Obsession with starting monthly threads.

[Apple fanboy]

I’ve noticed that for some posters starting the monthly threads in a number of sections early to make sure they ‘own’ the thread is becoming a very regular habit.

I use the word own as they like to refer to it as their thread, even though these threads have been running for many years.

I appreciate we are all in different time zones, but this particular user is on the West coast of the US so significantly behind the rest of the globe. Also starts the thread before any of the globe is in the correct month!

I would have not mentioned it, but now I’m hearing other users are dropping out due to this one persons behaviour.

I seem to recall another poster who liked to start certain threads early and eventually got banned for it. Not requesting a ban or naming names, but can anything be done about this behaviour? A modification to the rules perhaps suggesting that users can’t start monthly threads until they reach the correct time zone?

 

[KaliYoni]

...and how 'bout the long, garish titles, often festooned with excessive emojis and icons, on many of these threads?

 

[Apple fanboy]

...and how 'bout the long, garish titles, often festooned with excessive emojis and icons, on many of these threads?

I could personally live in a world without emojis. I use the odd smiley face and that’s about it. Usually to denote my post was supposed to be funny.

 

[sunapple]

I don't see the harm. The main annoyance I have on forums is over-policing.

 

[S.B.G]

One thing that could be done is to report the thread(s) to the mods. They could close the thread if caught in a reasonable time after it was started. Then advise the user to only start the thread at a more appropriate time. If the user continues to not follow that advice then they could run afoul of the forums rules. #14 under Things Not To Do:

Repeated problems. Any ongoing actions that make more work for the moderators and administrators or regularly annoy other members and require moderator action.

 

[Apple fanboy]

One thing that could be done is to report the thread(s) to the mods. They could close the thread if caught in a reasonable time after it was started. Then advise the user to only start the thread at a more appropriate time. If the user continues to not follow that advice then they could run afoul of the forums rules. #14 under Things Not To Do:

I think that was done already on a couple of occasions.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

Just wanted to add my support to the sentiments expressed in the original post.

Starting a long standing monthly thread early once - presumably in an excess of enthusiasm and excitement - is fine, but starting a number of quite popular (and long-standing) monthly threads early, and then claiming "ownership" of these long-standing, popular, threads - threads that would not be popular had not many members chosen to post there, month after month, year after year, - and despite this having been pointed out (by others) to the individual in question, is both extraordinarily presumptuous, and deeply annoying, conduct.

Moreover, this serves to undermine any collective enjoyment of such threads - even as a reader - and is both annoying and frustrating (not to mention controlling, not least because such behaviour is horribly reminiscent of that of a sort of chivvying cheer-leader) - for those who may have chosen to participate, some of whom have since stated that this behaviour is causing them to re-think whether or not they may wish to participate in these threads in the future.

In other words, this behaviour is serving to drive away people who have actively participated - to considerable mutual enjoyment - in a series of long-running monthly-starting threads, over a number of years.

Worst of all, this behaviour is taking place in some of the most relaxed, pleasant and agreeable (where even competition is not contentious) areas and threads of the forum, and is really detracting from the enjoyment of some (long-standing) members, who have taken pleasure from participation (and added enormously to the enjoyment of) these particular threads.

 

[adrianlondon]

I'm curious what the issue is, exactly.

If I start a thread, I don't think it gives me any special moderator privileges - I can't delete posts, throw users out of the thread etc. so I don't know why the thread starter is an issue.

The only thing I can think of is that they "own" any wiki that goes with it. I ignore the wikis on threads whose wikis I think are too badly maintained.

 

[S.B.G]

I'm curious what the issue is, exactly.

If I start a thread, I don't think it gives me any special moderator privileges - I can't delete posts, throw users out of the thread etc. so I don't know why the thread starter is an issue.

The only thing I can think of is that they "own" any wiki that goes with it. I ignore the wikis on threads whose wikis I think are too badly maintained.

I think it's just a pride and ego thing that happens to some people who start a thread. They falsely believe that being the thread starter conveys upon them some special right to dictate to others what and how things in the thread can be done.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

I'm curious what the issue is, exactly.

If I start a thread, I don't think it gives me any special moderator privileges - I can't delete posts, throw users out of the thread etc. so I don't know why the thread starter is an issue.

The only thing I can think of is that they "own" any wiki that goes with it. I ignore the wikis on threads whose wikis I think are too badly maintained.

The issue is pre-emptive behaviour which is expressed - in this instance - by someone who has (repeatedly) started a series of (long-running, monthly-starting) threads, a day or so early, thereby arrogating to themselves the "right" to do so, presumably to confer some sort of "ownership", and convey a sense of controlling enthusiasm by so doing.

Normally, repeated threads are a sort of collective endeavour, and one starts them on the proper date (if monthly, this would be on the first day of the month, and not the last day of the previous month, irrespective of time zone).

Secondly, precisely because so many members participate on a regular - and repeated - basis in such threads, the threads are a sort of collective endeavour - and thus, any member whose behaviour serves to undermine these - unstated (but understood) codes of conduct, or behaviour, the ways of conducting oneself in a collective, online environment, or space, - a place where collective (even if unstated) consent matters - serves to ensure that the collective enjoyment of such threads can be made considerably less enjoyable for some of the others who have regularly participated in these threads.

 

[adrianlondon]

I think it's just a pride and ego thing that happens to some people who start a thread. They falsely believe that being the thread starter conveys upon them some special right to dictate to others what and how things in the thread can be done.

I still don't see how that impacts anyone apart from the OP themselves.

If I post in this thread "This thread is only about monthly threads, not other regular threads" you can feel free to ignore me and post about all regular threads. If I was the OP, you could still ignore me and post about all regular threads. OK, bad example, but I wanted to pick this thread in this thread

I don't even notice who the OP is a lot of the time. I'm not going to post any more in this thread as I genuinely don't see what power an OP has, and it seems that others think the OP does have some sway (real or imaginary) that impact the threads they start.

 

[maflynn]

Doesn't bother me one way or another. If someone wants to feel like they're the arbitor and owner of a monthly thread, let em. They really don't and even if you're starting a thread you have no say in how or what other members post in that thread. Only mods and admins have final say in what's acceptable.

I come from a perspective, do we want rules or policies that restrict people from participating or punish them for being active? I think the more participation the better and if someone is excited to discuss a topic that they go out of their way to start a thread more power to them

 

[Scepticalscribe]

I still don't see how that impacts anyone apart from the OP themselves.

It has an impact on others because it violates (and yes, I admit that this is a strong verb) an unspoken, implied - yet (mutually) understood - sense of how one should behave in such a context, or setting.

It comes across as too eager, too enthusiastic, and runs the risk of being perceived as chivvying and controlling, which is an unattractive trait, as it assumes that others want to be chivvied, or controlled.

Now, I do understand that behaviour, - how to behave - or, how to conduct oneself, - in the online space has not had as long (well, thirty years give or take, this is not a small space of time, either) to develop, or evolve, an agreed etiquette - a sort of standard code of (implied, unstated but understood) behaviour, as have most other social settings, both formal and informal, settings that occur in the public, or professional, or so-called "third space".

Yes, the online world is an evolving hybrid, but, as with any other (social) setting, - professional or not - knowing when to participate is as important as simply participating, or not participating.

And, this (repeatedly starting long running monthly-starting threads a day or so early) is behaviour which pre-empts (and thus, subverts) understood norms, norms that are a sort of informally understood social contract, and, by so doing, serves to alienate - even antagonise, to some extent - several others who have been long-standing, active, enthusiastic, participants in this activity (thread).

The thing is that these long standing (monthly starting threads, or the yearly - such as the various football, or motor-racing threads) are collective endeavours.

Their atmosphere - usually welcoming - and content - usually interesting - comes from the (active) participation - the decision to participate, the choice made to participate, and yes, the consent of - their collective membership.

Anything which serves to detract from this is deeply regrettable.

 

[Apple fanboy]

Doesn't bother me one way or another. If someone wants to feel like they're the arbitor and owner of a monthly thread, let em. They really don't and even if you're starting a thread you have no say in how or what other members post in that thread. Only mods and admins have final say in what's acceptable.

I come from a perspective, do we want rules or policies that restrict people from participating or punish them for being active? I think the more participation the better and if someone is excited to discuss a topic that they go out of their way to start a thread more power to them

But didn’t a very prolific poster get banned for starting certain threads before the correct time not too long back?

 

[russell_314]

I don't see the harm. The main annoyance I have on forums is over-policing.

I agree with this statement. We have multiple post complaining about moderators being too harsh and long time members leavingbut here we have someone that just wants to punish people because they’re posting threads they don’t like.

There’s this magical thing you can do if you don’t like something on the Internet. It’s called scroll past it. You don’t have to engage every thread. For example, someone could make a thread saying “iPhone 16e should have MagSafe 🤦‍♂️💩☺️👍✌️” and I can totally disagree with that and even dislike the posters opinion. I could choose to comment or just scroll past.

I’m not saying everything needs to be ignored. If it’s somehow threatening or derogatory, perhaps take it down but if it’s just I don’t like the topic or that style of thread, ignoring it works best. Besides if it’s unpopular, then it will just go down into oblivion. If people are replying, then obviously they enjoy the engagement of that thread. In the end engagement benefits the forms

 

[Apple fanboy]

I agree with this statement. We have multiple post complaining about moderators being too harsh and long time members leavingbut here we have someone that just wants to punish people because they’re posting threads they don’t like.

There’s this magical thing you can do if you don’t like something on the Internet. It’s called scroll past it. You don’t have to engage every thread. For example, someone could make a thread saying “iPhone 16e should have MagSafe 🤦‍♂️💩☺️👍✌️” and I can totally disagree with that and even dislike the posters opinion. I could choose to comment or just scroll past.

I’m not saying everything needs to be ignored. If it’s somehow threatening or derogatory, perhaps take it down but if it’s just I don’t like the topic or that style of thread, ignoring it works best. Besides if it’s unpopular, then it will just go down into oblivion. If people are replying, then obviously they enjoy the engagement of that thread. In the end engagement benefits the forms

Never said I didn’t like the threads. What I don’t like is the way this particular user wants to own the thread. Creating drafts before time to make sure no one else posts the thread before them, then starting it a day early for the same reason.
I’ve been participating in those particularly monthly threads for longer than they have been here.

Now people are saying this controlling narcissistic behaviour has made them leave those threads I feel it warranted a discussion.

 

[maflynn]

But didn’t a very prolific poster get banned for starting certain threads before the correct time not too long back?

I have no idea, I've been a retired mod for so long now, that many of those details are just hazy shadows in my faltering memory.

 

[Apple fanboy]

I have no idea, I've been a retired mod for so long now, that many of those details are just hazy shadows in my faltering memory.

I’m sure you’ll remember the poster. I think they were heading to take your top poster crown for a while there!

 

[maflynn]

I’m sure you’ll remember the poster. I think they were heading to take your top poster crown for a while there!

lol, I vaguely recall, but I still don't remember the details.

The admins don't care about post volume, but if a person is posting frivolous pablum just to get the post count up then they will get moderated. Given that frivolous posts are considered a minor violation, someone would have to completely flout the rule for a significant amount of time to cause the escalation to get to the point of a banning.

Again, I don't remember the person you're referring, though what you said sort of rings a bell.

 

[russell_314]

Never said I didn’t like the threads. What I don’t like is the way this particular user wants to own the thread. Creating drafts before time to make sure no one else posts the thread before them, then starting it a day early for the same reason.
I’ve been participating in those particularly monthly threads for longer than they have been here.

Now people are saying this controlling narcissistic behaviour has made them leave those threads I feel it warranted a discussion.

I’m a little confused about the issue to be honest. Maybe that’s why I’m not understanding the complaint. You’re saying this person has to be first with making a certain post to the point he has it prepared already? I can see where that would be annoying but does it change the content of the thread? Just because they want to be first I wouldn’t call that narcissism. It kind of reminds me of those YouTube comments where people post “first” when they catch the video early. They’re mostly annoying because they don’t have any content. It sounds like these posts have some content.

For example, when Apple announces a new iPhone, I could make a thread the day before iPhones were to be delivered questioning what people think about their new iPhone. Would that be a bad thing? I think after my original post the thread would get taken over by other people and their likes and dislikes.

I guess you can’t call out the thread here, but is there anyway I can find these posts to look at them? I’m really curious!

 

[Scepticalscribe]

lol, I vaguely recall, but I still don't remember the details.

The admins don't care about post volume, but if a person is posting frivolous pablum just to get the post count up then they will get moderated. Given that frivolous posts are considered a minor violation, someone would have to completely flout the rule for a significant amount of time to cause the escalation to get to the point of a banning.

Again, I don't remember the person you're referring, though what you said sort of rings a bell.

Banning - the ultimate sanction - may be a somewhat heavy-handed (if not excessive) response to this particular behaviour.

Perhaps, instead, a gentle reminder (from staff) that some behaviours are vastly annoying to others who have inhabited that exact same online space - with courtesy and consideration for others - for far longer than a recent arrival whose pre-emptive behaviour is violating unstated, (but understood) online social norms?

Annoying behaviour - and the tolerance of the violation of online social norms - even if "frivolous" rather than egregious - detracts from the pleasant experience of visiting some of the more agreeable areas of the site.

What strikes me as especially unfortunate is that this behaviour is occurring in areas of the site - a site that is not short of places and spaces that are contentious and disputatious, where contempt and anger replace courtesy and respect - that are relaxed, welcoming, interesting spaces, places where courtesy and civility are the predominant tone.

While argument - and divisive debate - may serve to drive "clicks" and responses - a civil and courteous, a respectful and welcoming atmosphere and tone, are what keep many members returning again and again to the site.

Thus, I cannot envisage that anything that would serve to undermine their continued engagement with the site, or drive them away, or ensure that they are less willing to visit forums, or sections of the site that they had previously frequently visited, and had greatly enhanced the wider - and general - user experience by doing so, on a regular basis - such as the presumptuous and pre-emptive behaviour that regularly starting monthly, long running threads, a day or so early, - would be welcomed by other members - visitors and participants - to those sections of the forum.

 

[adrianlondon]

frivolous pablum

*looks up pablum"

Thanks! A lovely word. Apparently, as a Brit, I should use the word pabulum.

 

[Weaselboy]

I’m sure you’ll remember the poster. I think they were heading to take your top poster crown for a while there!

I guess you can’t call out the thread here, but is there anyway I can find these posts to look at them? I’m really curious!

Let's not get into the specifics of that forum member here please.

 

[Apple fanboy]

I’m a little confused about the issue to be honest. Maybe that’s why I’m not understanding the complaint. You’re saying this person has to be first with making a certain post to the point he has it prepared already? I can see where that would be annoying but does it change the content of the thread? Just because they want to be first I wouldn’t call that narcissism. It kind of reminds me of those YouTube comments where people post “first” when they catch the video early. They’re mostly annoying because they don’t have any content. It sounds like these posts have some content.

For example, when Apple announces a new iPhone, I could make a thread the day before iPhones were to be delivered questioning what people think about their new iPhone. Would that be a bad thing? I think after my original post the thread would get taken over by other people and their likes and dislikes.

I guess you can’t call out the thread here, but is there anyway I can find these posts to look at them? I’m really curious!

So without calling out the person directly I can’t really give you an example.
But it’s a bit like if I posted the 2026 F1 thread in November before the current season ended. If my motivation was to make sure I was first and I continually used language like ‘my thread this’ or that. Plus then appointment myself official cheerleader for that thread which I find both baffling and bizarre.

 

[Apple fanboy]

Let's not get into the specifics of that forum member here please.

Amen to that! Trying to keep the conversation non specific as I don’t want to call out a person. Hopefully that’s allowed.