What is the deal with multi-posting?

[laura118b]

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.

But if you don't want to stand in the corner by yourself all night that's what you have to do.  Unless someone starts a thread brand new, you kinda have to just jump right in there if you want to be part of the discussion.

[DragonFire]

But if you don't want to stand in the corner by yourself all night that's what you have to do.  Unless someone starts a thread brand new, you kinda have to just jump right in there if you want to be part of the discussion.

And that does mean that people aren't intending to be exclusionary...you simply aren't comfortable posting.

IN that sense, how would reporting them help??

[laura118b]

And that does mean that people aren't intending to be exclusionary...you simply aren't comfortable posting.

IN that sense, how would reporting them help??

Don't ask me, I was agreeing that it's not meant to lock people out, it just happens.

[DragonFire]

Don't ask me, I was agreeing that it's not meant to lock people out, it just happens.

I was just asking generally, since we seemed to have a bit of a discussion going.

[BookLover♥]

In terms of multi-posting in general, where I've seen it become an issue is when a thread is really active.  You post one thought, and I start to respond, only to find when I hit "post" that you've posted another thought, which I now want to respond to as well.  It can inhibit 'conversation' that way... I hold off on responding until I think you've completed your thoughts.

Perhaps is not intentional, and perhaps some of us are just not as assertive in our approach.  Either way, it seems reasonable not to put the onus solely on those that feel excluded when multiposting is occurring... if you're in a situation where you're about to multi-post, consider whether it's a time when you can simply modify the existing post.

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.

The issue I've seen with this, is that if you post while reading instead of waiting until you catch up, you don't know what else has been said about a particular subject or question.  You may end up multi-posting even when you're addressing a single topic or poster.

[laura118b]

I was just asking generally, since we seemed to have a bit of a discussion going.

Not a clue, calling in the mods for a chattebox has never even crossed my mind.

[DragonFire]

In terms of multi-posting in general, where I've seen it become an issue is when a thread is really active.  You post one thought, and I start to respond, only to find when I hit "post" that you've posted another thought, which I now want to respond to as well.  It can inhibit 'conversation' that way... I hold off on responding until I think you've completed your thoughts.

Perhaps is not intentional, and perhaps some of us are just not as assertive in our approach.  Either way, it seems reasonable not to put the onus solely on those that feel excluded when multiposting is occurring... if you're in a situation where you're about to multi-post, consider whether it's a time when you can simply modify the existing post.

The only time I think modifying a post is feasible is if no one has yet responded to it....there is no notification taht you've modified a post, so people are likely to miss your mods.

That, and sometimes modifying a post gets an accusation of 'rewriting what you said', which is never fun.

The issue I've seen with this, is that if you post while reading instead of waiting until you catch up, you don't know what else has been said about a particular subject or question.  You may end up multi-posting even when you're addressing a single topic or poster.

Sometimes, yes, that happens.
And like I said above, when I do it, it's to make a clear deliniation of arguments.
For instance, I might respond to Neurovore 3 times, but it's 3 posts on three different points, and done that way so each argument is distinct, rather than looking like it's one contiguous blob.

Also, it lets the person being addressed (or anyone wanting to join in) address only that point, without having to trim a massive post down.

[DragonFire]

Not a clue, calling in the mods for a chattebox has never even crossed my mind.

WEll, it what confused me....at the beginning of the thread, the question was, 'is it a reportable offence', but later, the thread starter said that they felt uncomfortable joining in when the discussion was between 3 or 4 people, who were multiposting.

That distinction, to me, makes it a personal issue, rather than one with multi-posting.
(And I just did a multi-post)

[BookLover♥]

Not a clue, calling in the mods for a chattebox has never even crossed my mind.

From what I can tell, it's not a concern about someone being a chatterbox; it's about people using what could be considered 'bullying' techniques in order to steer a discussion the way they want to see it go.

I'm not saying that people are doing it deliberately, I'm just saying that it can be interpreted that way.

The only time I think modifying a post is feasible is if no one has yet responded to it....there is no notification taht you've modified a post, so people are likely to miss your mods.

That, and sometimes modifying a post gets an accusation of 'rewriting what you said', which is never fun.
Sometimes, yes, that happens.


And like I said above, when I do it, it's to make a clear deliniation of arguments.
For instance, I might respond to Neurovore 3 times, but it's 3 posts on three different points, and done that way so each argument is distinct, rather than looking like it's one contiguous blob.

Also, it lets the person being addressed (or anyone wanting to join in) address only that point, without having to trim a massive post down.

All fair points.  I'm just saying that it's reasonable to ask that people stop and consider what they're doing - not just their intent, but how it may be perceived.  Again, I'm not trying to say that people should 'never' multi-post or mega-post... just consider the state of the discussion and how those actions may (unintentionally, perhaps) fuel emotions.

WEll, it what confused me....at the beginning of the thread, the question was, 'is it a reportable offence', but later, the thread starter said that they felt uncomfortable joining in when the discussion was between 3 or 4 people, who were multiposting.

That distinction, to me, makes it a personal issue, rather than one with multi-posting.
(And I just did a multi-post)

I don't think the points are mutually exclusive...

[DragonFire]

From what I can tell, it's not a concern about someone being a chatterbox; it's about people using what could be considered 'bullying' techniques in order to steer a discussion the way they want to see it go.

I'm not saying that people are doing it deliberately, I'm just saying that it can be interpreted that way.

I guess, for me, I don't want someone to report me, because they are feeling like they can't join the discussion.
That's not(or shouldn't be, in my opinion) on me...it's on them.

I think there is a clear difference between someone consistently posting on a topic, and someone attempting to lock down a discussion on here.
I've seen the latter....and reported it, not for the multi posting, but for the bullying behaviour.

All fair points.  I'm just saying that it's reasonable to ask that people stop and consider what they're doing - not just their intent, but how it may be perceived.  Again, I'm not trying to say that people should 'never' multi-post or mega-post... just consider the state of the discussion and how those actions may (unintentionally, perhaps) fuel emotions.

We can't look at things from everyone perspective, however.
I've seen, during my time on here, comments I meant innocently, and even things where I said, straight out "This is my opinion" or "Well, in my view" be mis- or re-interpreted negatively.

I think we need to be careful not to put too much onus on the poster for the readers interpretation...otherwise we'll never post anything more interesting than 'Nice day today'.

I don't think the points are mutually exclusive...

How so?

[BookLover♥]

I guess, for me, I don't want someone to report me, because they are feeling like they can't join the discussion.
That's not(or shouldn't be, in my opinion) on me...it's on them.

I think there is a clear difference between someone consistently posting on a topic, and someone attempting to lock down a discussion on here.
I've seen the latter....and reported it, not for the multi posting, but for the bullying behaviour.

So the theory would be that in and of itself, multi-posting isn't an issue.  But if the multi-posting (or any other action) seems to be locking down a discussion or otherwise bullying, it should be reported. 

We can't look at things from everyone perspective, however.
I've seen, during my time on here, comments I meant innocently, and even things where I said, straight out "This is my opinion" or "Well, in my view" be mis- or re-interpreted negatively.

I think we need to be careful not to put too much onus on the poster for the readers interpretation...otherwise we'll never post anything more interesting than 'Nice day today'.

I'm not saying all the onus should be on the poster.  But it seemed like the discussion was tending toward all the onus being on the reader.  I believe there is a balance between the two. 

How so?

If the individual is feeling uncomfortable because of something that is bullying behavior, then it's not just a personal issue.

[Aine]

Really?  You don't see the difference in posting in a thread that is directed towards the group in order to continue or start a discussion, and responding to a post which is directed /specifically to an individual/ that is not you?  Maybe it is my issue, but it seems rude to me and guess what?  That's my opinion.  

And saying 'gee, if you don't like it, just start your own thread or go stand in a corner, ignore my posts and don't take part' (paraphrasing here, obviously) kinda illustrates my point on how it is not really conductive to genial conversation and could seem exclusionary.  

iago made his ruling that it won't be moderated, so please, feel free to continue to do so and those of us who aren't comfortable with it can continue to not post in Spoilers the same way we didn't post in TT.  

[Chiroptera]

Could it help to make a distinction between multi-posting when replying to just one post, and multi-posting in response to multiple posts?  I know some people like to use multiple posts to reply to multiple posters because they feel it's more polite.  I don't have a problem with that happening, but I'd be willing to do away with multiple posts that are responding to one post from one person.

[DragonFire]

So the theory would be that in and of itself, multi-posting isn't an issue.  But if the multi-posting (or any other action) seems to be locking down a discussion or otherwise bullying, it should be reported. 

That's the way I see it.

I'm not saying all the onus should be on the poster.  But it seemed like the discussion was tending toward all the onus being on the reader.  I believe there is a balance between the two. 

Yeah...I agree that the poster has some duty here...it's the level of it, I think we disagree on.
If post three times, in succession, in one thread, and that makes someone else feel excluded...how am I to know?
More to the point, what am I supposed to do?
Not post my thoughts into the discussion because someone else will then not want to post theirs?
Why am I responsible for them?

Now, if I post 3 times, in response to the same post...then I do think there is a bullying angle that needs to be investigated.

If the individual is feeling uncomfortable because of something that is bullying behavior, then it's not just a personal issue.

The question of whether it is bullying or not is completely subjective, however.
And Aine's issue was that she felt rude 'interrupting',....not that she felt bullied out.
That's why I said it seems like a personal issue to me.

[comprex]

Really?  You don't see the difference in posting in a thread that is directed towards the group in order to continue or start a discussion, and responding to a post which is directed /specifically to an individual/ that is not you?  

I don't see the difference.    You are welcome to join any 2-way thread I'm having with anyone else.   If I wanted an exclusive, I'd use PM or email.

And saying 'gee, if you don't like it, just start your own thread or go stand in a corner, ignore my posts and don't take part' (paraphrasing here, obviously) kinda illustrates my point on how it is not really conductive to genial conversation and could seem exclusionary.  

I am having trouble understanding your vision of genial conversation.  

If I have an idea that fits in a thread -now-, how long should I leave off?