# Tired of Thread Crapping



## Mistwell

I am getting tired of the thread crapping that seems to be increasing on these forums lately.

For those who are not familiar with the term, I will offer a definition from a Google search of the phrase (feel free to offer another if someone has a better one):



> Thread Crapping
> 
> "Thread Crapping" occurs when a person comes into a thread and posts something contrary to the spirit/intent of the thread, often derailing the discussion or turning it into an argument.
> 
> For example, coming into a thread about "The Greatest Beatles Album" and posting "The Beatles were overrated" is a thread crap. Another example: In a thread titled "I love my new Apple Macintosh!", someone posting "PCs are better and cheaper" is a thread crap.




This sort of stuff is happening a lot lately.  Here are some examples:

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=190680

Original Poster asks for folks to check the formula he is using for the creation of a new magic item.

Second response is how the item should be avoided, it's too cheap, and unbalancing.

Or this one:

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=190033

Original poster asks what new rules people want to see in 4e, and some people answer that they don't want to see 4e at all.

And it isn't just in the rules forum.  For example, this thread I started with a preview of the upcoming movie 300:

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=189969

...and an explanation up front that the movie wasn't about historical accuracy, and the spirit of the thread was clearly not "how historically accurate is this".  And then, a slew of responses about how the movie sucks because it's not historically accurate.

And I have seen this sort of thing happen in the General forum as well.

I don't mean to be calling out those particular people, as I think it happens a lot and it's not just those people (nor do those particular people even necessarily often do it).

Sometimes, I feel like some people come into a thread whose subject matters do not interest them just to be negative to the people who do like that subject matter, and with no intent to contribute anything useful to the thread beyond making their voice heard about how everyone else's opinion or interest is wrong.

And I feel it detracts from the value and utility of these boards.  If I am going to post asking about X, and people respond about Y just to convince me that posting about X was a bad idea, I am less inclined to post a new thread or new opinion about things in the future.

So, I guess my main question is "Is this already against the rules".  And if not, am I just wrong in thinking it should be?  Is this just too subjective, and the line between contribution and this sort of stuff is just too fuzzy to enforce effectively or consistently?


----------



## diaglo

Mistwell said:
			
		

> Is this just too subjective, and the line between contribution and this sort of stuff is just too fuzzy to enforce effectively or consistently?



i'd like to think this is the case.

when someone posts about how great there 100th lvl pc is and all the things he can do and... how are you supposed to add to the spirit of the thread? posting anything would be a threadcrap by your google definition since no one else is playing that particular 100th lvl pc.

if however people are talking about the price of magic items in their campaign and some says they don't sell magic items in their game and someone posts about the next book out on magic items and then someone posts about the rules concerning the pricing of magic items in the DMG and why they think it should be X instead. um... who is threadcrapping?

if though a poster came into that thread and started asking someone to join their PbP campaign on another site.

threads are conversations that aren't necessarily static sometimes.


----------



## billd91

I think diaglo is right and we shouldn't have a rule to bar the drift of conversation, particularly since the threadcrapping may be in the eye of the beholder. I think the second example isn't really a threadcrap, or if so, it's a very mild one since it answers the question: None.

If you see it happening, particularly in a thread you started, then nudge the conversation back on topic just like a facilitator would do at a group discussion.


----------



## Thornir Alekeg

In the first thread you linked about the magic item, Hong answered the question.  So, at that point should the thread be closed?  Anything more would either be redundant or a threadcrap.  I think the second poster has a valid point that the item, while technically correct, seems out of balance and implementation of it might have consequences in the game.  Maybe it could have been said differently, but to me it wasn't so far off point as to be a threadcrap.  

In regards to other thread crapping, at what point does a contrary position move from sparking debate to being a thread crap?  I wouldn't want to only read threads that are love fests.  You don't learn as much from everyone agreeing with each other.


----------



## Nifft

IMHO, once a question has been answered, meta-questions can be addressed.

In the case of the first thread, *hong*'s post (#2) addressed the main question, and then folks felt free to address the meta-question ("should this exist at all?").

It would be threadcrapping to have put something snarky in *before* the poster got his info; afterwards, it's conversation. This is my humble opinion.

Cheers, -- N

PS: Now that you have your information, all following posts shall be snarky...


----------



## Umbran

Mistwell said:
			
		

> So, I guess my main question is "Is this already against the rules".  And if not, am I just wrong in thinking it should be?  Is this just too subjective, and the line between contribution and this sort of stuff is just too fuzzy to enforce effectively or consistently?




The Rules don't specifically state that one's post has to be "constructive", for (among others) the very reason others have cited - such a rule would be too subjective, and impossible to enforce fairly.

The point of moderation, honestly, is to keep ideas flowing.  We are not particularly concerned if the ideas "stay on track".  So individual posts that don't seem to quite fit, or which brings up something tangential to the original conversation, are well within bounds.  Some of the best ideas you don't think of yourself come from topic drift.

A pattern of threadcrapping that is distinctly for the purpose of derailing conversation is a separate issue.


----------



## diaglo

if i may, Mistwell, (which i guess by the google definition is a threadcrap) what you think constitutes ownership of a thread? i see this as part of the basis of the discussion. if the OP feels they own the thread and only things they asked can be answered or talked/discussed. or if the other participants feel the thread is open for discussion and any similar things can be addressed in the thread. (kinda like Nifft is saying)

edit: i guess what i'm saying is would you like to see 1 thread with several different posters involved having a drifting conversation. or multiple threads with similar topics but only a few posters in each?


----------



## Umbran

diaglo said:
			
		

> if i may, Mistwell, (which i guess by the google definition is a threadcrap) what you think constitutes ownership of a thread? i see this as part of the basis of the discussion.




Traditionally, the OP has only small number of "ownership rights".  We have a bit of a tradition (not a rule, or anything that formal) that we will close a thread at the OP's request, if it seems like they've got a decent reason.  If the OP makes a special request in the first post to avoid disruptive behavior (like, "I don't want to see this turn into an Edition War"), then we may take the issue more seriously in the thread.  

Other than that, though, the OP does not "own" a thread.  At least traditionally.  While we could consider a policy change, I think it'd have a pretty hefty impact on the culture of the boards that we might not like...


----------



## Nifft

Umbran said:
			
		

> While we could consider a policy change, I think it'd have a pretty hefty impact on the culture of the boards that we might not like...




Let's not, please?

Thanks, -- N


----------



## Deset Gled

Of the three examples given, I would only classify the third as thread crapping.  For the first two, the answers given were perfectly legitimate responses.  If people don't want to hear responses they don't agree with, they shouldn't be posting on the internet.

In the case of the third, there are a couple of things to consider.  First, you actually encoraged the discussion of realism in some of your responses (ex: http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=3384581&postcount=19).  Second, if you are really upset by it, you can simply ask people do not discuss it, or start a different thread for the different discussion.  If things get out of hand, contact a moderator for help.  There are a number of policies already in place that should take care of any issues without need for new policy.  Finally, remember that you're on a D+D board, which is always going to attract the history nuts.  If you want discussion of cinematography and film only, you would probably have better luck at a different locale.


----------



## Umbran

Nifft said:
			
		

> Let's not, please?




Unless it turns out to be politics or religion, I'm not going to say folks can't talk about it.  I think they'd quickly discover they'd want no such changes, and the question would go away.


----------



## Mistwell

Thanks for responding folks.  I'll answer some issues raised, and raise some more.  I've labeled sections to make it easier to read this likely long post.  Feel free to ignore those labels.

THE SPECIFIC EXAMPLES

I was just giving some examples off the top of my head, not trying to focus on the details of each so that we could examine why each individual example is a hasty generalization and therefore avoid discussing this issue.  

I'll give a better example.

NEW EXAMPLE

A long time ago (many years ago) I threadcrapped in a Buffy the Vampire Slayer thread, in the precursor to the current media forum.  The thread topic was something along the lines of "Why we miss Buffy the Vampire Slayer".  I went into the thread and talked about how I hated the show, how awful the show concept was, etc. (I don't anymore by the way).  I was in the wrong in that case.  I had no interest in the topic itself, and was only going into the thread to ruin everyone else's fun of discussing that topic.  I deserved to have at least a warning in that case, in my opinion.

That's the sort of thing I am talking about.

WHAT I DO NOT MEAN

I am not talking about ownership of a thread because you start it (and I am sorry I mentioned a thread I happened to start - my intention was not to whine about my own thread, it's just an example that came to mind).  I am not talking about natural topic drift either.  I am talking about folks who enter a thread with no interest in the topic, but with the apparent purpose of essentially spoiling everyone else's enjoyment of that topic by being contrary for the sake of being contrary.

ANOTHER EXAMPLE WITH CONTEXT

I feel like that sort of thing is happening more often these days.  It crops up the most in the rules forum, but it's happening in more than just that forum.  Some people seem to go into threads that discuss a topic they actually don't like, just to tell others why they are wrong for liking that topic.  If someone brings up a topic about how they like the Book of Nine Swords, and things you can do with that book, it is inevitable that someone who does not like that book will enter the thread and tell everyone how that book sucks.  And I just do not see how that is helpful to anyone else in the thread.  

WHAT IS NORMALLY ACCEPTABLE IN CONVERSATIONS

I'm sure rules-oriented game players can come up with some plausible excuse as to why that is helpful, but in everyday real world conversation that sort of behavior isn't really acceptable.  If a group of people are talking about a sports team and a particular game, and some guy came along and interrupted the conversation just to tell everyone how much all sports sucks and that particular sport sucks, I doubt anyone would consider it appropriate behavior.  Nobody would be nodding along that such a contrarian view fostered more in-depth conversation on the merits of organized sports in general.  Instead, it would be seen for what it is - some jerk trying to tell everyone else that the things they like are not valid.

THREADCRAPPING CREATES LONG, EXCLUSIONARY FLAME WARS

This sort of thing I am referring to most often takes place in very long threads - the kind that get so long that few people actually read the whole thing all the way through anyway.  It often gets reduced to a handful of people responding about some extremely fine details that almost nobody cares about anyway.  This can become exclusionary, because of the investment of time it would take to even get to the point where you could contribute to the topic, and because you would be entering a discussion where people's emotions are flaring.

One reason for this is that thread crapping intentionally spawns an angry reaction from the people whose views you are poking at, and people who are upset are more prone to a back and forth angry debate (even if it has nothing to do with the topic at hand).  Sometimes, that seems to be the point of thread crapping (pay attention to me instead of your topic).

TWO THREADS IS MORE EFFECTIVE THAN ONE

In most cases, two topics would have resulted in a much better formulation of ideas than one. If a person creates a thread about how best to equip a character with magic items, and you feel magic items are too prevalent in D&D, then two threads would actually result in better discussion on those topics than one: 1) How best to equip a character with magic items, 2) whether magic items are too prevalent in D&D.  People interested in each topic would be attracted to the topic because of the thread title.  If both topics were intermingled in one thread, half of the people would have no way to know the topic they are interested in is even taking place in that thread, because the thread title has nothing to do with that topic.  It would also be less likely to result in a long and exclusionary flame war, where neither topic gets a full discussion because many people are scared off from the discussion (either because of the angry tone, or because of the investment of time to get to the point where they could contribute, or because of the perceived lack of interest from others in discussing the actual topic, or some combination of the above).

WHY THIS IS THE BEST SOLUTION

To sum up: threadcrapping is bad because it intentionally pisses people off who are trying to discuss a topic, reduces topics to flame wars, scares people off from topics, and it isn't the way to get the best conversation going about the two issues.  If a group wants to discuss how X is good and what can be done with X, and a second group wants to discuss why X is bad and why we should get rid of X, both groups are best served by two threads, one for each topic, rather than one thread.  Each group will know which thread is discussing the topic that interests them.  Neither group will get upset because people from the other group interrupt their conversation and call attention to themselves rather than the topic.  Threads will not grow as long and exclusionary as often (though it will still happen).  People searching for that topic in the future will have an easier time finding the one they are looking for.  In many ways, this sort of thing would be helpful.


----------



## Umbran

Mistwell said:
			
		

> WHAT I DO NOT MEAN
> 
> ...  I am talking about folks who enter a thread with no interest in the topic, but with the apparent purpose of essentially spoiling everyone else's enjoyment of that topic by being contrary for the sake of being contrary.




Much of the subject matter lies here - "...no interest in the topic, but with the _apparent_ purpose of...."

You may have seen how The Rules ask folks to not ascribe motives?  Here, we are ascribing a motive  You may have seen how the mods often don't step on an issue until it's had a couple of exchanges back and forth?  Same thing - we don't like to ascribe motives, either.  

Any policy that tries to "nip it in the bud" has the tendency to also nip off conversation by people who don't actually fit the profile.  Not only does that dampen conversation, but it also cheeses people off.  A lot.  

I have a meeting.  More thoughts later...


----------



## Mistwell

Umbran said:
			
		

> Much of the subject matter lies here - "...no interest in the topic, but with the _apparent_ purpose of...."
> 
> You may have seen how The Rules ask folks to not ascribe motives?  Here, we are ascribing a motive  You may have seen how the mods often don't step on an issue until it's had a couple of exchanges back and forth?  Same thing - we don't like to ascribe motives, either.
> 
> Any policy that tries to "nip it in the bud" has the tendency to also nip off conversation by people who don't actually fit the profile.  Not only does that dampen conversation, but it also cheeses people off.  A lot.
> 
> I have a meeting.  More thoughts later...




Which is why I gave an example that involved myself, where I knew my motives were bad.

Are you saying this never happens, or just that it is hard to detect?  If it's the later, you're just saying it's a difficult issue to address, not that we should not try to do something if we can.  If it's the former - well, I've given you an example that seems pretty rock solid


----------



## diaglo

Mistwell said:
			
		

> Which is why I gave an example that involved myself, where I knew my motives were bad.
> 
> Are you saying this never happens, or just that it is hard to detect?  If it's the later, you're just saying it's a difficult issue to address, not that we should not try to do something if we can.  If it's the former - well, I've given you an example that seems pretty rock solid




to use your example then.

i have never, ever, threadcrapped. ever.

i only say things in threads in which i have an interest.

whether it be to relate my opinion on the way things were done previously, currently or in the future. i still have an interest in the topic of that thread. and thus why i post.

others will disagree. as i have often been told by posters in topics to stop threadcrapping.

but instead of argue with them. i place them on ignore.


----------



## Anti-Sean

But... But... But...

Without threadcrapping, I'll have nowhere to go! :sob:


----------



## Umbran

Mistwell said:
			
		

> Which is why I gave an example that involved myself, where I knew my motives were bad.




And, if you'd written, "My motives are bad," at the top of the post, maybe we could have gotten that one.  



> Are you saying this never happens, or just that it is hard to detect?




I am saying that the cases where it happens are not generally distinguishable from normal conversation that will be constructive and informative.

We would have to base moderation not upon what was said, but upon the mods' guesses as to the poster's motives.  Mods are human.  Given little information (like a single threadcrapping post), we'll often guess incorrectly.  Each incorrect guess will result in an angry poster and potentially good conversation tossed out the window.


----------



## Thornir Alekeg

Mistwell said:
			
		

> WHAT IS NORMALLY ACCEPTABLE IN CONVERSATIONS
> 
> I'm sure rules-oriented game players can come up with some plausible excuse as to why that is helpful, but in everyday real world conversation that sort of behavior isn't really acceptable.  If a group of people are talking about a sports team and a particular game, and some guy came along and interrupted the conversation just to tell everyone how much all sports sucks and that particular sport sucks, I doubt anyone would consider it appropriate behavior.  Nobody would be nodding along that such a contrarian view fostered more in-depth conversation on the merits of organized sports in general.  Instead, it would be seen for what it is - some jerk trying to tell everyone else that the things they like are not valid.




And in my opinion, the best way to deal with someone who is truly threadcrapping is exactly the same way most people handle this in conversation; you ask them to stop, go away or just ignore them (I've found ignoring the person tends to get the best result because the person is usually looking for attention).  You cannot force the person to leave (assuming this conversation is in a public space as these forums would be considered to be), you cannot ban them from the conversation, you have to try and control the situation as best you can through your own actions.


----------



## Plane Sailing

Mistwell said:
			
		

> Some people seem to go into threads that discuss a topic they actually don't like, just to tell others why they are wrong for liking that topic. If someone brings up a topic about how they like the Book of Nine Swords, and things you can do with that book, it is inevitable that someone who does not like that book will enter the thread and tell everyone how that book sucks. And I just do not see how that is helpful to anyone else in the thread.




I don't see how that is helpful either, and on occasions when I've noticed this kind of thing happening, I've asked people to stop it. 

I see it as part of the civility that we like to see. If someone wants to talk about how they think BoNS sucks, the place to do it is in a thread they create for the purpose, not a thread where where people are talking about how much they like it (or how best to accomplish something within the rules of that book).


----------



## kirinke

Around here, it's live and let live as long as you go by granny's rulz. If you don't like a post, skip it and respond to something else. If someone does seem to be disruptive, call the moderators and let em handle it. That's what they are there for.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty!

I think this forum is moderated enough as it is, the Mods going around and looking for posts to declare thread craps would really suck.


----------



## diaglo

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> I think this forum is moderated enough as it is, the Mods going around and looking for posts to declare thread craps would really suck.



and take too much splainin' via email afterwards


----------



## GQuail

diaglo said:
			
		

> to use your example then.
> 
> i have never, ever, threadcrapped. ever.
> 
> i only say things in threads in which i have an interest.
> 
> whether it be to relate my opinion on the way things were done previously, currently or in the future. i still have an interest in the topic of that thread. and thus why i post.
> 
> others will disagree. as i have often been told by posters in topics to stop threadcrapping.
> 
> but instead of argue with them. i place them on ignore.




This is an important point: one man's discussion is another's threadcrapping.  One person's "deleted for threacrapping" is another's "deleted for having a contrarian viewpoint to everyone else".  Where do you draw the line?

I've reported people in the past because I thought their contributions to threads were entirely unhelpful.  In particular, posters who have a single topic and will turn everything around really annoy me.  You know, like that friend you have who is really into a certain TV show or sports team, and any question somehow gets twisted back around until he can drop in his favourite episode or the poor choice of the current coach?    I consider these tenuous leaps to be threadcrapping, especially if they post more than once when there's no positive responce to them.  Still,, the mods can't be expected to appear in every occasion since often the line is blurry: because often it's connected enough that a proper moderator warning would seem silly.

The best you can do is report people and then put them on ignore if they regularly get in your way.


----------



## Joshua Randall

I'm sorry, diaglo, but if someone posts a thread about understanding AOOs in 3e, and you respond by saying how superior OD&D combat is/was -- that is not helpful. I'm not sure that it's full-on threadcrapping, but it's just annoying.


----------



## kirinke

Joshua Randall said:
			
		

> I'm sorry, diaglo, but if someone posts a thread about understanding AOOs in 3e, and you respond by saying how superior OD&D combat is/was -- that is not helpful. I'm not sure that it's full-on threadcrapping, but it's just annoying.




Just thwap Diaglo on the head and move on.  It's become something of a running gag around here. Like with Crothian's alts.


----------



## GQuail

kirinke said:
			
		

> Just thwap Diaglo on the head and move on.  It's become something of a running gag around here. Like with Crothian's alts.




You say "running gag", he says "worn-out gag".  Sometimes it's not as funnier to passers by as it is to you, you know?


----------



## kirinke

GQuail said:
			
		

> You say "running gag", he says "worn-out gag".  Sometimes it's not as funnier to passers by as it is to you, you know?





Welll. There is that handy, dandy, nifty, keeno, thingamagumi, whatamajigi option thing called um... I dunno if it's appropriate for this forum though....

Ignore? Yeh. That's it.

Ignore. 

One must follow one's own advice occasionally, yes?

Although, I think this entire thread is silly and approaching "but mommy said!"

Durned, I miss rollseye! 

Oi! Oh moderator ones, could ya'll introduce the banana man and Mr bow smilie to the forum?


----------

