote and commented on it. This is, IMO, a good use of such activity. As with much else in life that involves interaction between people, simple courtesy, common sense and a certain degree of prior thought are really the only solutions one might hope for.

[+ Lucky]

RE: Don't TREAD on my TIRADE!!

 

So Homer Simpson can just blow off , can he? Here is a guy who has done more for the image of American culture across the world than virtually anybody else.

[BewareofNick]

RE: Don't TREAD on my TIRADE!!

 

http://static.sky.com/images/pictures/1106722.jpg

 

I like my beer cold, my TV loud and my homosexuals flaaaaaaaaaaaming.

[duke37]

RE: Don't TREAD on my TIRADE!!

 

So where did you get my picture Neal?

 

Jeff

[woodlawn]

>Bring back Woodlawn, I am beginning to miss him.

 

Huh? I'm right here.

 

 

>He may at

>times be disagreeable, but he takes as good as he gives.

 

[woodlawn]

RE: An Example

 

>My first "flame" came from a prior

>incarnation of Little Woodies and my first defense (in that

>same thread) came from Rick Munroe (Woodie attacked me for

>being a newbie and resuscitating a dead thread, Rick suggested

>Woodie should cut me some slack since I had some interesting

>or new takes on topics).

 

 

None of the above happens to be true. But if the things you say about other posters were true, you wouldn't be you. Would Falstaff still be Falstaff if he lost weight, stopped drinking, and got a job? Of course not.

 

[+ Lucky]

RE: Don't TREAD on my TRADE!!

 

Wouldn't it be a lot more fun if Homer actually posted here? Which escort do you think HE would like the most????

[VaHawk]

RE: Don't TREAD on my TRADE!!

 

Since Homer likes his "homosexuals fa-laaaming!", I suggest an escort from Southern California. Seems like there have been some from there that have been branded as consistenly burning the client.

:o

[+ Lucky]

RE: Don't TREAD on my TRADE!!

 

Hawk, I'm lovin' it! This thread shoulda been about Homer from the beginning!

 

BTW, do you think Bart will be an escort when he grows up?

[VaHawk]

RE: Don't TREAD on my TRADE!!

 

>Hawk, I'm lovin' it! This thread shoulda been about Homer

>from the beginning!

 

Lucky, I'm lovin' it too! All this spinning in different directions was the whole point of the thread.

>

>BTW, do you think Bart will be an escort when he grows up?

 

DOH! Bart is a twink lover's dream. Young, smooth, blue eyes, blonde spiky hair. And he'll be sure to corner the market with the jock/underwear sniffing crowd with that tag line "Eat my shorts"!