What is the deal with multi-posting?

[ashton]

The boards are by definition public discussion fora.

If you want to have private, user-to-user conversations, use private messaging.

Otherwise, anything that you write is available for anyone on the boards to read, and to respond to.

[comprex]

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

Any mods available for changing my chattebox? 

[laura118b]

Any mods available for changing my chattebox? 

That should have been chatterbox.  Stupid wireless keyboard anyway.

[laura118b]

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. 

I was going to let this go, but it's bugged me since I read it.  That is not paraphrasing what I said at all, that's taking what I said and flipping it 180⁰.  My whole point was if you don't want to stand in the corner at a party you have to jump into other peoples discussions.  And unless you are starting a thread you are going to have to jump in somewhere.  Never did I mean, or want it to sound like I was saying, that you should stand in the corner or start a new thread if you don't like it. 

[DragonFire]

I was going to let this go, but it's bugged me since I read it.  That is not paraphrasing what I said at all, that's taking what I said and flipping it 180⁰.  My whole point was if you don't want to stand in the corner at a party you have to jump into other peoples discussions.  And unless you are starting a thread you are going to have to jump in somewhere.  Never did I mean, or want it to sound like I was saying, that you should stand in the corner or start a new thread if you don't like it. 

I was, as well...but I'm curious.

If the reader want's to be part of the conversation, surely the onus is on them to join it...not on everyone else to stop talking until they (the reader) starts.
LIkewise, should we all stop posting on a topic, to let everyone else start?

[the neurovore of Zur-En-Aargh]

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?

The idea that any post I make in response to anyone on the forum could be construed as an exclusionary conversation with that person rather than part of an ongoing community discussion would never have occurred to me, because it's kind of axiomatically, intuitively obvious to me, that if it was meant to be private, it would be a PM, and if it is in public on the forum, that is because it is meant to be part of the ongoing discussion and to explicitly welcome anyone to comment.  Public forum posts reading as "specifically directed to an individual" is not a concept that makes any sense to me, no matter how I turn it round in my head.

I'm not for an instant doubting you feel otherwise, Aine, nor that everyone concerned is entirely sincere and in good faith in where they are coming from.  And it would not surprise me if this is coming from sincere differences in what each of our home cultures and contexts have taught us to consider polite.  Myself, I was brought up to regard not engaging with an argument to the fullest extent possible as not taking it seriously and therefore as rude to the other party; again, I do not doubt other people see this differently, I am just asking that the sincerity of that position be accepted.

I don't have a solution to suggest to this issue; I don't see any means of addressing the specific issue of multiposting in ways that feels like both being compatible with what I understand of Aine's expressed preferences and feeling comfortable myself that I can engage fully with an animated and interesting discussion to whatever degree the discussion itself warrants.

[the neurovore of Zur-En-Aargh]

If the reader want's to be part of the conversation, surely the onus is on them to join it...not on everyone else to stop talking until they (the reader) starts.
LIkewise, should we all stop posting on a topic, to let everyone else start?

I can't see any way to make that work in an asynchronous medium.

Posting is not talking.  Talking is linear.  Posting can back up for half an hour or a day or a week if something else is happening.  Posting is not urgent or importunate.  Posting can be interrupted if you get an urgent phonecall without doing any harm or even being visible to the other parties.

It seems to me, therefore, that the standards of civility for posting do not necessarily work the same way as the standards of civility for talking in person.  (You might be amazed how much of a wallflower I am in person.)

[Landing]

I don’t see a problem with having 3 or 4 multiple posts, its when it becomes 10 to 12 that I think there might be a problem. It may or may not be intentional but it is a form of dominating a thread. It has the effect of making the conversation revolve around the super posters because those posters are critiquing every post that every poster makes. People may not be doing things like that to be bullies but it has the same effect.

At least that is what seems to be going on to me.

[Fyrchick]

I think it is important here to step back and try to listen to what Aine is saying. She is voicing an opinion about how conversations have been evolving lately and I tend to agree.

It seems that the conversational style of some members tends to be interpreted as confrontational or unwelcoming in the pursuit of truth  (about a work of fiction.....) when you can't get a word in edgewise. In the absence of gesture, nuance of voice or physical contact the only way we have to communicate is words. You can lose the "open" atmosphere in an attempt to be an organized and efficient poster.

Regardless of the intention or procedure of multiple posts, when I click on a thread and find almost 2 pages straight of replies to posts 5 pages back, without an interrupting NEW reply, it is rather annoying. It can be seen as someone talking without a breath or not giving someone an opportunity to jump in... The original conversation is lost in the minutiae. It is not welcoming. Starting a new thread seems pointless when it devolves into the same type of debate.

Also, as evidenced in this thread, when someone attempts to address an issue in a global way it is dismissed as too unspecific or even whiny, but if a certain person(s) are identified then it is perceived as an attack. There doesn't seem to be a way to win.

Is anyone saying that members need to change the way they post to pacify a single member? No. Are members allowed to say "Hey, can you find another way to say that? It SEEMS to be exclusionary/confrontational/mean when you communicate that way" ? Yes.  

People will say things here they NEVER would in person, either because they are shy or it is rude or inappropriate or simply confrontational. Without the chance to interpret facial expression and voice, the best we can do is read the words.

Dismissing someone's observation or concern is an excellent illustration of the problem... today and the last few months. I used to enjoy reading threads even if I didn't participate. Not any more.... I get enough ego-stroking hormone-driven "debate" in real life, and anyone who says that isn't what is going on is part of the problem or delusional. The need to kill TT should be a clue. Shockingly, the problem didn't go away, it simply went to Somewhere Else.

This is (was) supposed to be fun.
Its fiction.
Books.
Entertainment.
Fun.

Perhaps there should be a section for people who want to be curt and exclusionary and SPECIAL.... like the Harry Potter or Twilight forums... or Fox news or MSNBC or the Today show. Just don't do it here.
Please.

[laura118b]

Is anyone saying that members need to change the way they post to pacify a single member? No. Are members allowed to say "Hey, can you find another way to say that? It SEEMS to be exclusionary/confrontational/mean when you communicate that way" ? Yes.

 
And yet the first post wasn't about trying to fix the problem, it was asking if it was reportable.  Instead of asking someone to slow down, or just mentioning nicely that it's bothersome, the mods are brought in.  It comes across as harsh and unreasonable to me, asking about reporting instead of just mentioning to the person(s) that it's a growing problem.  How can a person know they are bothering people if they're not told?

[Landing]

How do you know that Aine didn't send pms to people asking them to stop and pointing out what she saw as a problem and she didn't just get ignored? calling someone "harsh and unreasonable" comes across to me like you are trying to attack someone that is pointing out a problem and wants to have the mods input. Now you know that some people on the forum see it as a problem, you can either think about why they see it as a problem or continue to attack the whistle blower.

[Fyrchick]

 
And yet the first post wasn't about trying to fix the problem, it was asking if it was reportable.  Instead of asking someone to slow down, or just mentioning nicely that it's bothersome, the mods are brought in.  It comes across as harsh and unreasonable to me, asking about reporting instead of just mentioning to the person(s) that it's a growing problem.  How can a person know they are bothering people if they're not told?

Ah, but they have been, now. And look at the response. The person asking is being pointed at as the problem.
Pointing out the elephant in the room doesn't mean you put it there. When someone feels the need to start a thread to bring up an issue rather than just bring it up in the thread the reason WHY should be considered. 
The point is that 'just mentioning it' has become an exercise in futility and frustration.

Also, the people that are the greatest offenders are most often the ones that are the last to realize it. The single-minded Pursuit of Unassailable Logic and Rightness means that "I am not the problem. They are obviously not understanding what I am trying to say."

The boards are by definition public discussion fora.

If you want to have private, user-to-user conversations, use private messaging.

Otherwise, anything that you write is available for anyone on the boards to read, and to respond to.

This thread fits that, doesn't it?


The reason they don't bring it up in the thread is because the people who are the problem constantly proclaim their own martyrdom as victims of literary persecution OR they proceed to pick apart the person or the request to the point that saying ANYTHING has become an act only slightly more fun than pissing into the wind, naked... covered in paper cuts.

In other words... Yeah, what Landing said! 

[DragonFire]

Wow, this got vicious quickly.

I think I'm out of this discussion.

[Themostocles]

Wow, this got vicious quickly.

I think I'm out of this discussion.

How did it get vicious?  There is no name calling or yelling.  Just people discussing problems that face the forum, and expressing their opinions in a civilized manner.  I hope we didn't offend you DF 

[Heretic]

Gotta say I haven't noticed a change in the (non-TT) threads overall.  Fast-paced conversations, with lots of one-on-one exchanges, and multi-posting, have always been there.  This is the first I've heard that anybody had a problem with such conversations, so it appears to me to be a tolerance issue, not an actual change in the tone of the book threads.  

I agree with respondents who have pointed out that multi-posters - who have been doing so here for years - have no way of knowing anybody has a problem with their style of discussion unless somebody brings it up with them.  Whether such direct communication on this subject would be an excercise in futility and frustration can't be confirmed until the attempt is made.

Alternatively, hitting the "Report to Moderator" button on one of those multi-posts would have brought the matter (privately....) to the attention of a mod, who could (at his/her discretion, of course) have taken on that direct communication as deemed appropriate.