All about threadcraps (please read)

[Blade]

Are these real examples, or just made up examples?

I did a quick search, but I'm a little short on time and didn't really find any threads titled with your first two examples. So the following opinions are going to be based purely on what you posted in this thread.

As stated on the first page, a thread crap is something that ridicules an aspect of the thread topic or a post in it, and is usually not on topic either. Your first example is more of a thread hijack, and lacking any kind of excessively negative tone, would never be considered a thread crap. Your second example concerns a thread asking for opinions on a DVD, so that too wouldn't be a thread crap.

Your third example would be a borderline thread crap if the thread was about the release date or specs. But it's specifically asking for opinions of the movie, so negative comments are fair game. So, again, not a thread crap.

What we're most concerned with is just what you said..."Most people will agree that the "who cares that dvd/movie blows anyway" comments adds nothing to a thread that wasn't seeking opinions in the first place and the poster should be dealt with in a straight forward manner (much like a personal attack)." In addition, more than just not adding to a thread, they tend to take them off topic and start fights. That's our main concern here.

I think you believe we're being much more strict with this than we actually are. If you could provide links to these examples, I could probably give better responses. Thread crapping is all about context, so without being able to see the actual posts it's hard to give you a definite answer.

[ctyankee]

Originally posted by Blade
Are these real examples, or just made up examples?

Made up examples so as not to hurt anyone's feelings much like I assumed the Glitter reference was ... sorry that you spent time on a search ...

I did a quick search, but I'm a little short on time and didn't really find any threads titled with your first two examples. So the following opinions are going to be based purely on what you posted in this thread.

As stated on the first page, a thread crap is something that ridicules an aspect of the thread topic or a post in it, and is usually not on topic either. Your first example is more of a thread hijack, and lacking any kind of excessively negative tone, would never be considered a thread crap.

We seem to be on the same page - it is Static Cling's comment that made me wonder ... I quote:

"If, however, someone posted a thread entitled I loved Glitter - please recommend movies like it, then the discussion is not about discussing the quality of the movie Glitter, but recommending movies that are similar to the movie Glitter. Posts slamming Glitter... no matter how much the movie deserves it... would not be welcome there, since quality discussion is not the point of the thread."

How is that different from a guy that rides without a helmut and want to know what bikes do likewise? He is not asking for a commentary on helmut riding safety. Seems that Static Cling believes that even a polite comment that says basically you should consider not riding without a helmut is a threadcrap much like saying "you should try to consider movies to see that are much better than Glitter as your point of reference."

That's what got me going.

snip ...


I think you believe we're being much more strict with this than we actually are. If you could provide links to these examples, I could probably give better responses. Thread crapping is all about context, so without being able to see the actual posts it's hard to give you a definite answer.

Exactly, I was concerned about the strictness and yes it is about context and judgement.

If you would clarify the "Glitter" example, I would appreciate it - and hopefully it will help others ...

Thanks

[Static Cling]

Originally posted by ctyankee
We seem to be on the same page - it is Static Cling's comment that made me wonder ... I quote:

"If, however, someone posted a thread entitled I loved Glitter - please recommend movies like it, then the discussion is not about discussing the quality of the movie Glitter, but recommending movies that are similar to the movie Glitter. Posts slamming Glitter... no matter how much the movie deserves it... would not be welcome there, since quality discussion is not the point of the thread."

How is that different from a guy that rides without a helmut and want to know what bikes do likewise? He is not asking for a commentary on helmut riding safety. Seems that Static Cling believes that even a polite comment that says basically you should consider not riding without a helmut is a threadcrap much like saying "you should try to consider movies to see that are much better than Glitter as your point of reference."

That's what got me going.

As Blade said, threadcraps have a lot to do with context. vapoRware posted his concerns about threadcraps and the Other Forum (where your hypothetical helmet thread would go) on Page 1 of this thread. As I said in my reply to him, there is more leeway towards off/related-topic discussion in Other than there is in the more specific forums. The concerned poster's (we'll call him CP) post in Other wouldn't be unwelcome by the moderators. However, if the thread starter mentioned that he didn't care, and didn't want to hear what CP had to say, and yet CP persisted in posting in that thread about various helmet- safety-related issues, we might request that CP start his own thread instead of derailing the current thread.

Let's compare this to the Glitter example. I consider forums like "Main," Movie Talk, and such to be more directed... business-like isn't the right word, but it's close. Threadcrap rules are a little bit tighter in these non-Other forums. If someone wants to hear about movies similar to Glitter, he shouldn't have to be subjected to "OMGWTF... d00d, Glitter sux! LOLOLOLOL!!!!!1" Stuff like that, even if it's phrased more "politely" as you did, doesn't really add to the topic of discussion... it usually gets people upset, starts fights, and takes threads off-topic. Going back to CP's post, I don't think people would get up in arms about CP relating his experiences in speech path.

. . . I was concerned about the strictness and yes it is about context and judgement.

If you would clarify the "Glitter" example, I would appreciate it - and hopefully it will help others ...

Thanks

As Blade said, it sounds like you believe we're being more strict on this sort of thing than we actually are. You can see in Other how often discussions shift to related topics, and usually there isn't any moderator action because of it, unless the new topic is off-limits for any reason.

Incidentally, I can't believe that there would be so much fuss over not riding with this guy:

[Blade]

As a follow up, a post like that ("you should try to consider movies to see that are much better than Glitter as your point of reference") presumes that the poster doesn't aspire to watch movies that are better than Glitter. I've seen it happen a number of times where someone will make some incredulous post asking, rhetorically, how anyone could waste their time on stuff like this when they could watch "insert independent film of the moment" instead. And then the person who created the thread comes back and says that they've already seen that and owns many films like it, and just happenned to also be interested in films like Glitter. "One man's garbage is another's gold," and all that.

Thread craps are so named for a reason...your Glitter example (as well as your earlier examples) is more of a hi jack than a thread crap. These aren't always welcome either, but they often end up being short detours, unlike the derailments usually caused by a thread crap.

[ctyankee]

Originally posted by Static Cling
As Blade said, threadcraps have a lot to do with context. vapoRware posted his concerns about threadcraps and the Other Forum (where your hypothetical helmet thread would go) on Page 1 of this thread. As I said in my reply to him, there is more leeway towards off/related-topic discussion in Other than there is in the more specific forums. The concerned poster's (we'll call him CP) post in Other wouldn't be unwelcome by the moderators. However, if the thread starter mentioned that he didn't care, and didn't want to hear what CP had to say, and yet CP persisted in posting in that thread about various helmet- safety-related issues, we might request that CP start his own thread instead of derailing the current thread.

Fair enough.

Let's compare this to the Glitter example. I consider forums like "Main," Movie Talk, and such to be more directed... business-like isn't the right word, but it's close. Threadcrap rules are a little bit tighter in these non-Other forums. If someone wants to hear about movies similar to Glitter, he shouldn't have to be subjected to "OMGWTF... d00d, Glitter sux! LOLOLOLOL!!!!!1" Stuff like that, even if it's phrased more "politely" as you did, doesn't really add to the topic of discussion... it usually gets people upset, starts fights, and takes threads off-topic. ...snip

That's where I hear you both (yourself and Blade) saying different things. I hear you saying no matter what the context of the thread or how politely worded - the thread starter should not be subject to contrary opinions in a serious forum. I hear Blade saying it would depend on the context of the thread to decide that ... so which is it?

None of us are condoning rude/insulting comments or persistent posts that are polite but not welcomed. Threadcraps plain and simple.

However, let's take a made up thread - Thread A - "Blade 2 DTS Audio - Wow! What moments did Blade 2 DTS wow you too?

And inside the thread his post is:

For those that have DTS capability, home theatre setup (two front speakers, two back speakers, center and woofer) and have already had a chance to listen to the new Blade 2 DVD .. what specific chapters/moments really made your mouth fall open (enjoying the DTS-ES audio option)?

Responding posts:

Post 1: Would you consider broadening the scope to include folks that have home theatre setups but don't have DTS decoding (yet)? I really enjoyed the audio (DD 5.1) as well and would rather discuss it in one thread than opening up my own thread. What say you?

Post 2: Hmmm, I have the full setup you described and would love to discuss it. However, have you had the opportunity to listen to the DD 5.1 track yet? I'm a hugh DTS fan, but I must admit I was more "wowed" with the Blade 2 DD 5.1 track (for a change). Sometimes I don't even try the 5.1 track (when I have an option) perhaps you do that as well ...

Anyway, if you/people are interested, I can give some specific clock times that wowed me as well as some interesting reference points (for comparison). Enjoy!

Post 3: Wow, listened to Blade 2 flying back from Chicago on my Sony Vaio! What a terrific audio! In my opinion, forget about audio formats - this thing rocks with mid-grade headphones on! My favorite moments were: the opening scene with the sound of dripping water, the motorcycles in the alleyway, and the Kung-fu square-off back at Blade's abode. Btw, I finally got to hear the DTS version of The Haunting ... kick ass audio, but D+ movie, go figure ... Peace, Love, Out!

The thread starter could respond. "Good upgrade, I did get a chance to sample the 5.1 track and it is also terrific. But let's keep the discussion to specific Blade 2 audio segments and not make this into a DTS versus DD debate (which I'm so sick of). Btw, headphone listening is perfectly fine. I'll modify my first post accordingly ...

or he could respond

"no thanks, I am (admittedly) a big DTS snob and I really would rather keep this thread to like-minded individuals. No offense. "

No matter the response, I don't think that any of these posts are threadcraps (yet). To me, it depends on context. Post 1 could be considered a clarifying question regarding the thread. Post 2 or 3 depend on the response from the thread starter much more than a moderator's opinion as to whether they are thread craps or not. Naturally, if the posters get a sorry, no thanks kind of response from the thread starter and they continue posting - it now is a thread crap.

Meanwhile, as we discuss this - here is a related "real" thread (in a serious forum) that got "threadjacked" (three pages worth). By the time, I came upon it, the damage was already done ... too bad. I guess my point is that the moderator's job is already tough enough - better not to interrupt the "play of the game" until it is a problem.

http://www.dvdtalk.com/forum/showthr...e&pagenumber=1

[ctyankee]

Originally posted by Blade
As a follow up, a post like that ("you should try to consider movies to see that are much better than Glitter as your point of reference") presumes that the poster doesn't aspire to watch movies that are better than Glitter. I've seen it happen a number of times where someone will make some incredulous post asking, rhetorically, how anyone could waste their time on stuff like this when they could watch "insert independent film of the moment" instead. And then the person who created the thread comes back and says that they've already seen that and owns many films like it, and just happenned to also be interested in films like Glitter. "One man's garbage is another's gold," and all that.

Thread craps are so named for a reason...your Glitter example (as well as your earlier examples) is more of a hi jack than a thread crap. These aren't always welcome either, but they often end up being short detours, unlike the derailments usually caused by a thread crap.

Agreed and well said. As you can see I just responded to Static Cling (edit ... I had a brain fade) and didn't see this post as we posted minutes apart ... darn it. But (referring to my last post) my three made-up responses could all be considered detours .. no doubt about it.

Btw, an example of a thread I would turn a blind eye towards ...

http://www.dvdtalk.com/forum/showthr...hreadid=235470

[Blade]

Originally posted by ctyankee
Agreed and well said. As you can see I just responded to Static Free and didn't see this post as we posted minutes apart ... darn it. But (referring to my last post) my three made-up responses could all be considered detours .. no doubt about it.

"Free"?

But you're right, they are detours (hijacks) and they are considered seperately. There was some initial confusion, which prompted the editing of the first post.

The key thing this policy is trying to achieve is to discourage people from derailing threads and starting fights. Polite questions or observations won't usually cause this.

Hope that clears things up a bit. Let us know if we missed anything or if you'd like anything else clarified.

-David

[Static Cling]

Originally posted by ctyankee
That's where I hear you both (yourself and Blade) saying different things. I hear you saying no matter what the context of the thread or how politely worded - the thread starter should not be subject to contrary opinions in a serious forum. I hear Blade saying it would depend on the context of the thread to decide that ... so which is it?

Where did I say that context didn't matter? The first line of my post was me agreeing with Blade that context was important. I also said that:

If someone wants to hear about movies similar to Glitter, he shouldn't have to be subjected to "OMGWTF... d00d, Glitter sux! LOLOLOLOL!!!!!1"

If the purpose of the thread is to find other films like Glitter, and not to discuss the quality of the movie, posts slamming Glitter are out of place. If the purpose of the thread is to discuss the quality of the movie Glitter, then pro-Glitter and anti-Glitter posts are both fair game. Context does matter.

However, let's take a made up thread - Thread A - "Blade 2 DTS Audio - Wow! What moments did Blade 2 DTS wow you too?
.
.
.
.
The thread starter could respond. "Good upgrade, I did get a chance to sample the 5.1 track and it is also terrific. But let's keep the discussion to specific Blade 2 audio segments and not make this into a DTS versus DD debate (which I'm so sick of). Btw, headphone listening is perfectly fine. I'll modify my first post accordingly ...

or he could respond

"no thanks, I am (admittedly) a big DTS snob and I really would rather keep this thread to like-minded individuals. No offense. "

No matter the response, I don't think that any of these posts are threadcraps (yet). To me, it depends on context. Post 1 could be considered a clarifying question regarding the thread. Post 2 or 3 depend on the response from the thread starter much more than a moderator's opinion as to whether they are thread craps or not. Naturally, if the posters get a sorry, no thanks kind of response from the thread starter and they continue posting - it now is a thread crap.

What's the question?

Meanwhile, as we discuss this - here is a related "real" thread (in a serious forum) that got "threadjacked" (three pages worth). By the time, I came upon it, the damage was already done ... too bad. I guess my point is that the moderator's job is already tough enough - better not to interrupt the "play of the game" until it is a problem.

http://www.dvdtalk.com/forum/showthr...e&pagenumber=1

-------------------

Btw, an example of a thread I would turn a blind eye towards ...

http://www.dvdtalk.com/forum/showth...threadid=235470

I'm not sure I understand your point. The moderator's job is to moderate. If anyone sees a thread that is about to get out of hand, or is getting out of hand, or has already gotten out of hand, please report it. It's better to report a thread that turns out to be nothing rather than to not report a thread for whatever reason that turns into a flamewar.

And I don't understand why you'd turn a blind eye towards the multiple threadcraps in the Country Bears thread... I'm guessing it's because you dislike the movie...?

[Terrell]

Dudikoff has a legitimate concern and I share it. I could name one forum where dvds and movies are discussed that currently indulges in capricious censorship.

I don't think it's a legitimate concern, because it's not like mods are going to go apesh*t banning people for giving their opinon. We all no what a thread crap is.

Say for instance there is a thread about AOTC or LOTR. And someone comes in and says " AOTC or LOTR sucks." That doesn't contribute anything. It's a thread fart. And we've all seen that happen, especially where Star Wars is concerned.

We all know what thread craps are. It's not that hard.

[MJ121983]

I for one am a big fan of "threadcrapping".

[Static Cling]

So I've noticed.

[Sierra Disc]

Originally posted by MJ121983
I for one am a big fan of "threadcrapping".

...And this would be why you got banned. Object lesson, kids!

[Ruderic]

Theres a fine line between a threadcrap and a right to an opinion. If a movie sucks..it sucks. Sometimes great movies aren't released and crap does.. What does one post with an opinion matter?

[Blade]

Originally posted by Ruderic
Theres a fine line between a threadcrap and a right to an opinion. If a movie sucks..it sucks. Sometimes great movies aren't released and crap does.. What does one post with an opinion matter?

If you haven't already, please read the thread. This question/objection has been answered/addressed numerous times already.

[Canadian Bacon]

No thread crapping? Dang what to do now?

j/k I too hate when people threadcap or as I call it threadfart.

[Rocky_Stallone]

Everytime I make a Stallone thread, it gets crapped on all the time.

If there's a thread you don't like, then why feel the need to post in it? If people say something you don't like, then why feel the need to respond to it? Is it really that difficult to ignore something you don't like on a computer screen? No. It's pretty easy to ignore something you don't like.

The only reason people flame or attack someone is either just get their attention or try to get a rise out of someone which is pretty childish. Some people on these message boards like to try to pick fights with other users which is very inappropriate.

These are public boards. People here should be treated as if they were treated in the real world, just like the real world is a public place. It is pretty easy to flame and attack someone on a computer, and people know they wouuldn't flame or attack someone in front of someone's face in person.

If someone on a board gets so angry at another person just because he or she expressed an opinion on something, then it's a fact that some people take these boards so seriously. It's just ridiculous and stupid for a user to flame/attack another user just because he or she expressed an opinion on something. If you don't like his or her opinion, just ingore it. Flaming and attacking someone because you don't agree with the opinion solves nothing, you are just looking to start a fight with someone, nothing more.

Can people find something constructive and something better to do besides making fun of people on a public message board? Sheesh. If that's all certain people are going to do on here is make fun of others, then you have problems.

[Handel]

We don't edit out positive comments on a film because those types of comments tend to not take a thread off topic or generate bad feelings in the thread itself (i.e., aren't likely to lead to personal attacks).

It seems to me if you want to be fair and consistent, both kinds of comments (negative AND positive) should be deleted if they are "off topic". With the limited scope of the DVD-specification threads given as your example, comments on the quality of the movie itself should be directed to the "Movies" section whether positive or negative.

While typically, positive comments about a movie on DVD may not elicit personal attacks (unless someone says Glitter is a "winner" with a straight face) :>) or even redirect discussion away from the topic by generating more "discussion" about the film itself, since they do not address the topic at hand, the positive comments are really as inappropriate as the negative ones and should also be deleted.

A post praising Glitter as one the year's best movies in a thread about its pending re-release on DVD with enhanced features (that's just a made up example) would be as misleading to a prospective buyer as a negative comment like "Casablanca sucks -- stay away from it" in a thread about its forthcoming new release. (A false positive is as bad as a negative.) Without the opportunity to counterbalance such a "misguided" view, (in our opinion, which is what it boils down to for any film), within the context of the thread, it seems that it would be better to not let either side be represented.

Those are extreme examples, but rules about what is allowed or not (and application of those rules) should cover not just the extremes, but the middle ground as well. So I hope you'll reconsider this part of your editing policy.

[Static Cling]

Originally posted by Handel
While typically, positive comments about a movie on DVD may not elicit personal attacks (unless someone says Glitter is a "winner" with a straight face) :>) or even redirect discussion away from the topic by generating more "discussion" about the film itself, since they do not address the topic at hand, the positive comments are really as inappropriate as the negative ones and should also be deleted.

The section I've bolded is why we tend to pay more attention to negative comments than positive ones. Someone makes a "OMG ___________ SUX, DON'T BUY IT!!!11" post in a release date thread, and then we get someone replying with "YOU'RE THE ONE WHO SUX, TAKE IT BACK," and the thread devolves from there. Someone replying to a release date thread with "I've been waiting for this one for a while... thanks for posting!" doesn't usually result in a bunch of posts that drag the thread off-topic or into flamewar territory. However, whenever posts drag a thread off-topic, positive or negative, we'll step in depending on how bad it gets.

[Handel]

... whenever posts drag a thread off-topic, positive or negative, we'll step in depending on how bad it gets.

That's fair enough. Sounds good to me.

Actually your example of "OMG, _____ SUX, DON'T BUY IT!!!" is not the kind of "constructive criticism" of a movie that would help anyone make an informed decision, but rather is clearly inflammatory (thus deserving instant deletion). OTOH, your example of a positive comment "I've been waiting for this one for a while... thanks for posting!" sounds more like a comment on the availability of the DVD than a plug for the content/quality of the movie itself, so (admittedly splitting hairs here) it is technically "on topic" in a post about a DVD's release date. :>)

Thanks, Mike --

Burke

[Static Cling]

Also, discussion about whether or not a movie is good or a disc is a good purchase isn't forbidden. But if a thread is about a release date or disc specs, then it should stick to that topic. People who just want to talk about special features and such shouldn't have to wade through a back-and-forth about the film's quality... that discussion can take place in another thread.

The rule of thumb here is "put the right discussion in the right place."

[Blade]

Originally posted by Handel
It seems to me if you want to be fair and consistent, both kinds of comments (negative AND positive) should be deleted if they are "off topic".

We (or I should say "they" as I am now a former administrator) don't remove comments just because they are off topic. The comments are removed because of their potential to take a thread off topic, or to start fights. Your quote is from a post I made, and someone else responded to this, and I followed up with this:

Even a positive comment can get a warning about taking a thread off topic (should it cause that to happen).

So, in a sense, we're already doing what you suggest.

Another point would be that to do as you suggest as strictly as you suggest would make a lot of unnecessary work for the moderators. Remember, the point here isn't so much to be absolutely "fair" as much as it is to promote discussion on the topic of the thread in question.

[JDF5244]

I've always found threadcraps to be thoroughly amusing, actually...

[Static Cling]

It's a good thing that someone enjoys them, but I'm pretty sure that you're either in the minority or not understanding what a threadcrap is.

[ProfessorEcho]

My OCD tendencies endorse the idea of this thread, but I don't want to see this become too weighed down in arbitrary rules and censorship. I'm seeking refuge from the TV LAND Message Boards, where a corporate lap dog moderator deletes anything that doesn't jibe with the Viacom gestapo.

I don't mind personal attacks providing they have some substance behind them in terms of the debate. No slurs, racial, drunken or otherwise. And by all means keep shills and pimps and blatant advertising to a minimum.

[Ruderic]

Freedom of speech my friends. If we can't say the movie A.I. Artificial Inttelligence sucked and lacked intelligence or that the movie Insomnia is the cure for Insomnia then what is this world coming to?