Jump to content
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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



  • Recent Posts

    • Yeah, we do have reasons to worry the exact number of seats provided by Oxford. However, I wouldn't think Oxford's estimates in total seat numbers deviate more than 10% from the actual one -- partially credible evidence is that: you can check Oxford's estimate about seats in Ontario is very close to the number provided by OUAC (OUAC: 1500 ish for last few years; Oxford: 1430 assuming Lakehead 79). So unless actual seat numbers from non-Ontario law schools are far cry from Oxford's estimate (welcome any correction with evidence), I believe the actual acceptance odds this year are likely to exceed 40% by incorporating the above two updates into accounts: 1. missing seat number of UofA. 2. Oxford's estimate of lower number seats provided by Ontario law schools.  "Acceptance odds" defines as below: the chance you can be accepted by at least one law school.
    • did anyone hear back?  @User1994 said apparently the offers went out this afternoon around 4:30 --- is that true?
    • There are top 10% letters? Is it just for the graduating class? 
    • Yes, obviously I understand that the missing row changes the acceptance rate rather than the number of applications.  The number of applications piece of the equation seems credible, but the Oxford spreadsheet is too sloppy to trust the other side of the equation (i.e. the number of seats).
    • No matter what the number of seats provided by UofA are missing from the calculation above, it will change the acceptance odds to be greater than my original estimate (somewhere around 40%).  With respect to definition of "application", check the last page of the statistical chart and you can tell the applicants are defined under the context of "academic year", which refers to applicants for law school application instead of for writing LSAT (we all know LSAT itself doesn't involve the concept of academic years although it is used for applications under certain academic year). So I have no doubts in believing the 6745 applicants are accurate number of people applying Canada's law schools for this year as of now subject to following terms (as copied from the LSAT): • These data are displayed by Academic Year, which is the same as the law school enrollment year. For example, academic year 2018 or 2018-2019 would indicate the academic year beginning in the fall of 2018 and extending into spring 2019. • The Current Volume data tables include applicants for all academic terms. Current Volume reports published before 2018 summarized applicants for the fall term only and are not comparable to these new volume reports. • ABA data reflect applicants and applications for ABA-approved law schools. • Deferrals are not included in either the ABA or Canadian data. Deferrals are defined as "applicants admitted for a prior term who were granted a postponed enrollment to the current term." • Please note as defined in this report, an applicant is a candidate who submits one or more applications for any academic term. • The data for this report are updated every evening and will reflect current volumes as of that time. • This report is best viewed in Chrome, Edge, Internet Explorer, or Safari.
×
×
  • Create New...