The first response in General Discussion can't be negative.
A first negative response in the thread kills or severely limits productive discussions. As an example, one of my first posts in awhile turned negative immediately. A provider later in the thread posted a positive comment. The first posts that went really ugly were deleted and the thread went on to have over 4,000 views. Would be a small, but productive and useful rule to say the first response in the general discussion thread cannot be a negative post.given your dislike for negative first responses, but I don't think it makes an awful lot of sense on several levels:
Firstly, it is restricting free speech, which ought to be encouraged.
Secondly, it can easily be short-circuited by someone writing a brief and perfunctory positive response (under an alias, presumably), and then posting their intended negative response.
Lastly, it does not account for the fact that some responses are neither positive or negative, and therefore puts the moderator in a position of being a judge of intent, which I very much doubt they are either desirous or capable of.
I think there is a lot of free speech that is restricted due to negative responses. When people pile-on, a lot of people disengage. What happens is here, and in other forums, is a band of people get together like hyenas and attack other individuals. If you don't like confrontations, then it distills down to the vitriolic and acidic personalities.
The result is that the only people who have 'free' speech are those who yell the loudest and shout everybody else down or tear them down. That's not really free speech, either.
My observation. And I'm seeing it here as well as other places, a lot fewer people posting every year.
Yes, would be hard to moderate, just a suggestion based on observation. We get uneven moderating anyways, which causes its own issues.
First of all, there is timing. Some posts are ignored for days and then get one or a few or a burst of replies. That first reply, days late, might be the trigger to generate interest.
.
In some cases, a new post gets a lot of people typing right away and you'll see several posts with timestamps within 0-20 minutes of each other: essentially all being written without having seen any other replies and under the assumption of being first replies. Some pos, some neg, some neutral.
.
The Newbie board has a "be nice" rule that is usually adhered to. I don't think there is a fair implementation of a "be nice" rule on the other boards.
Politics and Religion would be a free for all IMHO. One should walk-in there with flame suit on and spear in the other. It could be a place for intellectual and civil discourse, but nope. I posted a somewhat thoughtful thread in there and crickets. Then the Mongol horde came rushing in and slashing and burning.
General Discussion would be a lot more active if there wasn't a core of four or five guys that get together like a pack of wolves and go hunting - usually for some poor provider who puts up a valiant fight, but then gets nipped at the rear leg, and then taken down swiftly never to be seen again.
The providers that do stay are pretty much clearly the ones advertising.
There usually by the same blabber mouths.
True. I just hate seeing people (women in particular) stop posting.
There usually by the same blabber mouths.
I ignore that one and all the trolls' posts. Anyone who's spent time on the discussion boards knows who the worst of them are. They are mainly here to get attention for themselves by getting people riled up. Sad really. The worst thing you can do is respond to them directly, it just fuels their bile. Ignore them.
I've been on a variety of message boards for many years. The "signal to noise" ratio can vary over time. A certain level of flaming and trolling can be entertaining and consistent with a healthy board. There's generally a tipping point where flaming and trolling drives out the useful discussion.
.
The main form of regulation here seems to be warning/suspending/banning posters that transgress the rules. Given the sorts of topics that are discussed on a fuck board among hookers and johns, this level of oversight works pretty well IMO.
.
Imposing a loosely-defined requirement for positivity on first replies to threads likely wouldn't add much value, would take time and attention for admins to oversee, and might become a source of argument in itself.
its a shame when members who post something (that may not be useful or interesting in someone elses eyes) get their ass torn down left right and center right off the rip. And I see it all the time, when one member says something negative, condescending, insulting or mean in reply to the OP it breeds negativity for the rest of the thread. Thats my opinion.
I seldom post for that reason
Make it a great day!
Trust me while I agree about the negative thing...I can't stand censorship and telling people how to respond is just that. And besides that would wipe out half the posters here. Lol whatever would the negative nancies do. There are already rules for the forum that people don't listen to and mods don't enforce.