Reminder: Don't tag posts Forum

[20160810]

It's an annoying no-content distraction. If you like a thread, subscribe or bookmark. If your post consists of nothing more than "tagging this" or "tag," expect a temporary ban, the length of which is to be determined by my mood.

Most powertripping mod evar.

[taytay]

tagged

[FlightoftheEarls]

tagged

180

[iShotFirst]

perma-banned

[20160810]

tagged

I had a feeling this would happen. Because this was witty and the first, you only get an hour off. Hopefully there's something good on TV.

[stratocophic]

perma-banned

Mod's about to lay down the... wait for it... law

[sarlis]

tagged

I had a feeling this would happen. Because this was witty and the first, you only get an hour off. Hopefully there's something good on TV.

now that's a 180

[FlightoftheEarls]

tagged

180

160... It was a fairly predictable response.

Perhaps you're more used to it. I found it amusing. Either way, it's better than reading Con Law.

[SoxyPirate]

tagged

--ImageRemoved--

[Renzo]

I am all for this, because this board has plenty of features for watching threads and the tags are super-annoying.

That being said, I see an opportunity for loopholing already. Were I the kind of person to "tag," I would just start posting something stupid like "interesting" or "thanks" instead of "tag."

[jonas586]

^^^ ya

[vanwinkle]

interesting. thanks.

[vanwinkle]

But honestly, if this is worth cracking down on because it spams a thread, then pretty much any off-topic and ad hominem post should be prohibited as well. All the ridicule and drama that ensues just because someone made a douchey post is far more annoying than these "tag" posts. They perpetuate further ridicule and drama, totally derail useful threads, and are much, much harder to ignore.

In other words, you're tired of people pointing out that you're a douche?

[vanwinkle]

Also a "no tag" rule is kind of easy to implement.

[thesealocust]

edit: never mind

[vanwinkle]

There's a reason why beneficial threads stop being beneficial when the ad homs break out. Sometimes that's because they've exhausted their utility, other times it's because the ad hom thoroughly derailed it.

It doesn't even matter if the thread has been genuinely exhausted of value, though, because continued back and forth keeps bumping it on the front page. At least when someone posts "tag", they're usually bumping a still useful thread.

You do realize you're taking this thread off-topic and derailing it, right?

[avacado111]

thank god you said something about tags. OMG. They were getting annoying.

[stratocophic]

Where are all of these ad homs happening? I see a lot of posts that break down into several people getting pissy with each other, but almost none that are simply someone attacking someone else. Maybe it's a problem if you stretch the definition to include instances of people being called out for making an insensitive/ill-reasoned/stupid post, but I believe those are generally understood to take issue with the comment made.

[vanwinkle]

It's not about whether they're logical fallacies, it's about whether they're pointlessly disruptive. Vast majority of ad homs are, especially on TLS. It doesn't take that much judgment.

You aren't going to win this. You might as well drop it.

If you're saying I'm not going to "win this" because you just don't want to argue the point, well, okay.

You're not going to win this because nobody who matters is going to agree with you.

[jonas586]

Yeah, my point was that this "trash substance" is even more pointlessly annoying/disruptive than posting "tag". Pointless annoyance/disruption is the reason for having the tag="ban" rule, otherwise it wouldn't be ban-worthy.

ad homs, stuff like that usually occurs in threads that aren't very beneficial or have already given all they can to the forum. "tag" usually happens in a very useful thread, but acts to disrupt it.

Since this thread has given all it can to the forum in the way of information, can I call predetermined a douche?

[vanwinkle]

And way to close off an honest debate.

A debate nobody wanted but you. We're not here to have debates with everyone that wants one.

[Renzo]

P.S. Standing does matter. Moderators make policy. Moderators discuss and debate between each other for or against policy and how it is implemented. That is the only way policy changes. You aren't a moderator, thus your lack of standing is very relevant.

Modtatorship? Modtocracy? Modarchy?

[Renzo]

Don't ban the messenger

[superserial]

I don't think anybody's actually called me a douche here.

you're a douche.

[stratocophic]

I don't think anybody's actually called me a douche here.

you're a douche.

Yeah, we weren't going to come out and say it buuuuuuut...