What is the deal with multi-posting?

[Aine]

Is it a reportable offense?

I don't know if it was the norm in TT, but, in my opinion, it looks like more people seem to be posting multiple times in a row in the Spoilers section as a way of drowning out others by sheer quantity. 

[iago]

If that's genuinely what's going on, I am not okay with it, but I'm leaving day to day enforcement up to the Mod Squad right now.

[Aine]

I just sense from conversations here and in the chat room that there is a level of frustration with wanting to talk about the books and not being able to because your opinion is squashed or drowned. 

It could just be laziness, though. 

[the neurovore of Zur-En-Aargh]

I just sense from conversations here and in the chat room that there is a level of frustration with wanting to talk about the books and not being able to because your opinion is squashed or drowned. 
It could just be laziness, though. 

From my perspective, as someone who checks the forums irregularly through the day and not every day depending on how work is going, if there's a high-volume discussion going in which I am interested in participating, responding to every point of interest separately is a way both of keeping straight what I am saying to whom, and of showing respect for each poster individually. And if I'm away for a while it's easy for that to mean I have six different things to post in a row when I come back.  There's certainly no intent to swamp anyone else's opinion there.

[Blaze]

Sometimes I multi-post in a row in a topic, to complete a line of thought, or add stuff (as with Abielle worried about being fat in the character pic thread) but I do it as opposed to modifying and modifying my previous post to a screen busting size.  Or because I don't know if someone else is posting in the interim. (I feel rude modifying a post  someone else has already posted after it.) Never to crowd out another poster. 

What would be a the better protocol?

And would multiple posting prevent others for voicing an opinion?  What is the prescribed lag between posts? 

That would be an easy fix, to set the time between post as a glacial 30 seconds.  Torture to those who touch type and speed read. 

[iago]

Yeah, I'm sensitive to the notion of replying separately to each poster's response -- I'm certainly guilty of doing that on forums occasionally.  If someone's doing that with a *clear intent* of drowning out other people, that's a problem.  If they're not, though -- well, I think that can only be solved in the "social layer" of things, rather in the "policy layer".  Something as simple as "Hey, dude, you're not giving other folks a chance to get the word in. Could you give it a rest for a couple hours?"

[Blaze]

Sounds fair to me.   Thanks Iago!  *HUGS*

[Aine]

From my perspective, as someone who checks the forums irregularly through the day and not every day depending on how work is going, if there's a high-volume discussion going in which I am interested in participating, responding to every point of interest separately is a way both of keeping straight what I am saying to whom, and of showing respect for each poster individually. And if I'm away for a while it's easy for that to mean I have six different things to post in a row when I come back.  There's certainly no intent to swamp anyone else's opinion there.

Just my $.02, but it seems that having six or seven individual conversations with one person at the center seems contrary to the atmosphere of genial group discussion.  Though most of the Changes/Susan-centered Spoiler threads that I have seen have lost the atmosphere of "genial" by now at any rate. 

 

Sometimes I multi-post in a row in a topic, to complete a line of thought, or add stuff (as with Abielle worried about being fat in the character pic thread) but I do it as opposed to modifying and modifying my previous post to a screen busting size.  Or because I don't know if someone else is posting in the interim. (I feel rude modifying a post  someone else has already posted after it.) Never to crowd out another poster. 

What would be a the better protocol?

And would multiple posting prevent others for voicing an opinion?  What is the prescribed lag between posts? 

That would be an easy fix, to set the time between post as a glacial 30 seconds.  Torture to those who touch type and speed read. 

Sorry, Blaze, I wasn't talking about the general oops multi-post that we all do occasionally or the "it has been too long since my original post to go back and modify it 'cause no one will see it" type deal.  Those are completely understandable.  There are a few threads going around the Spoiler section with multiple people making 3,4, or more multiposts in a row on multiple pages.  To me, and the sense I get from talking to other people, gives an exclusionary or monopolistic impression.

[iago]

Just my $.02, but it seems that having six or seven individual conversations with one person at the center seems contrary to the atmosphere of genial group discussion.  Though most of the Changes/Susan-centered Spoiler threads that I have seen have lost the atmosphere of "genial" by now at any rate. 

I would invite you to start a separate thread in those circumstances, and ignore the one that's troubling you so. Or at least to try to step back and consider the idea that the individual in question isn't *intending* the effect that *you* perceive to be happening.

[the neurovore of Zur-En-Aargh]

  There are a few threads going around the Spoiler section with multiple people making 3,4, or more multiposts in a row on multiple pages.  To me, and the sense I get from talking to other people, gives an exclusionary or monopolistic impression.

That's certainly not my intent, but it seems to me that, while that might well be the effect in a real-time conversation, a conversation in a textual medium lets people go back and pay as much or as little attention as they like to whichever parts interest them, so I don't myself read volume of content as competitive at all; it doesn't feel to me like anyone posting large amounts is demanding anyone's attention because it's trivial to skip over if you only want to follow part of what's being discussed in a given thread.

[comprex]

  Those are completely understandable.  There are a few threads going around the Spoiler section with multiple people making 3,4, or more multiposts in a row on multiple pages.  To me, and the sense I get from talking to other people, gives an exclusionary or monopolistic impression.

How can it be 'exclusionary' if no one is actually _blocked_ from making any given post?

 

Sorry, Áine, but coming down on multiposting seems to me a way to guarantee mob rule where 3, 4, 5, "me too!" posters can gang up on one dissenter.

[DragonFire]

I've been guilty of multi posting lately, but it's not an attempt to drown out others.
Given the time difference between me and a lot of posters, I will re-enter a thread to find 4 or 5 pages of discussion has gone on.
I tend to reply to posts as I read them, rather than at the end, so I might post 3 or 5 responses, to different people, on different parts of the arguement.

Sometimes, you don't WANT to write a monster post out to 3 different people, or you want to clearly seperate or delineate your ideas, so you post it in seperate chunks.
If no one else posts in between, you get a multi post.

On my side, at least, it's not intended to be malicious.

[Aine]

How can it be 'exclusionary' if no one is actually _blocked_ from making any given post?

 

If you have a bunch of individual conversations going on, it seems to me, that it *excludes* everyone who is not already involved in that conversation.  I wouldn't just randomly start going up to people at a party and listen in and interrupt their conversation.  That's what I mean by "exclusionary," to people who might otherwise want to join in or discuss a topic.

Sorry, Áine, but coming down on multiposting seems to me a way to guarantee mob rule where 3, 4, 5, "me too!" posters can gang up on one dissenter.

Perhaps it is just the overall /aura/ of some of the Spoilers threads that makes it seem that way and it /is/ just my perception, but how is this any different that what already happens now? 
 

[DragonFire]

If you have a bunch of individual conversations going on, it seems to me, that it *excludes* everyone who is not already involved in that conversation.  I wouldn't just randomly start going up to people at a party and listen in and interrupt their conversation.  That's what I mean by "exclusionary," to people who might otherwise want to join in or discuss a topic.

IF you want to post, post.
By this logic...a 10 page thread is exclusionary, because it's interrupting to post on it then.

The beauty of a forum is that it's not 'interrupting' to post on it, regardless if 2 or more people are having a back and forth.

 

Perhaps it is just the overall /aura/ of some of the Spoilers threads that makes it seem that way and it /is/ just my perception, but how is this any different that what already happens now? 
 

How do you mean?

[comprex]

If you have a bunch of individual conversations going on, it seems to me, that it *excludes* everyone who is not already involved in that conversation.  I wouldn't just randomly start going up to people at a party and listen in and interrupt their conversation.

Forum posting really stretches that analogy to breaking, imo.    If we were to stand strictly by that model, you'd be hard put to join -any- thread unless you were one of the first 3-4 responders.

  That's what I mean by "exclusionary," to people who might otherwise want to join in or discuss a topic.

To me, reading up on what has been posted in the thread already, and having something to add, is sufficient to justify anyone posting anywhere, really.

If one person can meaningfully field and provide responses to 3, 4, 5, 17 dozen questions in assorted colours, I'm willing to support their wish to do so.

I'm gonna talk to them.  Until they run out of fun, amusing, interesting, clever things to post that is.