Damo - Board Question

cawacko

cawacko

Well-known member
I'm not familiar with how internet boards like this run so please forgive me if this is an obvious or stupid question. Does a board like this get a higher 'ranking' or recognition of some sort based on the number of posts it receives?

For example the board troll is on here almost 24/7. There may be two or three hour windows when he doesn't post but he posts in almost every thread if not all of them. If the goal of a board is a higher post count it seems a troll like this could be good for the board as long as he doesn't run off the regulars.

Of course this board could also just be a labor of love for you as something you enjoy and everything else is irrelvenet. I'm just out of touch on how the model of these things work.
 
Nah, Alexa internet ranking is based on the amount of visitors and how long they stay, it factors in "bounce" (people who come, look once, then go elsewhere), page views, etc. (****!!-0) wouldn't effect the ranking, one dude isn't enough. However, me banning him for being annoying would be clearly against the libertarian ideals of the site.

And the board really is just that... People need to have a place where they can come and state their opinions. I want even the annoying to be able to do that.
 
what about the rule against spamming the board with the same posts etc...? he spams the board with the same anti gun crap everyday.
 
christiefan915 said:
Adding to one thread doesn't translate to spamming the board.
Click to expand...

lol.......I just hit the "what's new" button.....eight of the sixteen threads were started by him, three of those had no responses......if you hit the "Today's Posts" button, it's 20 out of 50.......
 
Last edited:
Damocles said:
However, me banning him for being annoying would be clearly against the libertarian ideals of the site.
Click to expand...

so what you're saying is that the board is a microcosm of the evidence that libertarianism would result in a fucked up country?........sort of a "we have to be miserable, because that's what happiness is all about" type of thing?......
 
There is one very, very important thing to remember about the troll.......and only one way to get rid of the asshole.......

smilies-4993.png
......
smilies-4993.png
.......
smilies-4993.png
smilies-4993.png
......
smilies-4993.png
........
smilies-4993.png
 
While I can see the fine line between keeping a healthy dialogue and allowing as complete freedom of expression available, I have to take this opportunity to say that I would post here more often, if it were not for (\(\(\/)/)/)‎. It has come to the point, even though I have ended up blocking the useless piece of bovine flesh, if I see (\(\(\/)/)/)‎ as the originator, or even involved in a thread, I will pass it by because despite blocking, I end up wading through people responding to - and all too often quoting the submoronic drivel it spouts, and I have decided it's not worth it. Unfortunately that leaves very little left for me to enjoy reading, and/or chiming in on. This, in turn, leaves me many days where I do no more than check a few thread titles before leaving. While I laud your adherence to the principles of freedom, is this a case where the end result of significantly reducing the enjoyment of this site by others worth sticking that hard to the principle of near-absolute freedom of expression?
 
I like what Good Luck is saying and I think he brings up a good point. The obvious answer if you don't like a troll is put him on IA or leave the board and find a new one. However at what point, as GL stated, if any, should freedom trump his ability to completely ruin the board? I agree with Bravo that the ultimate answer is to put him on IA and ignore him however enough people engage him in his little games that many threads get sidetracked and ultimately ruined.

Whether someone agrees or disagrees with me I think new blood on the board is always great. I do not like a troll/spammer who's sole intent is ruining the board and not participating in it.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
so what you're saying is that the board is a microcosm of the evidence that libertarianism would result in a fucked up country?........sort of a "we have to be miserable, because that's what happiness is all about" type of thing?......
Click to expand...

The logical and inevitable outcome of libertarianism is anarchy-the reason being people are by and large selfish and self centered.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
lol.......I just hit the "what's new" button.....eight of the sixteen threads were started by him, three of those had no responses......if you hit the "Today's Posts" button, it's 20 out of 50.......
Click to expand...

It should not be a question of quantity but of quality.... pause for hoots of laughter.... I don't care if one poster wants to post 100 times about guns or gremlins providing that somewhere within it all there is the opportunity for a response.
There are few here that really annoy me, far fewer I suspect than the reverse !, but I think posters who only come here to make personal comments about other posters are really wasting their time and the time of all of us. Of course we are all guilty to a degree and I hope that I have managed to annoy a fair few paople but it is usually as part of a political or newsworthy point.
I think there are only two people who, were the site mine, I might be tempted to ban, but they are seldom present nowadays.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
so what you're saying is that the board is a microcosm of the evidence that libertarianism would result in a fucked up country?........sort of a "we have to be miserable, because that's what happiness is all about" type of thing?......
Click to expand...
You have no one to blame but yourself for feeding him or even talking about him. If we'd all ignore him and not mention him he'd eventually shut the fuck up. But noneof you are capable of understanding that or having the patence beyond a day.
 
Sterling Archer said:
You have no one to blame but yourself for feeding him or even talking about him. If we'd all ignore him and not mention him he'd eventually shut the fuck up. But noneof you are capable of understanding that or having the patence beyond a day.
Click to expand...

I'm using ignore function on this site. It's helping me participate more often. ;)
 
Sterling Archer said:
You have no one to blame but yourself for feeding him or even talking about him. If we'd all ignore him and not mention him he'd eventually shut the fuck up. But noneof you are capable of understanding that or having the patence beyond a day.
Click to expand...

I have him on ignore.......I am responding to other posters comments, not his.....ignoring the fact that he damages this board regardless of being on ignore, shows it is you that lacks understanding.......how do you think new people considering joining view his posts........when they are 50% of the board content do you think potential new members ever manage to find the quality Low is referring to, or do they just move on to another board.......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
so what you're saying is that the board is a microcosm of the evidence that libertarianism would result in a fucked up country?........sort of a "we have to be miserable, because that's what happiness is all about" type of thing?......
Click to expand...

Exactly! That was incorporated into the theme behind the Star trek episode, "I, Mudd". Although a planet of androids were prepared to care for mankind and look after their every need Scotty explained man needs to struggle and toil and is only happy when he has challenges and obstacles to overcome.

That's why it's not unusual to see folks having difficulty with their recent retirement. The stress and drudgery and all the things involved with their job that they claim made them miserable are the very things that made them happy. So, quite often the case is "we have to be miserable, because that's what happiness is all about". :)
 
The only troll I see on this board is Legion Troll who is on my ignore list.

As for (\(\(\/)/)/)‎ I find his posts either right on target or playing devil's advocate. There's nothing wrong with thinking outside the box and there's nothing wrong with questioning another's opinion without offering ones own. In fact, that's probably preferable, in many cases.

The goal is not necessarily to start an argument but have the individual examine his/her point of view. That's never been more apparent than in this video
(specifically between 0.32 - 0.52)

Whether it's people such as Brooksley Born when she tried to argue her side regarding Greenspan and the looming financial crisis or Liberals/Democrats here trying to argue against the Conservatives/Republicans unless we get to the philosophical beliefs that drive the respective arguments it's almost impossible to make headway.

I see (\(\(\/)/)/)‎ posing questions to the Conservatives/Republicans as an attempt to get them to examine their philosophical beliefs. For example, if one does not believe in helping people it's pointless to ask them why they won't help those who have no medical coverage or why they are against taxing the wealthy to help the poor or any other plan in which the goal is to help.

That's definitely not troll behavior. It's a rational approach to many of the discussions currently going on.
 
Good Luck said:
While I can see the fine line between keeping a healthy dialogue and allowing as complete freedom of expression available, I have to take this opportunity to say that I would post here more often, if it were not for (\(\(\/)/)/)‎. It has come to the point, even though I have ended up blocking the useless piece of bovine flesh, if I see (\(\(\/)/)/)‎ as the originator, or even involved in a thread, I will pass it by because despite blocking, I end up wading through people responding to - and all too often quoting the submoronic drivel it spouts, and I have decided it's not worth it. Unfortunately that leaves very little left for me to enjoy reading, and/or chiming in on. This, in turn, leaves me many days where I do no more than check a few thread titles before leaving. While I laud your adherence to the principles of freedom, is this a case where the end result of significantly reducing the enjoyment of this site by others worth sticking that hard to the principle of near-absolute freedom of expression?
Click to expand...
This is why I consider myself a conservative and not a libertarian. There will always be people who want to destroy something that they can't be a normal participant in. This is the same thing as a vandal that "keys" a nice car, a rapist that degrades an attractive woman, or activists that want to destroy the traditional definition of marriage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top