Board Philosophy: Just how much flooding constitutes flooding?

[JackRiddler]

For board veterans and new people alike, participating in a place like this can raise some fascinating questions.

For example:

Hazarding a guess, most people probably would agree starting three threads at a time for a serious issue that stirs your passions probably isn't too much.

How many threads started does it take to cross a limit into the antisocial? At what point does the practice constitute an attempt at rhetorical bullying?

For those who engage in flooding, does the strategy work? Are there pitfalls, or is it all payoff?

Are there particular motivations that might be fairly common among board personas who engage in such practices?

As I said, fascinating questions!

Discuss.

EDIT: Also, extra credit for citing examples.

[Cooley Hurd]

1. When it's clear it's "agenda-driven", it becomes obvious when too much is "too much"

...and no way I'm citing examples - it could be construed as a "call-out".

[SheilaT]

2. One of the things I find most off-putting about this place

is the grotesque proliferation of thread after thread after thread on certain topics.

It's like some posters never ever read a thread started by anyone else, only their own threads, so they're blissfully unaware that the topic has been addressed to death already.

[SoCalDem]

3. Amen !.. That's why Trash Can is my current favorite feature

[SheilaT]

9. What is the trash can feature? I don't seem to see where it is.

[SoCalDem]

11. (my 100K post )... It's under "my account".. look for the trash can tab

and then go nuts

It's a feature I longed for since 2001 & the "Nader Wars".

[SheilaT]

12. Thanks.

I remember a while back looking at my account and being able to find out that eleven members had me on Ignore, and I can't seem to find that thing anymore.

Maybe they all took be off Ignore? I really would be interested in knowing who is Ignoring me. I don't have anyone on Ignore, I've just learned I'm better off not responding to certain other posters.

[SoCalDem]

13. Yep.. I hear you.. There are some here whose only purpose appears to be to argue

They rarely provide much light...just a lot of heat

I cannot find that who's ignoring me thing either....not that I care much anyway

[HappyMe]

4. Beating dead horses is sport around here.

The trash can feature to the rescue!


edit to add-
The key word trash is great also.

[JackRiddler]

5. Different posters may take different angles.

For example, #Snowden's being talked to death, right, but one thread is titled "American Hero to the Rescue" and the other one is "Syphillitic DemonBeast Eats Children." So it's fine for people who work on a comment or think what they have to say matters to start an OP.

What's incredible - and what really shouldn't be tolerated - are the kinds of drumbeat campaigns we see here sometimes where, say, ONE person starts a dozen threads on the same thing on the same day, each presenting a kind of prepackaged attack point, but with none of them really saying anything that wouldn't have fit on one convenient (and easily disposable) list. It's like there's a demand for attention, a fear that one thread might be lost because, sorry, not interesting, and so you gotta hack, hack, hack at it all day. How many trashings do you want to do in a day for just one user's output?

[Romulus Quirinus]

6. How else do you rack up 100k posts in a few years? nt

[JackRiddler]

7. Ah yes, the milestone is coming.

And it's amazing. Normally you'd think you'd need a whole team, to manage that.

[Romulus Quirinus]

10. Or a small nation's worth of coffee! nt

[randome]

14. Me, too. It's like they think they earn redeemable points or something.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Phentex]

8. Three, just like Mr. Owl said of the tootsie pop...

When you start three threads on the same topic, it's time to take a break.

[reformist2]

15. I'd put a limit of 10 thread-starts per day. Nobody has that many good ideas in a day - nobody.

[In_The_Wind]

16. +1

[JackRiddler]

17. Ten? How about 5, and no more than 3 on the same topic?

[liberal_at_heart]

18. For some people it's almost as if just stating their opinion isn't enough. They have to convert you.

They won't stop until you agree with them. Unfortunately for them this tactic doesn't work very well just like it doesn't work very well for evangelicals.

[JackRiddler]

19. Some social psychology studies find...

That people are influenced into repeating an opinion they hear often.

However, the number of times they hear it is more important than the number of people actually saying it. A vocal minority can work almost as well as a majority in influencing the opinions of a large segment of the population.

This is why constant repetition of the exact same pre-chewed talking points, no matter how stupid, has become a central aspect of modern, "scientific" public relations. This form of saturation brainwashing is considered to work well enough that companies invest billions to do it on TV every year. (Would you like to save 15% on your car insurance?)

The right wing understands this extremely well. As do sophists in general, whether they are opportunists or just committed team players.

[liberal_at_heart]

20. I wouldn't know. I guess I don't like being told what I must think or what I must do.

I tend to go against the crowd, a bit rebellious I guess.

[JackRiddler]

23. Sure...

It's all about what works best on the biggest demographic scale. If one way gets a net X percent more people, it's considered superior regardless of ethics or consequences. That's a net X percent more market, net X percent more voters, etc.

[alcibiades_mystery]

21. How many petty personal gripes disguised as philosophical questions is too many?

Transparent and sad.

[JackRiddler]

24. Your personal preferences are clear enough.

Flooding's great long as it's your preferred talking points. Got it.

[alcibiades_mystery]

25. Ha

And lame personal attacks embarrassingly disguised as high minded questions are A-OK with you as long as the person you're attacking is on "the other team."

You're making this place suck.

[bhikkhu]

22. I think its a group activity, really

like if you take a look at GD sometimes and 3 out of 4 discussions on the 1st page are slight variations of the same topic. Then you might consider the choice - do you participate in an existing discussion, or do you start another discussion or three on that same topic, adding no new information, but perhaps a clever anecdote or two.

When the majority of people on the boards are thinking and doing the same thing, it can get like an echo chamber. Sometimes I miss just being able to pop in and catch up on a variety of news, and usually find unexpected things of interest.

[nadinbrzezinski]

26. My solution to the flooders

Is the ignore button. I will miss a valuable link in a blue moon, but you'd be amazed at the difference it's made.