Encouraging beefier/tofuier content

[MoFoUs]

What would happen if people were encouraged to post their reasons for starting a thread about a flick or any other topic?

IOW, rather than just saying "New movie" or "This person died" with a trailer or article, they expressed WHY they feel it's worthy of being brought up.

There's so much distraction everywhere, and people here seem pretty smart, so what about encouraging more depth for real discussion?

Or if people hate that idea, what about a sub-forum for discussion more so than chatterbites?

[Sedai]

This presupposes a lack of this type of discussion on MoFo, with which I would disagree - you just have to look in the right places. There are plenty of deep-dive/meaty threads on various directors/films and the like.

[Miss Vicky]

IOW, rather than just saying "New movie" or "This person died" with a trailer or article, they expressed WHY they feel it's worthy of being brought up.

This implies that these topics are NOT worthy of being brought up. What makes you think these threads need to be justified?

[MoFoUs]

This implies that these topics are NOT worthy of being brought up. What makes you think these threads need to be justified?

These topics?

What topics aren't worthy of being brought up?

These threads?

What threads?

I'm just suggesting that more content might be a good thing rather than hit and run and deuce-dropping.

Sooooooooooo much distraction.

How about encouraging more real discussion?

[Miss Vicky]

These topics?

What topics aren't worthy of being brought up?

These threads?

What threads?

I'm just suggesting that more content might be a good thing rather than hit and run and deuce-dropping.

Sooooooooooo much distraction.

How about encouraging more real discussion?

That's a lot words that don't answer the question.

[MoFoUs]

This presupposes a lack of this type of discussion on MoFo, with which I would disagree - you just have to look in the right places. There are plenty of deep-dive/meaty threads on various directors/films and the like.

I think you're pre-supposing that I'm pre-supposing something that I'm not.

If someone posts that Fast and Furious 14: Even We Don't Care At This Point is dropping soon, I'd love to know WHY they think this matters.

And the reasons could be quite interesting, including having been fender-bendered by the late Paul Walker, or believing it's the greatest franchise since Porky's, or sharing insight into the deep influence of Melville on the chase scenes.

Many forums actually have minimal content requirements, and I'm not suggesting that, but just an idea that might deepen and broaden discussion opportunities. :)

[Takoma11]

I'm just suggesting that more content might be a good thing rather than hit and run and deuce-dropping.

Threads are conversations, and some of them are the equivalent of small talk and others are more like deep discussions. Just speaking for myself, I only have the bandwidth to engage with maybe two in-depth conversations at a time. If the norm here was that everything you had to post was super-deep, I think I'd find that very intimidating and overwhelming.

Plus, you never know what might lead to a long or interesting conversation. You can write a 1000 word essay about a film and get maybe 3 likes and one or two people going "Nice review!" and that's it. Then over in another thread, someone writes "Friday the 13th Part 2 is the best horror sequel, fight me," and it leads to dozens and dozens of responses unpacking horror sequels and their various merits and maybe a whole side conversation about the nature of the "final girl" character and so forth and so on.

[MoFoUs]

That's a lot words that don't answer the question.

Your question was unclear.

I'm suggesting that people might be encouraged to provide a bit more content.

It's not a condemnation of this forum, which I think is miles ahead of most platforms, but an observation and suggestion arising from the tsunami of superficial distraction we're awash in globally.

I'm a little surprised by the pushback, especially from the very people who DO provide content-rich comments.

[Mr Minio]

What would happen if people were encouraged to post their reasons for starting a thread about a flick or any other topic? What's your reason? :p

[Takoma11]

I'm suggesting that people might be encouraged to provide a bit more content.

I think you are getting pushback for several reasons.

First, there's just no logistical way to encourage people in a way that makes sense and wouldn't feel inherently confrontational or censorial. The implication of your post---and you're welcome to correct me---is that there should be some sort of policy or moderation effort in this vein. I don't see this as creating anything but more work for mods and bad feelings. If a poster is spamming the site with empty posts, I'm sure the moderators will have a private word with them if needed.

Second, being exclusionary or critical of people who aren't providing the "correct" level of content just kind of feels mean. As you get to know people in any community, you'll find that people may be grappling with physical disability, mental health issues, family issues, illness, and a whole other range of things that might mean their level of participation is on the shorter side. It's not nice to think about making those people feel bad or unworthy. Plus some people don't like attention, so just posting "Nice review!" or "Yeah, Seberg was great in that movie!" might be their comfort level in participating. When it comes to creating threads, making a thread with neutral information in it ("The new Bond movie is coming out in November!") might feel more low-stakes.

Third, there already IS encouragement for content. Vote with your keyboard. If someone posts something you find vacuous, don't respond to it. Let that thread sink like a stone. And if someone has clearly put time or effort into something they wrote, write them a response that's more than just "Good review!" or "Yeah, I love that movie." You know, be the change you want to see and all that.

TL; DR: Trying to control how people express themselves---aside from enforcing official rules of the forum---is a fool's errand and will most likely not result in better discussion.

[MoFoUs]

Threads are conversations, and some of them are the equivalent of small talk and others are more like deep discussions. Just speaking for myself, I only have the bandwidth to engage with maybe two in-depth conversations at a time. If the norm here was that everything you had to post was super-deep, I think I'd find that very intimidating and overwhelming.

Plus, you never know what might lead to a long or interesting conversation. You can write a 1000 word essay about a film and get maybe 3 likes and one or two people going "Nice review!" and that's it. Then over in another thread, someone writes "Friday the 13th Part 2 is the best horror sequel, fight me," and it leads to dozens and dozens of responses unpacking horror sequels and their various merits and maybe a whole side conversation about the nature of the "final girl" character and so forth and so on.

Another person who provides rich content here pushing back! :eek:

But we're having a good discussion, so yay. :)

The thing is that I haven't suggested that anyone be required to provide a 1000 word essay, or that the general global flood of superficial crap doesn't sometimes lead to a deeper conversation, though it rarely does.

I'm asking if it mightn't be a thought to encourage a bit more depth in opening comments, including the basic rhetorical etiquette of telling me WHY I might care ro fight anyone over a trashy horror sequel.

This isn't a condemnation of this forum, but really the opposite.

I think we have some great people here, including in this discussion, and I'd love it if we were all encouraged to engage in less of the current narrowspeak norm.

But it sounds like a sub-forum with some content rules would be the way to go based on the reaction so far.

SRS FLM DISCSSN FR SRS FLM PPL ONLY or something. :D

[MoFoUs]

I think you are getting pushback for several reasons.

First, there's just no logistical way to encourage people in a way that makes sense and wouldn't feel inherently confrontational or censorial. The implication of your post---and you're welcome to correct me---is that there should be some sort of policy or moderation effort in this vein. I don't see this as creating anything but more work for mods and bad feelings. If a poster is spamming the site with empty posts, I'm sure the moderators will have a private word with them if needed.

Second, being exclusionary or critical of people who aren't providing the "correct" level of content just kind of feels mean. As you get to know people in any community, you'll find that people may be grappling with physical disability, mental health issues, family issues, illness, and a whole other range of things that might mean their level of participation is on the shorter side. It's not nice to think about making those people feel bad or unworthy. Plus some people don't like attention, so just posting "Nice review!" or "Yeah, Seberg was great in that movie!" might be their comfort level in participating. When it comes to creating threads, making a thread with neutral information in it ("The new Bond movie is coming out in November!") might feel more low-stakes.

Third, there already IS encouragement for content. Vote with your keyboard. If someone posts something you find vacuous, don't respond to it. Let that thread sink like a stone. And if someone has clearly put time or effort into something they wrote, write them a response that's more than just "Good review!" or "Yeah, I love that movie." You know, be the change you want to see and all that.

TL; DR: Trying to control how people express themselves---aside from enforcing official rules of the forum---is a fool's errand and will most likely not result in better discussion.

Thank you for responding again!

I'm not suggesting anything other than suggesting a bit more content in opening comments, OR creating a sub-forum where this is the norm.

That's it.

I'm not asking for more moderation.

The pushback to this from someone as mindful as you is genuinely astonishing to me, but we all have our important issues, and maybe you think we're in conflict. (I'm sure we're not.)

As far as stones go, I see a lot of them sinking everywhere, and I'd love to see fewer.

Hope this is clearer to you, and maybe consider that expectations of minimal content in opening comments are not an unusual thing, constitute basic etiquette, and aren't something I'm suggesting be anything but suggested or sub-forumed.

Gobsmacked here by such a thoughtful defense of thoughtlessness! :eek:

[Miss Vicky]

Your question was unclear.

I specifically asked why you think people need to justify posting about the death of a celebrity or when announcing a new movie. That's why I quoted only that part of your post.

The death of a celebrity - especially one from the movie industry - does not require justification when being announced on a MOVIE forum. The same is true of the announcement of a new movie. These topics are inherently relevant to the forum and don't need explanation. Also I see absolutely nothing that would require an OP of a thread like that to post more than just a trailer or an article.

If you want to know why the topic interests the person who posted about it, there is absolutely nothing stopping you from asking them.

[skizzerflake]

Some topics ARE beef, but many are tofu. If the movie I watched last night was The Leech Woman, it seems that "cheesy but fun" is about as much as I want to say. On the other hand, an erudite and academic discourse on whatever is the great movie of the moment, e.g., Citizen Kane, and why Orson Welles was great, might merit a longer discussion.

It's also worth noting the concentration span of a forum participant. Nothing about our lives these days seems to encourage lots of words, so why Bird-demic, Shock and Terror is a bad movie just seems like a waste of the world's limited supply of words.

[Citizen Rules]

"What are words for when no one listens anymore?
What are words for when no one listens?
What are words for when no one listens?
It's no use talking at all"

[MoFoUs]

I specifically asked why you think people need to justify posting about the death of a celebrity or when announcing a new movie. That's why I quoted only that part of your post.

The death of a celebrity - especially one from the movie industry - does not require justification when being announced on a MOVIE forum. The same is true of the announcement of a new movie. These topics are inherently relevant to the forum and don't need explanation. Also I see absolutely nothing that would require an OP of a thread like that to post more than just a trailer or an article.

If you want to know why the topic interests the person who posted about it, there is absolutely nothing stopping you from asking them.

It's not about justifying anything.

I'm suggesting the etiquette of sharing WHY this is important to the person posting, and why it might matter to others.

That creates depth rather than an endless string of RIPs and "so sad, great actor" and "if it's 1/2 as good as F&F 13: Donuts In The Dust, I'm in!"

The most interesting thing about this topic at this point is that every single participant so far consistently provides real content here, but also seems highly averse to that being encouraged, even in a sub-forum. Color me confused.

[Takoma11]

Thank you for responding again!

I'm not suggesting anything other than suggesting a bit more content in opening comments, OR creating a sub-forum where this is the norm.
.
.
.
Hope this is clearer to you, and maybe consider that expectations of minimal content in opening comments is not an unusual thing, is basic etiquette, and isn't something I'm suggesting be anything but suggested or sub-forumed.

Gobsmacked here by such a thoughtful defense of thoughtlessness! :eek:

I understand what you are saying conceptually, and I understand the desire that a place you spend time with have more "worthy" content. It's the frustration of flipping through a magazine and realizing there's only one good article and the rest is total fluff.

But I'm questioning the logistics and reality of what you're talking about. How is more content in opening remarks being suggested, and by whom?

And if a sub-forum is created where the expectation is that discussion is deeper, then I think that does require moderation or at the very least creates a situation where people are being policed regarding the quality/quantity of what they are writing.

Norms, conventions, and expectations are created by a community. On a forum like this, you then also have the other layer of moderators who enforce official policies. But how people use a site like this varies widely by what they want to get out of it. A fundamental problem you're running into is that group norms can only exist when goals are aligned, and the goals of people using this site are not totally aligned in terms of what they want out of posting here. Some people might just want to have a place where they can learn about movies they haven't heard of, create a log of what they've seen, get some basic social interaction, etc.

So, again, the best way to shape the behavior of other people and the overall nature of a place is to support the behaviors you appreciate and ignore the ones you don't. And, more broadly, accept that some people may not use a space in a way that you like. I post on a semi-private journal thing, and there's one guy who uses it to give extremely detailed accounts of his fights in Smash Bros tournaments and I kind of hate it, but whatever. Who am I to say how he uses his page?

[Miss Vicky]

I'm suggesting the etiquette of sharing WHY this is important to the person posting, and why it might matter to others.

Some things don't need to be said. Clearly it matters to that person because they enjoyed the work of the celebrity who died and it might matter to others who also enjoyed the work of that celebrity. It also serves the purpose of notifying others of that celebrity's death who might not have heard from other sources.

That creates depth rather than an endless string of RIPs and "so sad, great actor"

Does it really, though? Most of us don't have a true personal connection to anyone in the entertainment industry so what more is there to really be said than "They were a great actor, R.I.P."

I would feel really bad and absolutely would want to post about it if Joaquin Phoenix passed away. He's my favorite actor and I've been a fan for over 20 years, but I don't know him and his death wouldn't have any significant impact on my life so there's really not anything more deep I could say than "He was a great actor. It's so sad that he died." But that statement also isn't somehow worthless just because it doesn't have more "depth."

"if it's 1/2 as good as F&F 13: Donuts In The Dust, I'm in!"

What more can be said about a movie that a person hasn't seen yet, though? Either they're interested in seeing it or they aren't. But a thread like that could certainly put it on their radar if they might be interested in it.

[AgrippinaX]

I post on a semi-private journal thing, and there's one guy who uses it to give extremely detailed accounts of his fights in Smash Bros tournaments and I kind of hate it, but whatever. Who am I to say how he uses his page?

As ever, you have the most spectacular analogies. :lol:

[AgrippinaX]

I somewhat relate to the OP. I get miffed by something being discussed in ‘Upcoming Movies’ when it’s been out for some time already, but I also understand that the original thread was started back when that was still an upcoming movie, and it kind of makes no sense so start yet another thread to discuss the same movie. On a related note, I mostly concur that not every upcoming movie deserves its own thread. But in the grand scheme of things, this is a bit of a non-issue. In terms of minimal post length, I try to be detailed when I post, which occasionally verges on verbose. I guess brevity is usually good to aim for.

[MoFoUs]

Now see THIS is what I was talking about:

https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?t=70562

As I said, I really wanted to bring the thread to moderator attention after I'd read the opening comments.

I was just completely shocked by it.

I mean, it's PERFECT.

It should be pinned to the top of the forum as the way to introduce a topic.

Who knew FilmBiff had it in him? :eek:

If we could all be a little more like FB, think of what might happen!

This could be greatest site in the long history of the interwebs!!!!

[MoFoUs]

I understand what you are saying conceptually, and I understand the desire that a place you spend time with have more "worthy" content. It's the frustration of flipping through a magazine and realizing there's only one good article and the rest is total fluff.

But I'm questioning the logistics and reality of what you're talking about. How is more content in opening remarks being suggested, and by whom?

And if a sub-forum is created where the expectation is that discussion is deeper, then I think that does require moderation or at the very least creates a situation where people are being policed regarding the quality/quantity of what they are writing.

Norms, conventions, and expectations are created by a community. On a forum like this, you then also have the other layer of moderators who enforce official policies. But how people use a site like this varies widely by what they want to get out of it. A fundamental problem you're running into is that group norms can only exist when goals are aligned, and the goals of people using this site are not totally aligned in terms of what they want out of posting here. Some people might just want to have a place where they can learn about movies they haven't heard of, create a log of what they've seen, get some basic social interaction, etc.

So, again, the best way to shape the behavior of other people and the overall nature of a place is to support the behaviors you appreciate and ignore the ones you don't. And, more broadly, accept that some people may not use a space in a way that you like. I post on a semi-private journal thing, and there's one guy who uses it to give extremely detailed accounts of his fights in Smash Bros tournaments and I kind of hate it, but whatever. Who am I to say how he uses his page?

While I continue to be surprised by your strong opposition to the basic best netiquette I'm suggesting either be suggested or enshrined in a sub-forum, I also continue to appreciate your ongoing engagement with the topic.

Can I ask if you have a sense of why you so strongly oppose what I'm proposing? I don't ask in an effort to mount some greater defense or to make fun, but just out of my ongoing surprise. Do you work in preservation, and thus strongly object to alteration? I'm being serious and not making light btw.

I appreciate your magazine analogy (do those still exist?), but feel the atmosphere of a social media site is more immersive, and that shallow distraction is always happy to overwhelm all else. A magazine can be more easily ignored as one of many, but not an environment of discussion which may fall prey to superficiality and distraction.

Logistics and reality are not complicated or dire. I'm suggesting a suggestion or a sub-forum from which topics could be moved (at worst) into genpop if the basic proposed netiquette is not observed.

No proposal of content quality has been presented, nor any policing thereof. I truly have no idea where these concerns are coming from.

I'm just asking about basic best netiquette being suggested or enshrined subforumally.

As in "I read this book about Orson Welles. It says he wasn't that great, and that Manky was the real genius behind Kane, and Jedediah (aka Manky) the only truly compelling character. Manky was my uncle, but even I disagree that he was a genius, though of course I am. Here's a link. What do you think?"

That took me about a minute to write, and lays out the topic, provides a link, and also gives a number of options in reply. ("Tell us more about Uncle Manky!" "Did he end up like Jedediah?" "I agree that Kane is not that great, and here's why.")

It's astonishingly uncomplicated, and I don't see a downside to suggesting or enshrining a few sentences to lay out the what and why. I only see an upside.

As far as "best ways of shaping the behavior of other people" goes, I'm not about that, and don't know where such a social engineering perspective comes from or why it's being erroneously applied to my very simple suggestions.

I'm suggesting what I'm suggesting, no more and no less.

I look forward to better understanding your resistance, and hope I've clarified what I'm suggesting, how it might work, and allayed your concerns about policing quality and "shaping the behavior of others."

[Takoma11]

While I continue to be surprised by your strong opposition to the basic best netiquette I'm suggesting either be suggested or enshrined in a sub-forum, I also continue to appreciate your ongoing engagement with the topic.

I go back to: suggested by who, and how?

Can I ask if you have a sense of why you so strongly oppose what I'm proposing?

Because I think it would be logistically weird and ultimately wouldn't actually accomplish the goal of having people write more complex introductions to their topics.

I'm suggesting a suggestion or a sub-forum from which topics could be moved (at worst) into genpop if the basic proposed netiquette is not observed.

Right, so this requires action from the moderators or users correcting other users. I just don't see it as being a good thing.

As far as "best ways of shaping the behavior of other people" goes, I'm not about that, and don't know where such a social engineering perspective comes from or why it's being erroneously applied to my very simple suggestions.

You are literally describing taking steps to alter current behavior that you don't like, via "suggestion", creating a "this is serious talk" sub-forum (with implied or explicit rules for participation), and moderation to relocate posts that don't fit certain standards. The whole point of this thread is you asking how we can make people change their behavior to post better introductions to their topics.

And to be very clear, shaping the behavior of other people is not a bad thing necessarily. Do you know how many internet spaces had (or have) a convention of greeting any new female poster with sexual harassment that was either a "joke" or in earnest? That's a cultural element of a community, and the way that other posters/moderators respond to that kind of thing sets a tone. I don't think that someone who in the past has openly asked for "titty pics" from other users would do so here, that's an example of a community/culture shaping behavior, and for me personally I find that a good thing.

Likewise, when you express appreciation for the hard work that someone has put into a thread or a review, you are giving them positive reinforcement for that behavior, which increases the likelihood of them continuing to do that. Really, to some degree, any response at all to another person---and that includes ignoring them---is giving them a little nudge. Human interaction is inherently behavior shaping.

I'm not objecting to your desired outcome (more in-depth conversations, more engaging opening posts to threads)---they sound great! I just don't think that your suggested tactics would be effective, encouraging, kind, or well-received, and they would add more work to the moderators' plate.

[MoFoUs]

I go back to: suggested by who, and how?

It seems pretty straightforward, but what do you think might be best?

Because I think it would be logistically weird and ultimately wouldn't actually accomplish the goal of having people write more complex introductions to their topics.

More complex introductions, or just follow basic netiquette, if only in a sub-forum?

Why do you object to a sub-forum?

Right, so this requires action from the moderators or users correcting other users. I just don't see it as being a good thing.

Possibly having to move a thread or two is a huge burden?

You are literally describing taking steps to alter current behavior that you don't like, via "suggestion", creating a "this is serious talk" sub-forum (with implied or explicit rules for participation), and moderation to relocate posts that don't fit certain standards. The whole point of this thread is you asking how we can make people change their behavior to post better introductions to their topics.

The intensity of your opposition to this astonishes me, and appears unshakable. Ah well.

And to be very clear, shaping the behavior of other people is not a bad thing necessarily. Do you know how many internet spaces had (or have) a convention of greeting any new female poster with sexual harassment that was either a "joke" or in earnest? That's a cultural element of a community, and the way that other posters/moderators respond to that kind of thing sets a tone. I don't think that someone who in the past has openly asked for "titty pics" from other users would do so here, that's an example of a community/culture shaping behavior, and for me personally I find that a good thing.

Wow.

Likewise, when you express appreciation for the hard work that someone has put into a thread or a review, you are giving them positive reinforcement for that behavior, which increases the likelihood of them continuing to do that. Really, to some degree, any response at all to another person---and that includes ignoring them---is giving them a little nudge. Human interaction is inherently behavior shaping.

I'm not objecting to your desired outcome (more in-depth conversations, more engaging opening posts to threads)---they sound great! I just don't think that your suggested tactics would be effective, encouraging, kind, or well-received, and they would add more work to the moderators' plate.[/QUOTE]

Do you have an alternative suggestion or suggestions?

[Dead2009]

Not everyone has the same posting style when it comes to being on forums, and forcing those who arent as in depth in their posting because you're not a fan of threads without substance isn't fair to them. I have come across threads on here with well thought out opinions but they got little to no interaction, so it's all on what draws their interest.

If a post with just a youtube link gets more interaction than say, the Hawk Tuah girl thread that you posted, what's the big deal?

[MoFoUs]

Not everyone has the same posting style when it comes to being on forums, and forcing those who arent as in depth in their posting because you're not a fan of threads without substance isn't fair to them. I have come across threads on here with well thought out opinions but they got little to no interaction, so it's all on what draws their interest.

If a post with just a youtube link gets more interaction than say, the Hawk Tuah girl thread that you posted, what's the big deal?

Sounds like a sub-forum might work then. Thank you for your input. :)

[Takoma11]

It seems pretty straightforward, but what do you think might be best?

Is it straightforward? Because I've asked you three times and you haven't answered and now you're asking me who I think should do the suggesting.

The intensity of your opposition to this astonishes me, and appears unshakable. Ah well.

I wouldn't describe my own personal reaction to your idea as intense. However I am confident in my stance that your proposed solutions would not solve what you see as a problem.

I appreciate that you are frustrated by what you see as an abundance of shallow or underdeveloped threads, that it might feel overwhelming having to sort through those threads to find the heftier discussion, and that you'd like to see that change.

Do you have an alternative suggestion or suggestions?

Yes, and they are laid out in my previous posts. Boost (via rep, supportive responses, or modeling in your own writing) what you like, don't boost (ie ignore) what you don't. I don't think that anything more formal is needed or would be particularly effective.

[McConnaughay]

Is it straightforward? Because I've asked you three times and you haven't answered and now you're asking me who I think should do the suggesting.

I wouldn't describe my own personal reaction to your idea as intense. However I am confident in my stance that your proposed solutions would not solve what you see as a problem.

I appreciate that you are frustrated by what you see as an abundance of shallow or underdeveloped threads, that it might feel overwhelming having to sort through those threads to find the heftier discussion, and that you'd like to see that change.

Yes, and they are laid out in my previous posts. Boost (via rep, supportive responses, or modeling in your own writing) what you like, don't boost (ie ignore) what you don't. I don't think that anything more formal is needed or would be particularly effective.

I don't have a whole lot to add to this conversation, but I wanted to mention that I agree with everything Takoma has said on this.

[Miss Vicky]

Is it straightforward? Because I've asked you three times and you haven't answered and now you're asking me who I think should do the suggesting.

You're wasting your time. MoFoUs clearly has no actual desire to engage in proper discussion and has demonstrated this by repeatedly dodging questions and simply saying the same thing over and over like some kind of broken record. They also go on in here about 'netiquette' yet in another thread referred to someone (albeit not a MoFo, but an internet personality) as a "ratchet skank." :rolleyes:

They just like to read their own words.

[FilmBuff]

You're wasting your time. MoFoUs clearly has no actual desire to engage in proper discussion and has demonstrated this by repeatedly dodging questions and simply saying the same thing over and over like some kind of broken record. They also go on in here about 'netiquette' yet in another thread referred to someone (albeit not a MoFo, but an internet personality) as a "ratchet skank." :rolleyes:

They just like to read their own words.

The person who started this thread has had a beef of his own with me ever since we had a disagreement in the Harvey Weinstein thread. In that thread, he also simply dodged my line of reasoning and kept saying the same thing over and over and over, just like you say, "like a broken record" (it should not be a surprise that that thread is now locked).

At some point you have to wonder why someone who's barely been registered over a month here is so intent (and obsessed) with trying to "get even" with anyone he doesn't like personally.

[Dead2009]

Sounds like a sub-forum might work then. Thank you for your input. :)

A sub-forum for what, content you dont want to see? You dont have to click it if you dont want to, you know. People's threads shouldnt be buried because they arent up to your standards.

[Yoda]

I find it difficult to believe this can/will continue without getting worse, in terms of personalization. At minimum things appear to be at an impasse so I'm going to close the thread.

I don't have a whole lot to say that hasn't already been said, and I don't wanna take a parting shot as I close a thread (something I reserve only for people who really, inarguably deserve one), but I will note that this entire idea hinges on what you see as the cost ("distraction"), and as we can see from the responses most people think of that cost, the cost of scrolling past some stuff, to be trivial. That probably explains most of the divide.