User Tag List

First 56789 Last

Results 61 to 70 of 90

  1. #61
    not to be trusted miss fortune's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Enneagram
    827 sp/so
    Posts
    20,124

    Default

    Ok- to bring together points that I've made in other fluff related threads into a concise post here-

    Fluff is necessary for some people to feel comfortable here at all- I know back in early October when I joined there wasn't much fluff going on- I didn't feel comfortable here and didn't post much until I necromanced the Secrets Thread and started to actually get to know people! Some of us don't feel particularly confident arguing theoretical things with people- especially when there are people here who are pretty willing to agressively tear you a new one over something as silly as an opinion.... :steam:

    Fluff has it's places- I would think that should be obvious to people- when a thread goes off topic I think it is the responsibility of the person who started the thread to step in and turn the conversation back to the topic and the responsibility of posters to quit posting fluff after the thread starter asks them to stop- I do this in my own threads, so I don't see why it should be a problem for anyone else to do- people should act as emcees for thier own threads anyways- they're the one who asked the question and should be interested enough to take responsibility of the ensuing thread

    If someone is a repeted fluff poster in your threads go ahead and block them- it's your choice and if you don't like it you have that option- if you don't take it don't complain

    So in other words,
    1. fluff is necessary for the functioning of the forum
    2. it's the thread owner's responsibility to direct thier own thread
    3. use the ignore function if you must- it's there for a reason
    4. we're all grown ups- lets take some responsibility for our own actions and act like grown ups and realize where fuff is good and where it isn't- and accept that fluff will continue to exist

    that's just my observations!
    “Oh, we're always alright. You remember that. We happen to other people.” -Terry Pratchett

  2. #62
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ExTJ
    Posts
    1,377

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mempy View Post
    I think the problem is not with fluff, but with the popularity contests. I wouldn't make any, though I don't deny that I look in on them occasionally.

    I think popularity contests and the rep system are a different category unto themselves. Under a broad label, they are "fluff," but they're a different kind of fluff. They're exclusive fluff. They are, as you proposed, Geoff, "a fluff too far."
    This is something that slowly occurred to me in the other threads as a way to better explain some likes and dislikes, and probably would have been spelled out better had it been thought of before.

    (Personally, I see some joking around fluff as fine and fun, though it can get to be too much. The "inside jokes/popularity contest/awards/" type of fluff I don't like, and the "Oh it's cute" sentence type of posts can be annoying as well when it fills up too much of a thread and makes the thread hard to read. they are even annoying is "fun" threads, since it's hard ot read the actual "fun' posts in the thread.)

    As it goes down a "fluff scale" from full on ideas/plans/etc. types of discussion, to people giving anecdotes, down to joke/fun threads, and inside jokes plus 1 sentence types of posts, it seems to expand more and more easily, thanks to the ease of making posts, and causes problems for the other posts in the forum.

  3. #63
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by proteanmix View Post
    For example, if a member makes a thread about prison reform and other members begin to speak about their experiences in jail or someone they know experiences, I would not consider that a derail or fluff. I would consider it the beginnings of a tangential discussion but not a derail. Fluff begins to enter the picture when a more serious discussion based thread about prison reform turns into a bunch of jokes about not dropping the soap and who would be whose prison bitch. That is what I consider a derail and fluff.
    But as funny as all get out!
    (Sigh. I'm sorry. But I laughed out loud... you give great examples, PM.)

    Quote Originally Posted by Jen View Post
    Why doesn't this sort of thing happen at INTPc? I believe know why, I'm just curious of other's responses.
    Why does the Fluff argument not happen at INTPc?

    1. More homogeneous group. They are better at perceiving and responding to things similarly... less conflict.

    2. The mods split a lot of threads there, or move posts from one subforum to another as soon as the tone changes.

    3. The INTP mindset is quirky AND serious all at once... so it's not really fluff, it stays this indescribable mix of the two... and the INTPs police themselves. They might make a joke, then in the same post they'll address the issue... So it's still on target, even if it's light-hearted in spots. And if necessary, people there just skip over the zinger more easily (it seems) and stick with the meaty discussion, if that is why they are there.

    So different environment, different mentality, more natural agreement on process... Here, a widely varied environment results in more chaos and "fighting" over the style and process of the thread topics.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  4. #64
    ~dangerous curves ahead~
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    2,590

    Default Would this work better?

    /long post ahead warning

    thoughts on the subject

    I do agree with FM's earlier post. In an open space, it is human behaviour to move towards groups. As people become more comfortable with each other, they start becoming interested in other facets of that person, i.e. more than his opinions, what are his personal experiences, his feelings, his motivations.

    Attachments form. It breeds affection and attraction sometimes results.

    Hence the appearance of cliques; I doubt cliques here were formed to exclude in that sense. Rather, it is more folks you have a common sympathy towards, isn't it? So when "inside" remarks are made, I doubt it was made with that intent to exclude others, but more from someone understanding why a person would've said something, and meant to reassure or affirm - the way you'd help if someone in your family was down?

    In a family, there is a natural ebb and flow of seriousness and fun. It is in that inter-mingling and shifts that bonds are formed, isn't it? I've seen fun threads become very serious over the course of posts, and real advice and help being offered. And serious threads become light-hearted, revealing more insights in that time, and revert to the OP later. Isn't that how normal dialogues flow?

    So I'd take this as the forum is going through the teenage years of insecurity, simply.

    We're letting down our guard more, learning more about each other vs facelessly exchanging thoughts, at the same time, we're not always comfortable with where we could be headed. I think there's nothing wrong with that btw: I'd be worried if no one questioned where we were going/how do we fit in.

    I think the socialness can foster a more mature platform for debate at a later stage. i.e.

    • When the Thinkers learn to state their opinions less critically, and the Feelers learn not to take it so personally.
    • When the iNtuitives learn to speak less obliquely and the Sensates take things less literally.
    • When the Es learn to tone down their exuberance, and understand that seriousness is expected of them, and the Is feel safe enough to come out of their shell and that it is ok to be silly sometimes.
    • When the Js learn to be softer and suspend judgement a little, and the Ps learn to stop bouncing and focus to a decision.


    I doubt that any of these could be achieved if there was only serious debates all the time.

    Does that make sense?

    It comes down to what Ivy (or was it cafe.. sorry ) said earlier. Is this a forum about the types, or a forum for the types.

    Does it have to be either / or? Anyone considered maybe it was the light-hearted threads that drew more people to join?

    Ne Ideas:

    Would this work, Geoff, in creating a more level playing field. (note, I don't have IT knowledge, so this is conceptual)?

    1. On the "new posts" section, break down the new posts into "MBTI / other psychology topics" and "The Bonfire/Playground". (Choose name as appropriate). The way swimming pools are marked clearly. If we had clearer demarcations, it could help finding what you want faster.

    2. All posts from the Bonfire / playground zone (or maybe blogs) will not count for user title, are not eligible for rep points. That way no one can be penalised for not socialising, hence would not have to feel left out. And my guess is the social folks will continue cheersing away in their merry pub anyway. Afterall, it is not for points nor for post counts that one is social; and FWIW, I do find it offensive that when one is social, it is looked upon as whoring.

    3. The playground zone is only available for view and threads by members.

    4. As with Wandering's and whatever's ideas - all thread creators are responsible for stating the parameters of acceptability for their threads, and responsible for emceeing their threads. If they do not, it is understood that anything goes then. They've always the right to PM admins for assistance to strip out fluff, or to request threads to be moved.

    5. Thread creators have the authority to neg rep someone who was taking their thread to a space they didn't want to go.

    The neg rep is an effective tool for policing which is not used often enough, methinks. Perhaps underlying it, is the fact that everyone wants to be liked, and to avoid conflict, isn't it? But if it was used in a mature manner, and the thread creator gave sufficient first warning to the offender in public/PM, I think it'd help us all grow up too. Afterall, slap someone often enough, they'd learn the boundaries.

    Haight's installation of the system was a rather brilliant move to speed the forum to this level of relationships actually. It forced everyone to think where we're headed and to actually care about the space. But we've just not used the tools he has put out for us to watch ourselves and others.

    /long post ends

  5. #65
    Senior Member substitute's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    4,601

    Default

    It's all good aelan, except a couple of tiny concerns I have: if social posts aren't eligible for rep poings or post counts, then isn't that penalizing people for being sociable? Also, as you point out, there has been a fast increase in new members in recent weeks, showing that perhaps the higher fluff content has been attracting a lot of people; we've no evidence or data to speculate on how many it's put off, but we do know that it's either attracted, or at least not put off, quite a lot of people. So if it became 'members only', wouldn't that bias the advertizing pool, as it were, towards the heavy duty types, thereby effectively creating a selective, rather than inclusive membership?

    Maybe I got you wrong, but those are my thoughts anyway.
    Ils se d�merdent, les mecs: trop bon, trop con..................................MY BLOG!

    "When it all comes down to dust
    I will kill you if I must
    I will help you if I can" - Leonard Cohen

  6. #66
    Mamma said knock you out Mempy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    2,226

    Default

    I never neg rep people. I can't bring myself to, I say! Plus, when I don't like a post, one of the farthest things from my mind is usually penalizing them or lecturing them; I never even remember that I CAN negative rep them.

    So, I don't know. Others are probably more free and liberal in their use of negative rep, but luckily, I've never come across one.

    But yeah Aelan, I totally agree that a person's thread is their space and that their requests should be respected. I think a lot of people only care that posts stay relatively on-topic. I personally have never had a thread of mine derailed, and if it were, I think I'd just gently try to guide it back to its topic. Then again, maybe I'd be less mature about it than that.

    I do agree with FM's earlier post. In an open space, it is human behaviour to move towards groups. As people become more comfortable with each other, they start becoming interested in other facets of that person, i.e. more than his opinions, what are his personal experiences, his feelings, his motivations.

    Attachments form. It breeds affection and attraction sometimes results.

    Hence the appearance of cliques; I doubt cliques here were formed to exclude in that sense. Rather, it is more folks you have a common sympathy towards, isn't it? So when "inside" remarks are made, I doubt it was made with that intent to exclude others, but more from someone understanding why a person would've said something, and meant to reassure or affirm - the way you'd help if someone in your family was down?
    I absolutely agree. Nicely said. But I think the matter is less about kinship and more about the popularity contests (like Jen's thread; sorry hon!). I think the kinship tends to include people, if they're brave enough to make that first step and involve themselves in at least one fluffy thread. Usually, the people are so nice here that they include you right away; that was my experience, leastways.

    I do think that the more affection and knowledge there is between people, the more open-minded and fruitful discussion seems to be. The less people feel at odds with each other or indifferent toward each other, the warmer discussion seems to be.

    Overall, great post Aelan. Just wanted to say that, though with what a beast it was, I didn't read all of it throughly (you can bet it got a good skim, though!). Sun's rising here anyway, and I've been up all night.
    They're running just like you
    For you, and I, wooo
    So people, people, need some good ol' love

  7. #67
    ~dangerous curves ahead~
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    2,590

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by substitute View Post
    It's all good aelan, except a couple of tiny concerns I have: if social posts aren't eligible for rep poings or post counts, then isn't that penalizing people for being sociable?
    Let me qualify that I was responding to Geoff's question on how to level the playing field, keeping aside my personal feelings about social or not being rewarded/not. Afterall, a shared space can only come about with a compromise, so that is what I'm willing to give up, whether or not it makes me happy is another thing. Overall, I'd rather a good group vs me happy alone.

    Also, a penalty is a neg rep, isn't it? Not a no rep. My guess is truly sociable folks need not be poinged , and they'd still be sociable, simply. Like FM said, life'll find its own way. It may encourage more extroverts to think up of good solid threads too, vs the natural inclination for social threads too.

    Also, as you point out, there has been a fast increase in new members in recent weeks, showing that perhaps the higher fluff content has been attracting a lot of people; we've no evidence or data to speculate on how many it's put off, but we do know that it's either attracted, or at least not put off, quite a lot of people. So if it became 'members only', wouldn't that bias the advertizing pool, as it were, towards the heavy duty types, thereby effectively creating a selective, rather than inclusive membership?
    True that, but the sense I got from Geoff's opening post was how could we have more seriousness too? So I was more coming from that angle of lure them in first, before we hit them with drinks and make 'em love us.

    Maybe I got you wrong, but those are my thoughts anyway.
    Nopes, you read me perfectly, I was just trying to give ideas neutrally in response to Geoff's OP.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mempy View Post
    I never neg rep people. I can't bring myself to, I say! Plus, when I don't like a post, one of the farthest things from my mind is usually penalizing them or lecturing them; I never even remember that I CAN negative rep them.

    So, I don't know. Others are probably more free and liberal in their use of negative rep, but luckily, I've never come across one.
    I've not used that function too, but it is also because I think the amount of neg rep I give could be quite destructive.

    I absolutely agree. Nicely said. But I think the matter is less about kinship and more about the popularity contests (like Jen's thread; sorry hon!). I think the kinship tends to include people, if they're brave enough to make that first step and involve themselves in at least one fluffy thread. Usually, the people are so nice here that they include you right away; that was my experience, leastways.
    overall, the socialness helped, no? It is more how to build up the serious side now, isn't it?

    I do think that the more affection and knowledge there is between people, the more open-minded and fruitful discussion seems to be. The less people feel at odds with each other or indifferent toward each other, the warmer discussion seems to be.

    Overall, great post Aelan. Just wanted to say that, though with what a beast it was, I didn't read all of it throughly (you can bet it got a good skim, though!). Sun's rising here anyway, and I've been up all night.
    Sun's down here and I should be asleep soon. *yawn*. Yeps. That's what I'd like to see, where we not only see each other's viewpoints, but their rationale and feelings for those views too. It helps me at least, IRL, in dealing with different types.

    Ahheee. One way to kill a thread, with serious, long posts. Where's Geoff... come back from shooting the duckies... what do you think of my suggestions...

  8. #68
    unscannable Tigerlily's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    TIGR
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Socionics
    EII None
    Posts
    5,935

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aelan View Post

    Ahheee. One way to kill a thread, with serious, long posts. Where's Geoff... come back from shooting the duckies... what do you think of my suggestions...
    I think your suggestions are great. All but the rep points thing. Other than that .
    Time is a delicate mistress.

  9. #69
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    11,925

    Default

    So have we decided to put dating polls in the Fluff Zone? The new and improved Überführer is deciding where to place the one he will create on his own to give Aelan a rest. (Or is that considered bad form?)

  10. #70
    Highly Hollow Wandering's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    873

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jen View Post
    Where have you noticed fluff in a non fluff area?
    Pretty much everywhere. Nothing in-your-face, but the feel of fluff is definitely there. I've been on a couple of "keep the fluff low" forums before, and the feel is VASTLY different.

    Is this directly affecting you and if not why are you concerned with this topic?
    No it's not affecting me, because as I said, I've been on low-fluff forums, but I've also been on forums that were full of fluff to the brim (can anyone say INFPgc ? ) I'm flexible, it doesn't bother me.

    However, if it bothers others, then it bothers me. As an INFJ yourself, you should understand that.

    Why doesn't this sort of thing happen at INTPc?
    Isn't the answer to that one obvious ? For the same reason that nobody would ever think of complaining about having too much fluff on INFPgc: type culture. INTPs don't have a problem with fluff because they mostly don't DO fluff. And INFPs don't have a problem with too much fluff because they LOVE fluff. Same with derailing threads: INTPs are almost neurotic in their way of moving posts around to keep threads always on topic, while on INFPgc threads get derailed *all the time* and nobody cares because, you know, if someone wants to discuss something, then they should be able to do it without being made to feel like they are not doing it the right way or something. Homogenous cultures.

    MBTIc, on the other hand, is NOT homogenous, and that's where the problem comes from. When you've got fluff-loving types posting along fluff-loathing types, or thread topicality (?) purists posting along thread flexibility types, it's bound to create problems.

Similar Threads

  1. WHen does trolling go too far
    By prplchknz in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 08-27-2012, 05:29 PM
  2. How Far is Too Far to Think Ahead?
    By ThatGirl in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: 01-26-2012, 02:05 PM
  3. When is it going too far?
    By GinKuusouka in forum Academics and Careers
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 01-21-2009, 06:26 AM
  4. Popularity Contests?
    By Little Linguist in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 01-16-2009, 06:04 PM
  5. Popularity contests?
    By Little Linguist in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-15-2009, 09:44 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO