Why do people complain about "hit and run posts"? This is a board, not a chat room. A proposal.

[howard112211]

Back in the usenet days there was a general understanding that there is a difference between the two.
A message board is not necessarily meant for real-time conversation. On a message board it is perfectly valid to post a message,
and then return several hours or even days later to see what replies it has generated. It also used to be considered a valid practice to just throw in a piece of information that one wanted to pass on and don't reply to the answers at all.

Almost all instances I have seen where people complained about "hit and run posts" it was the substance-less reply of someone
who didn't like what was being posted, but found no other reasonable way to debunk the argument.

Some people allocate a limited amount of time per day to message boards. Other people have limited bandwidth. There are a number of reasons why one does not immediately answer all replies an OP has generated. Furthermore, it is very easy for a large number of people to generate
a large number of replies in a very short time.

Often when something unpopular gets posted, several people immediately show up and generate tons of replies essentially saying the same thing over and over. If then, after a certain period of time, the original poster
did not work through all the replies one at a time, the group simply declares the argument as "won by number" because the OP did a "hit and run". This is a sleazy tactic and puts people at a disadvantage that do not hang around on message boards all day long.

I therefore have a proposal that could help protect people from the mob mentality that sometimes surfaces here.

I know there is an edit function and that the editing period for an OP expires after some time. This is perfectly fine as it is, and my understanding is that it is mainly used to correct spelling mistakes or add links, etc.

However, once a thread has generated 100+ replies it becomes nearly impossible for a single person to continue to argue an unpopular view.
One can post an update at the bottom of the thread, but we all know that those usually get ignored and simply drown in the large number of replies. One sometimes wishes that the editing time was longer, so that one could just add a reply to the bottom of the original
post that addresses many of the points that were raised at once.

Extending the editing time period I think is generally not a good idea, because then people could just change their argument around as they please. But what if it was possible to post an update of the original post, that got attached to the bottom of the original post?
Something like this could be possible even after the editing period has passed. The original text can no longer be edited, but it can be extended by adding something to the bottom. This way people with limited time can post a general reply to all the issues that were raised
without working through every single post.

I wonder if something like this could be implemented and whether or the DU community would support this in general.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

1. I have often wished there were a way to add something to the

bottom of my OP.

I imagine that there might be a way to do it. The software is very sophisticated.

I like your idea!

Maybe the Admins would like it too...

[hollowdweller]

2. Because if the republicans are paying the original poster by the post

Making them reply mulitple times will waste more GOP money or at the very least give them less time to spam up other Democratic boards with their GOP talking points?

[trumad]

3. From my experience here on DU

Hit and runners are usually trolls.

[Stinky The Clown]

4. I think it is a good idea ......

..... I also think killing the unrec is a good idea, so clearly I'm a moron.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

5. A "Hit 'n' Run" ususally consists of a baseless inflammatory or very different viewpoint.

It will offer little or no basis or proof and is generally nothing more than cowardly trolling.

The ulimited post-update is a good feature so long as the OP can not be edited after the time period.
I'm not sure what this has to do with hit & run posting though.

[blondeatlast]

6. My problem with hit and runs is they often seem designed to cause controversy--

and if so, I think it is imperative that the OP offer his/her own opinion in that OP. That frequently doesn't happen.

Yes, this is a message bnoard--a very, very large and very, very active one. It's reasonable to believe that a an original post that puts forth a strong opinion, whether the OP 's own or that of a blogger/editorialist/etc. deserves SOME acknowledgement of the disagreement from the OP within a reasonable time, like an hour. that DOESN'T happen most of the time.

If one just wants to spout off without an opinion attached, fine. But I reserve the rigght to consider them troublemakers at least and cowards at most.

[TexasObserver]

7. Here's a better idea: Do it the way we do it here.

Your discussion of how you perceive message boards to be is immaterial.

Here, we expect posters who start threads to do more than sling something up and run.

[howard112211]

9. Is that in the board rules somewhere?

Or is that just your opinion?

[TexasObserver]

26. It's board protocol, as I already explained to you once.

[gorfle]

8. Hit-and-run posts are by people who can't rebutt.

Almost all instances I have seen where people complained about "hit and run posts" it was the substance-less reply of someone
who didn't like what was being posted, but found no other reasonable way to debunk the argument.

My experience is just the opposite. Most hit-and-run posters drop in to say, "This sucks!" and then never substantiate what they said after people call them on it and explain why what they said is not true.

One can post an update at the bottom of the thread, but we all know that those usually get ignored and simply drown in the large number of replies. One sometimes wishes that the editing time was longer, so that one could just add a reply to the bottom of the original
post that addresses many of the points that were raised at once.


This is the problem with a threaded, rather than sequential, style of BBS. For example, in online forums that are driven by UBB-style software, all responses come at the end of the line. People who wish to respond to posts other than the immediately-preceding post are expected to quote the person they are responding to.

Democratic Underground uses threads, making it harder to keep up with large conversations. The "My DU" section makes it relatively easy to keep up with who responds directly to YOU, but not other people's contributions to the thread.

[howard112211]

10. I think the threaded discussion style is great in principle. It just has the minor problem

that it gives "attackers" an advantage over "defenders" because in the same time the defender can write one reply, the attackers can write dozens.

I'm not suggesting that anything should be changed about the threaded discussion style. I'm just suggesting to add a feature that
allows the original poster of a thread to add something to his/her original post at a later time, in order to be able to address issues that were raised in many replies repeatedly all at once.

[Myrina]

11. Why does one need to substantiate their own opinion?

If I see something in the news or where ever that I do believe sucks, and I post a link to it with a personal note stating 'I think this sucks', that's all thats necessary. It's my opinion.

DU is not the JAMA, we don't have to prove our opinions to be 'right' or 'wrong'. They are what they are.

Why do people take this place so seriously?! :shrug:

[gorfle]

20. If you can't substantiate your opinion, then you might consider reevaluating it.

The whole point of debate is to demonstrate the robustness, or lack thereof, of your position.

If you state your position but are unable to substantiate it, then it usually indicates that your position is untenable.

Drive-by posters demonstrate this easily, and frustrate those who take the time to refute their position, only to have their efforts ignored.

[SoCalDem]

19. Perhaps people don't feel the need to enter into an endless argument

There is a lot LESS discussion here, than there used to be..and a lot more people who are devil's advocates incarnate, jump, feet-first, into multiple threads...just to agitate..

I suspect that lots of people may not feel like accommodating them :evilgrin:

Also, "sides" are pretty much "hardened" these days on DU, so there's not a lot on mind-changing going on, and perhaps people feel like just moving on to asomething else, rather than "rebutting" all day long..

[fishwax]

22. I think it's much easier to keep up with large conversations in threads

Perhaps it boils down to personal preference, but I find it much easier to follow long conversations here than on other boards I use that have the other system.

[BrklynLiberal]

12. A pposter can actually post a "REPLY" to his/her own OP if the need arises

It would appear at the bottom of the thread as it appeared at the time of the reply.

[Political Heretic]

15. I've had to do that.

[howard112211]

16. Yes sure. But as I have stated....

...this type of reply often simply gets ignored and does not nearly get treated as if it was part of the OP.

[muriel_volestrangler]

21. Your way is worse; BrklynLiberal's is better

If you think a reply that has its own timestamp in the 'tree' view of the thread, and its own title, sometimes gets ignored, imagine what would happen if the update was just a series of postscripts at the bottom of the body of the OP.

The thing is, your reply isn't "part of the OP"; it's a reply. It should look different.

As it happens, I post on a board which has an 'ask the mods' section - in which normal members can start threads, but they cannot reply - only the mods can. But the normal members can edit their OPs, if they need to reply to comments by mods. It gets very, very complicated to read. The only reason they stick with it is that they don't want the other members trying to answer the questions directed at the mods, or turning it into a "I want to vote on this" mess. Believe me, trying to reply to multiple people by editing an OP doesn't work well.

[howard112211]

23. Hmm. That doesn't sound too well. Glad it was tried somewhere.

What if the number of times one can do it was limited? Once? Twice?

[Froward69]

13. Sure However

a "chat room" here at DU should only be for people who donate (have a little star). Not to discriminate against those who havent the cash to do so but to simply keep out the trolls. possibly allow all to read but only stars to post?

Just a thought...

[Political Heretic]

14. It's a discussion forum, and people feel it adds credibility to the sincerity of the poster if

he or she stays around to discuss and defend what are often highly controversial posts, rather than fire of salvos and then run away.

[jotsy]

17. I try to show respect for other people's time, or I'd bother everybody like an inquisitive 4 year ol...

From there, of the few threads I've actually created, I've gotten little to no response. Other times, as my comment seems to be the last and more than occasionally, I feel like a thread killer. I don't want to see threads get cut short cuz I chose to participate. These are the times I refer to as being queen of the silent rec.

k and r for giving me a chance to be a sassy chardonnay.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

18. 99% of H&R's are trolls who post rw shite & then squinch into a corner & giggle.

[fishwax]

24. hit and run posts aren't about not answering ALL replies

but rather about not answering ANY. The times I've seen people complain about hit and run posts has been for posters who have started arguments (by particularly controversial/confrontational/strident posts) and then not showing up again. Not being able to respond thoroughly or quickly to replies in a thoughtful discussion is one thing, but starting flame wars or slinging right-wing BS or making accusations and then disappearing is disruptive behavior.

Your suggestion to allow updates to OP's without being able to edit the original text is interesting, but I think it's preferable how we have it now, when someone can simply post an update/clarification/response as a reply to the OP. Being able to change the OP (even if you couldn't change the original text) would simply allow for another swarm of counter-arguments, which would make the thread as a whole even more confusing.

[gratuitous]

25. "Usenet" pffft!

Go yell at some clouds, old man.