timothy wrote:We have all seen examples of solid threads of interest being enjoyed and contributed to by specific people that suddenly become 'infected' or intentionally de-railed by persons simply trying to draw attention to themselves when they in fact have nothing to contribute. I've heard these types called "Fun Suckers".
It might be a good option if the Author of the thread has a bit more control over the replies. If the author could impose a few rules and filters. Such as being the sole person being able to filer and/or delete inappropriate or nonsensical or annoying posts in his/her thread. After the fact.
The author could personally delete unwanted posts, annoying posts, or even impose a filter on the thread by barring certain persons from posting in his thread.
For example, if I wanted to begin a new Thread about anything in Peru but did not wish the thread to be stalked and trivialized by Chi Chi, I could place a filter that would prevent his entry to my thread.
I would do it for me.
I get it in theory, but can't picture it being effective in practice. Too easy to work around. For instance, a "fun sucker" (using your example) could create a thread, say whatever they want, no matter how ludicrous, false, nonsensical, mean spirited, attention seeking, etc., and whenever anyone posted a correction, a challenge to provide proof backing up their statement, or just a contrary opinion, the OP could just delete the post and silence dissent/contrary opinion because those who question would be "derailing" their thread. Instead of an open forum encouraging dialogue, it would turn into more of bulletin board filled with monologues resembling a blog that doesn't allow comments. As long as the general rules of the forum are being followed, it would seem futile to try and control threads based on what are ultimately subjective opinions. Anybody who's been on the interweb long enough should know that it's a relatively free and open forum and that not everything you encounter is exactly factual. I guess it's good to challenge false information, but based on past and current requests to provide proof for what some consider ludicrous statements I wouldn't have expectations of the "fun sucking" behavior to stop. It obviously fills a psychological need of the "fun suckers," so when it comes to the interweb it's necessary to take the bad with the good.
Perhaps a thumbs up/thumbs down option so users can express their agreement or disagreement with a post? Not saying it's necessary, but it might be interesting.