Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Eeee

The same 5 people talking in threads

Recommended Posts

Is like kudzu. It would be 'useful' if there was like a shadowban where if you reply more than say three times to a thread then your posts can only be seen by people who have also replied >3 times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or this forum just needs a chatroom for people to have their pissing contests.

  • Like 3
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't really see anything wrong with people commenting repeatedly on the same thread... what good would be served by limiting the number of replies?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, I just see it interfering with people's ability to develop their thoughts through dialogue...

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's an "ignore user" feature - does that help? I've never used it, because I'm a very fast reader, and even someone I despise may nonetheless say something interesting or useful (just as someone I like may make bad posts...) - I think there's far too much ignoring of those one disagrees with in today's world, making compromise difficult if not impossible (politically or otherwise).

Of course, it's possible that those to whom this advice is directed have already enabled this feature with respect to me or others... :rolleyes:

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Demander said:

Or add things that they only think of after already posting a few times.

hilarious you posted an additional two times, that had to be on purpose, lol! noice!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, epeeist said:

There's an "ignore user" feature - does that help? I've never used it, because I'm a very fast reader, and even someone I despise may nonetheless say something interesting or useful (just as someone I like may make bad posts...) - I think there's far too much ignoring of those one disagrees with in today's world, making compromise difficult if not impossible (politically or otherwise).

Of course, it's possible that those to whom this advice is directed have already enabled this feature with respect to me or others... :rolleyes:

I use the ignore feature. I use it sparingly, and not just because someone disagrees with me. It's more when someone posts dozens of times over the span of a few days and I'd like to read the site without watching the same dead horse being unceremoniously beaten across the all activity page. I agree that it's better to read dissenting views. But when they've repeatedly made their views known on a topic, it's nice to have a break from those views without leaving the site altogether. Also, you typically see the person's views quoted in other posters' responses. And I usually end up reading their posts anyway. But when someone goes on an opinion rampage, I like having the freedom to read or not.

Edited by realpseudonym
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, epeeist said:

There's an "ignore user" feature - does that help? I've never used it, because I'm a very fast reader, and even someone I despise may nonetheless say something interesting or useful (just as someone I like may make bad posts...) - I think there's far too much ignoring of those one disagrees with in today's world, making compromise difficult if not impossible (politically or otherwise).

Of course, it's possible that those to whom this advice is directed have already enabled this feature with respect to me or others... :rolleyes:

Didn't know this feature exist. I should definitely use it. I am all up for debate if it is productive and constructive, I actually prefer to know other views than my own.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/22/2018 at 4:09 PM, epeeist said:

- I think there's far too much ignoring of those one disagrees with in today's world, making compromise difficult if not impossible (politically or otherwise).

 

It's not about disagreement. The current vogue in megaposting appears to be writing tangential, autobiographical screeds that have really nothing to do with providing accurate, helpful advice to the OP and everything to do with self-aggrandizement and tweaking of other megaposters.

Edited by Eeee
  • Like 8
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/22/2018 at 11:42 AM, Jaggers said:

This is why Omph left.

Well, that and the continued sexism, homophobia and various "OMG HOW DARE YOU SUGGEST THAT I AM THAT" responses when she tried to rephrase the topic for the poster to understand why something may not have been too kosher to say.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It'd be useful if posters in this thread would come out and say specifically who they're talking about.

Edited by chaboywb
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, chaboywb said:

It'd be useful if posters in this thread would come out and say specifically who they're talking about.

Me, prov, MB, etc. It’s interestingly timed, since this may be the point in time where we’ve gone at each other the least since I joined. @providence and I in particular have gotten a lot better at not talking past each other and understanding the others points (my idiocy last night excluded).

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Eeee said:

It's not about disagreement. The current vogue in megaposting appears to be writing tangential, autobiographical screeds that have really nothing to do with providing accurate, helpful advice to the OP and everything to do with self-aggrandizement and tweaking of other megaposters.

Well, my post in this thread was the first one with specific, accurate, helpful advice using already-existing (not suggested) features of the board... :uriel:

Oops, was that self-aggrandizing and tweaking other posters? :twisted:

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, BlockedQuebecois said:

Me, prov, MB, etc. It’s interestingly timed, since this may be the point in time where we’ve gone at each other the least since I joined. @providence and I in particular have gotten a lot better at not talking past each other and understanding the others points (my idiocy last night excluded).

Your multi-post argument over "it's funny" was basically a greatest hits/reunion tour :). But it's good to get the band back together sometimes.

I'm not sure that it's just the same five people. For however long I've been reading the forum (years? I think years. I was a lurker before I started posting), there have been people who have stopped by and argued like their lives depended on it for a few threads. Most recently, it was the guy who thought Osgoode was overrun by SJWs and that the hiring system was fundamentally unfair. But I guess those posters usually flame out and leave, or contribute in a more sustainable way.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Recent Posts

    • I know there are some other threads about this topic but I'm wondering if this holds true for specifically this scenario and there are quite a few vague or mixed answers on the topic, I'm wonder if phrasing it differently would elicit a different answer. Do BigLaw firms in Toronto/Vancouver hire people with really bad undergrad marks(CGPA) that end up doing very well in Law(1L specifically). This is a hypothetical situation. Has anyone had this experience where they were a summer student or articled in a big law firm and did well in law school but poorly in undergrad?(I suspect these are unicorns but I'm still curious)  One of the reasons I'm asking is because certain law schools attract more students who have a really great undergrad transcript and those schools have better representation in big law firms in Ontario(source: Ultravire). I'm wondering if the students advantage is also having really high undergrad marks which influence hiring. 
    • I read this question and I was really hoping someone would have wise words in response. Have you made any discoveries on how to apply for associate jobs? @mrn2008
    • Thinking of grabbing them. Paired with a suit at a somewhat stuffy national firm. 
    • 1L at UBC here. I was also deciding between UVic and UBC earlier this year. I ended up choosing UBC because I wanted to work in Vancouver and the cost factor (I was able to live at home and save $$$). I was also worried about the competitiveness at UBC but so far it hasn't been an issue. People are super friendly and collaborative, much more so than in undergrad. It was really easy to make friends and form study groups despite the fact that I'm not that outgoing. There is  competitiveness in the sense that everyone is trying their best and striving to be above average but I doubt that that's uniquely a UBC thing. The small group you're placed in also makes a difference. I've heard some posters say their small group is very corporate focused but I found mine to be the opposite - full of social justice and public interest folks. The school is also large enough that you will probably find people with similar interests as you.  If you are interested in criminal law, the Indigenous Community Legal Clinic and the Innocence Project are also great experiential learning opportunities. I'm not sure how competitive these are but an upper year told me that if you're really interested in clinic placements, you should be able to get into one but it may not be your top choice. You could also volunteer at LSLAP within the first month of law school. I didn't do this, but I know people who were going to court in their third month of law school.
    • Pure finding of fact.  Considered but not pursued.

×
×
  • Create New...