I hope it doesn't get closed too soon, as I feel it's worth a discussion.

I've visited quite a number of threads in the entertainment section this week where the discussions have been almost entirely fan-orientated. It can get pretty annoying when the same idiots stick their heads through the door, rattle off a dig at the programme, and leave the thread for a few days. Often it's hard to judge whether it's trolling or not, but it is incredibly irritating.

Common sense tells me that if I don't like a specific programme I wouldn't waste my time opening the thread up to read, let alone posting on it, but people do (usually the same people, it has to be said).

But I was just thinking it over - could we not have "flagged" entertainment threads - for example "Red Dwarf - fans only"? That way it would keep out the borderline trolling. If they then wanted to have a dig, they could open up their own "Red Dwarf - Who Else Thinks It's Garbage?" - which is less intrusive, far easier to ignore, albeit far less satisfying for them.

You should try using the IMDB forums.

You are right though, why go to the effort to say something is bad. It does come across as you are just out to cause an argument.

I did that once for a movie, and I got seriously slapped for it! >.<
I thought that you can give opinions of a movie and how it made you feel. Regardless of whether it is good or bad?

Having said that, I don't normally go on and post about a bad movie. I too prefer posting of like-minded people who appreciates a movie. The recent horror movie thread was a good one.

hm a tough one

i dont normally post in threads about stuff i dont like....unless, i have something silly to say :)
i wouldnt say im a troll.

hm its a tough one, is there a difference between a troll and somebody that posts 1 or 2 disparaging remarks in threads about subjects they dislike?

No, I wouldn't say what you do is trolling either, Mel. Sometimes the odd comment thrown in can really lighten things up.

"Is there a difference between a troll and somebody that posts 1 or 2 disparaging remarks in threads about subjects they dislike?"

Dunno, that's the question. When it comes from the same characters over and over again, yes, to me it smacks of trolling. Surely it's better to put a sign on some of the front doors to limit access.

If I opened up a Most Haunted thread, I'd welcome all comments about the program, so long as they have something intelligent to say. Most of the comments would be negative anyway.

But it would be nice in a fan thread to keep the weeds from the garden.

Last year we had a few 'Big Brother' haters who posted a lot on the Big Brother thread, and so we asked them to post on a separate' 'Anti-BB' thread. That worked quite well.

There are soem threads that will never be a debate or a meeting of minds - what we try to do, therefore, is spot threads that are likely to generate 'fans' and 'non-fans' and keep an eye on the thread, suggesting that people respect the views of the OP.

So if someone kicks off an 'I love Big Brother' thread, we'll try and make sure that it stays a 'fan' thread, and suggest that other threads setting out the alternative view are set off if required.

On the whole, we're tolerant of intelligent and thoughtful commennts from any point of view on these threads, but the 'That sucks' posts are usually teh ones that we'll regard as being posted just to annoy.

That's the 'line' that we try to follow.

The idea that you can restrict posting in a thread to only ones that share your view is unacceptable (to me).

I also note that putting suggestions of such a limitation in a thread title only acts as a red rag to a bull.

You see, I do hate one-liners in a serious discussion, so therefore, I do find it trolling at times. I never used to think of it this way, but the same people always do the same thing. I found myself kind of also trashing their own threads, which is uncalled for really... but until someone see it from your own experiences, they will forever be acidic, or sarky in a way that is unwanted. I think I've been in the dark side and back myself.

I've been called a troll before too for simply not abiding by the sentiments of the other posters, when it indeed was a subject which is broad and has various angle to it. Bartfarst was labelled as a troll once, but what he said was similar to what I say in sentiment. Yet, he's been banned numerously times, and I wasn't. Sometimes it does make me think whether I was a token member in some ways.

The idea that you can restrict posting in a thread to only ones that share your view is unacceptable (to me).

I also note that putting suggestions of such a limitation in a thread title only acts as a red rag to a bull.

The flip side is that people should have be able to post 'positively' abouta topic without posts going in that are clearly there to do nothing but cause problems.

It's a big Forum - people with a diametrically opposed point of view that they are not interested in debating, but just proselytising, can easily set their own threads up.

The idea that you can restrict posting in a thread to only ones that share your view is unacceptable...

I can't see why. That's the idea of the Sheffield Interest Groups section, after all - it's merely focusing various enthusiast threads into one group. Would it be acceptable to post a thread in the Writer's Group along the lines of I can't stand writing, all writers need to get a life, I've never met a writer who doesn't look like the back end of a bus?

The incorporating of flagging up threads into forum rules, using "fans only" as an example, would have set the groundrules from the start. It may well act as a red rag to a bull, but in this case, the rules are very clear, and his ass would be kicked for breaking them.

Just a thought, born out of frustration.

I can't see why. That's the idea of the Sheffield Interest Groups section, after all - it's merely focusing various enthusiast threads into one group. Would it be acceptable to post a thread in the Writer's Group along the lines of I can't stand writing, all writers need to get a life, I've never met a writer who doesn't look like the back end of a bus?

The incorporating of flagging up threads into forum rules, using "fans only" as an example, would have set the groundrules from the start. It may well act as a red rag to a bull, but in this case, the rules are very clear, and his ass would be kicked for breaking them.

Just a thought, born out of frustration.

Actually, we did have a few of those posts in the Writer's Group so we deleted them and slapped the poster with a brief holiday for being troublesome. :)

It's an interesting idea to flag a thread like that, but I'm not sure whether we could make it work better than we currently do. For example, Im a fan of Battlestar Galactica but I might say 'They ballsed up xxxx's character there'. - a real fan might regard that as being an unsuitable post.

What we'll often do at the moment is post a brief 'Mod Note' at the head of the thread and hope folks will go along with it.

I can't see why. That's the idea of the Sheffield Interest Groups section, after all - it's merely focusing various enthusiast threads into one group. Would it be acceptable to post a thread in the Writer's Group along the lines of I can't stand writing, all writers need to get a life, I've never met a writer who doesn't look like the back end of a bus?

The incorporating of flagging up threads into forum rules, using "fans only" as an example, would have set the groundrules from the start. It may well act as a red rag to a bull, but in this case, the rules are very clear, and his ass would be kicked for breaking them.

Just a thought, born out of frustration.

i agree with cgk tbh

i think threads SHOULd have both sides of the coin included
however if people are just out to cause trouble without a decent arguement (**** thats me done for) then they should have their as whupped.

groups are different thats a load of like minded individuals in 1 group

groups are different thats a load of like minded individuals in 1 group

The concept of exclusively like-minded individuals in one thread is just as valid.

Thanks for the input Mr P. Nice to get the view from t'other side o' t'hill. :wink:

Yeh. I agree. There is nothing more attractive to be posting on something which others also find interesting. However, I see different styles used for different topics. If it a thread about politics, expect every angle and fact thrown about. If it is a hobby group, whereby people want to talk of of the subject in an appreciative way, then the style is obviously different too?

Is the OP suggesting that there should be an entertainment section whereby it is more on appreciation than it is on criticism of the film/tv programme?

Is the OP suggesting that there should be an entertainment section whereby it is more on appreciation than it is on criticism of the film/tv programme?

Not as such, just a pre-defining of the thread as for regular viewers - fans who may in fact be very critical of many elements of the programme, but not entirely dismissive, which invites in the usual suspects to sneer at the other posters.

can anyone tell me what a troll is?..other than a small woodland creature found in the early 90's with luminous pink hair :-)

can anyone tell me what a troll is?..other than a small woodland creature found in the early 90's with luminous pink hair :-)

Check out the "Trolls beware... Zero tolerance!" post at the top of each of the sections. There's one at the top of this General Discussions section.

Check out the "Trolls beware... Zero tolerance!" post at the top of each of the sections. There's one at the top of this General Discussions section.

We try to use the term 'troublesome poster' these days. We had representations from the Norwegian Government because the Trolls were feeling defamed. :)

One thing that often happens in the 'fan' threads is that the 'regulars' on the thread will often freeze out and 'talk around' the troublemaker - venetually many of them will get the message. And if they don't - that's when a call to the Mods will usually get results.

It's often a hard call though - one person's 'troll' can be another person's 'disagreement'.

We try to use the term 'troublesome poster' these days. We had representations from the Norwegian Government because the Trolls were feeling defamed. :)



:hihi: :hihi: :hihi:

Dozy

"Don't feed the troublesome posters".

I don't know, it loses something.

to troll or not to troll that is the question. sometimes if one reads something one feels is ridiculous or just plain wrong its difficult to not comment. if you tend to have a different view to the norm the "troll" accusations come a flying. it would be pretty boring if we all agreed to agree so i dont mind the rough stuff so much. although it can be infuriating. i would much prefer a genine troll than a member claiming everyone who disagrees with them is a troll. well they must be to oppose their point of view? well thats what they think.

to troll or not to troll that is the question. sometimes if one reads something one feels is ridiculous or just plain wrong its difficult to not comment. if you tend to have a different view to the norm the "troll" accusations come a flying. it would be pretty boring if we all agreed to agree so i dont mind the rough stuff so much. although it can be infuriating. i would much prefer a genine troll than a member claiming everyone who disagrees with them is a troll. well they must be to oppose their point of view? well thats what they think.

I know where you're coming from, but I'm specifically referring to the negative posts to an obviously fan-orientated thread. There's little point in saying "I don't like x" when everyone around you is chatting away about the latest episode. And then when the post is ignored, you get a follow up post: "Everyone on there is stupid". Ignored again? It's followed up the next day by "It's for cretins. Even the presenter rubbish" It goes on, and it's invaiably the same posters. It's the troublesome posters I take exception to, not a differing opinion.

I know where you're coming from, but I'm specifically referring to the negative posts to an obviously fan-orientated thread. There's little point in saying "I don't like x" when everyone around you is chatting away about the latest episode. And then when the post is ignored, you get a follow up post: "Everyone on there is stupid". Ignored again? It's followed up the next day by "It's for cretins. Even the presenter rubbish" It goes on, and it's invaiably the same posters. It's the troublesome posters I take exception to, not a differing opinion.

these are more aimed at the people on the thread than the thread topic.its a bit like kids throwing eggs at windows then running away. the best way, as often reported, is to completely ignore the coments. you cant educate pork!

to troll or not to troll that is the question. sometimes if one reads something one feels is ridiculous or just plain wrong its difficult to not comment. if you tend to have a different view to the norm the "troll" accusations come a flying. it would be pretty boring if we all agreed to agree so i dont mind the rough stuff so much. although it can be infuriating. i would much prefer a genine troll than a member claiming everyone who disagrees with them is a troll. well they must be to oppose their point of view? well thats what they think.

Indeed, if I even look sideways at a Sony thread I get accused of trolling! :loopy:

I also get it for the sheer fact that I prefer IE over Firefox, And Xbox 360 over PS2 and 3.

Indeed, if I even look sideways at a Sony thread I get accused of trolling! :loopy: I also get it for the sheer fact that I prefer IE over Firefox, And Xbox 360 over PS2 and 3.

That's getting into specific examples though Rich, which is asking for the thread to be closed (this thread, not yours).

That's getting into specific examples though Rich, which is asking for the thread to be closed (this thread, not yours).

YES RICH BE QUIET

YES RICH BE QUIET
This is also a fine example. Aye. :rolleyes:

I can't see why. That's the idea of the Sheffield Interest Groups section, after all - it's merely focusing various enthusiast threads into one group. Would it be acceptable to post a thread in the Writer's Group along the lines of I can't stand writing, all writers need to get a life, I've never met a writer who doesn't look like the back end of a bus?

The incorporating of flagging up threads into forum rules, using "fans only" as an example, would have set the groundrules from the start. It may well act as a red rag to a bull, but in this case, the rules are very clear, and his ass would be kicked for breaking them.

Just a thought, born out of frustration.

No because that's descending into insults.
But I suppose it would be okay to post one about why you personally hated writing or reading. It might not get too many replies though.

But I suppose it would be okay to post one about why you personally hated writing or reading. It might not get too many replies though.

But infinitely better on a seperate thread asking if other people hate writing as much as you do.

I can't see why. That's the idea of the Sheffield Interest Groups section, after all - it's merely focusing various enthusiast threads into one group. Would it be acceptable to post a thread in the Writer's Group along the lines of I can't stand writing, all writers need to get a life, I've never met a writer who doesn't look like the back end of a bus?

.

From shoeshine (Joint Leader of the Writing Group)

What an absurd argument, Ant!

We in the Writing Group don't have our noses up in the air, and we certainly aren't a set of luvvies. :)

The Writing Group is a place where genuine, constructive criticism is welcomed.

It is a place where all ages and writing abilities are welcomed (excepting those limited intellectually to using textspeak). :)

It is not a mutual admiration society, but an opportunity for all members of SF to advance their skills in using our native language.

Surely that's a life-enhancing qualification. :)

We are not pedantic when grammar goes awry. We are intrigued by the variation in ideas, not the slight errors in spelling.

Maybe you should dip your toes in the water, Ant. You'd be made to feel welcome. :)

By the way, there is a specific reason why links placed to contributions from Writing Group Members are individually Password-Protected. It not secretive in any way, the contents are innocent. The system is designed to protect the copyright of contributors to their work if it should, at some future time have a monetary value to the author resulting in future publication. If you read the "Sticky" Thread on the top of the Section you will understand why it has been organised in this way.:)

I don't get this. If I start a fan thread for Tony Blair, you know, the greatest Briton since Boadicea, it's a tragedy he's stepping down, should we have a whip-round?; am I entitled to expect that only fellow fans will contribute?

I don't get this. If I start a fan thread for Tony Blair, you know, the greatest Briton since Boadicea, it's a tragedy he's stepping down, should we have a whip-round?; am I entitled to expect that only fellow fans will contribute?

I think you'd be deeply disappointed if you did expect that! :hihi:

Dozy

From shoeshine (Joint Leader of the Writing Group)

What an absurd argument, Ant!

We in the Writing Group don't have our noses up in the air, and we certainly aren't a set of luvvies. :)

The Writing Group is a place where genuine, constructive criticism is welcomed.

It is a place where all ages and writing abilities are welcomed (excepting those limited intellectually to using textspeak). :)

It is not a mutual admiration society, but an opportunity for all members of SF to advance their skills in using our native language.

Surely that's a life-enhancing qualification. :)

We are not pedantic when grammar goes awry. We are intrigued by the variation in ideas, not the slight errors in spelling.

Maybe you should dip your toes in the water, Ant. You'd be made to feel welcome. :)

By the way, there is a specific reason why links placed to contributions from Writing Group Members are individually Password-Protected. It not secretive in any way, the contents are innocent. The system is designed to protect the copyright of contributors to their work if it should, at some future time have a monetary value to the author resulting in future publication. If you read the "Sticky" Thread on the top of the Section you will understand why it has been organised in this way.:)

Mr Shoeshine, thank you for your input. You wear your Joint Leader of the Writing Group mantle with obvious pride.

I have written the occasional radio play myself, so I've familiarised myself with the writers' group. It's not quite suitable for me, so I've never joined. But that's a subject for a different thread.

Your whole post seems to consist of a verbose defence of the group, but I'm confused as to where you think an attack came from.

You stress that the group is one where genuine, constructive criticism is welcomed, but I can't see any element of "I can't stand writing, all writers need to get a life, I've never met a writer who doesn't look like the back end of a bus" that could be considered to fall into that category.

My argument was that troublesome posters, using Joe's terminology, can be a real irritation when the comments are purely negative and they have no obvious interest in the thread, or in this case, the group. I could just have easily used the Classic Car thread as an example - "I've never had a car, they're pretty lame. Why don't you all just walk? - Duh!" To me, it sits under the trolling umbrella.

So where exactly does the "absurd argument" lie?

I don't get this. If I start a fan thread for Tony Blair, you know, the greatest Briton since Boadicea, it's a tragedy he's stepping down, should we have a whip-round?; am I entitled to expect that only fellow fans will contribute?

No. Obviously. That's a no-brainer.

Tony Blair is considered by many to be a comedic entertainer, but technically he's a politician. I'm referring to specifically the entertainment section.

Let's say you're discussing a book. Thread title: "Has Anyone Read The Lord Of The Rings?" The thread is entirely open for discussion from all camps. Posts will vary from "he was a clumsy, overrated racist who writes children’s books for adults" to "he was a peerless, inspired genius who penned the most imaginative books of the twentieth century", and everything in-between.

Still with me?

Now, let's say you were a Coronation Street fan, and you wanted to discuss Corrie with your online Corrie mates. Thread title: "The Coronation Street Thread - Keep Up With The Street Action Here!" It's full of Corrie fans, discussing their soap. The keep out sign for non Corrie fans is unwritten, but common sense tells you it's there. If the previous twenty-seven posts are all from Corrie fans, all discussing plot points and characters (posts which can be both positive and negative), then a post basically expressing the point that "Corrie is crap", is trolling, although it's borderline trolling.

In it's simplest terms, we identify the topic of the thread by it's title and the opening post. Anything outside of that is off-topic.

My suggestion, simply, was to clarify the nature of a thread by flagging it as "fans only" for those tempted to post under those circumstances, and to make it easier for the mods to whip off trolling posts when it was obvious they had no liking for the subject in the first place. Basically, if you're not a fan discussing the specific show, it's off-topic.

You may disagree with me, but I don't want you not to "get it". ;)

Basically, what you are saying is that, on any thread whereby the contributors to that thread is passionate about the topic in discussion, bystanders with a smart alec one liner comment which does not add any value to the discussion should refrain? As it can come across as obtusive? I don't disagree with you.

Actually, this happens a lot on the threads about Politics. Then again, the usual contributors continues anyway.

It's an interesting and helpful reply, Ant. In many respects I agree with you. But it is difficult to see why you think that the general principle should not apply to political threads too. Let's say you were a Marxist, and you want to engage in a dialectic with your online Communist mates. Thread title: "Marxism - the way forward". The keep out sign for 'New Labour' and other right-wingers is unwritten, but clearly there. Why shouldn't you be able to flag the thread 'Socialists only'?

Think I'd better slink off now and start work on my "Post invasion - follow Iraq's march to democracy" thread.

A bit off topic I know, but have you heard the one about the post on the Emmerdale fan thread? "The best thing that could happen to this terrible soap would be if a large plane crashed on Beckindale". Removed by a Mod 29th December 1993; the poster was banned for trolling :hihi:

The concept of exclusively like-minded individuals in one thread is just as valid.

:


Really ? it would make for a pretty boring forum.

Really ? it would make for a pretty boring forum.

Depends what you mean by boring - if people wnat to discuss something from a 'fan' perspective, it's natural for them to be peeved when soemone comes on to the thread with the sole intention of annoying the people on the thread.

If they genuinely wanted to discuss why someone / something / some TV show is a heap of horse pooh then they could open a new thread to that end.

Typically, though, the only reason someone does post in an 'oppositional' manner on a fan thread is to wind people up, and stop them enjoying the facilities of teh Forum.

Which is why we do tend to keep an eye on such posts and remove them if asked and if they're obviously posted as wind-ups.

No. Obviously. That's a no-brainer.

Tony Blair is considered by many to be a comedic entertainer, but technically he's a politician. I'm referring to specifically the entertainment section.

Let's say you're discussing a book. Thread title: "Has Anyone Read The Lord Of The Rings?" The thread is entirely open for discussion from all camps. Posts will vary from "he was a clumsy, overrated racist who writes children’s books for adults" to "he was a peerless, inspired genius who penned the most imaginative books of the twentieth century", and everything in-between.

Still with me?

Now, let's say you were a Coronation Street fan, and you wanted to discuss Corrie with your online Corrie mates. Thread title: "The Coronation Street Thread - Keep Up With The Street Action Here!" It's full of Corrie fans, discussing their soap. The keep out sign for non Corrie fans is unwritten, but common sense tells you it's there. If the previous twenty-seven posts are all from Corrie fans, all discussing plot points and characters (posts which can be both positive and negative), then a post basically expressing the point that "Corrie is crap", is trolling, although it's borderline trolling.

In it's simplest terms, we identify the topic of the thread by it's title and the opening post. Anything outside of that is off-topic.

My suggestion, simply, was to clarify the nature of a thread by flagging it as "fans only" for those tempted to post under those circumstances, and to make it easier for the mods to whip off trolling posts when it was obvious they had no liking for the subject in the first place. Basically, if you're not a fan discussing the specific show, it's off-topic.

You may disagree with me, but I don't want you not to "get it". ;)I agree with you almost entirely except that you are giving people too much credit. People won't moderate themselves and use common sense in the way you describe. Which is sad but a fact of life.

Besides one mans trolling is another mans comedic gem. There are a couple of people on here who can annoy me because they don't always stick to the point and it frustrates me because I know these people are more than capable of holding their own and making valuable points. (anyone want me to name names!?) In the end you just need to step back a little and see what you regard as pointless and frustrating is to them a witty and pithy remark.

On the flip there are some people who are thick skinned and ignorant who are incapable of being reasoned with. We call these people "Moderators";) ;)

Only joking mods, i love you all!

I agree with you almost entirely except that you are giving people too much credit. People won't moderate themselves and use common sense in the way you describe. Which is sad but a fact of life.

Besides one mans trolling is another mans comedic gem. There are a couple of people on here who can annoy me because they don't always stick to the point and it frustrates me because I know these people are more than capable of holding their own and making valuable points. (anyone want me to name names!?) In the end you just need to step back a little and see what you regard as pointless and frustrating is to them a witty and pithy remark.

On the flip there are some people who are thick skinned and ignorant who are incapable of being reasoned with. We call these people "Moderators";) ;)

Only joking mods, i love you all!

Part of the entrance requirement - thick skinned, implacable....we drew it up after watching 'The Terminator'. "It can't be bargained with! It can't be reasoned with! It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear...." :D

The one man's shining wit is another man's whining... etc. argument is a good one and is quite common on here. However, there are threads where it's just not appropriate - 'thread hijacking' was something we experienced quite a lot of at one point and it still happens.

Again, if it's a thread that's of a 'serious' nature, or one on which the quips are cusing annoyance, we'll do something about it.

Just a quick one, as I didn't want to start an entire thread on it.

How many admin, co-admin, mods and vol. mods are there at the mo?

I know there's a list somewhere but it seems to be out of date.... or does it just seem like there are more mods about than before (maybe a false impression based on a couple of examples of overmoderation - which this isn't the place for a debate about!!!!!)

Red (Not trolling, promise - just wondered!)

Hi,

Thanks for reminding me - the list was a bit out of date so I've fixed it!

http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/faq.php?faq=vb_faq#faq_sf_mod_list

A few more than we used to have, but we now tend to have more holidays than we used to have. :)

As for overmoderating - going by some 'rules of thumb' adopted by some social forums, we should have about twice as many Mods as we do to ensure 'coverage'. Also, we usually find that perceptions of over-moderating tend to be based upon whether you've had recent dealings with teh Mods or not. ;)

So...back to the topic in hand. What's the best approach to dealing with troublesome posters on 'fan' or 'pecial interest' threads?

Mr Shoeshine, thank you for your input. You wear your Joint Leader of the Writing Group mantle with obvious pride.

Your whole post seems to consist of a verbose defence of the group, but I'm confused as to where you think an attack came from.

You stress that the group is one where genuine, constructive criticism is welcomed, but I can't see any element of "I can't stand writing, all writers need to get a life, I've never met a writer who doesn't look like the back end of a bus" that could be considered to fall into that category.

So where exactly does the "absurd argument" lie?

It's not pride which triggered my response to your post Ant. :) A defensive reaction on my part? Probably! :)

I think any GL would be prepared to defend the folks who contribute positively to their Group, and would react in the same way if it was held to either real or perceived ridicule.

I admit to being verbose at times, but at midnight verbosity within posts are not unusual. :hihi:

By the way, I advertise the Writing Group whenever or wherever possible. I regret that you feel it's not for you. I find it hard to understand how you arrived at that decision when your access is limited to only one part of it.

If you have any suggestions on how to shape the Group to make it more attractive to you and others, please send me a PM. :)

A recent example was a 'graffiti' thread that was started with a post that said that the thread was for graffiti 'fans' only.

I have also seen threads where the original poster has got upset because someone has posted some opinions contrary to their own (well reasoned, not abusive nor 'trolling').
The reaction was something to the effect of 'how dare you disturb "my thread"?'

The idea that threads can be "owned" is a death knell to a thriving forum.
It is usually the lively debate that attracts many to read these pages.

If someone wants to read about all things lovely about "Corrie" they would usually go to a "Corrie" website.
I believe that readers/posters are attracted hear to see the variety of opinion that may be out there.

I believe that there are sufficient rules to allow for moderation of abuse and trolls and that using these, adequately and fairly, is the best way to continue.

I believe that there are sufficient rules to allow for moderation of abuse and trolls and that using these, adequately and fairly, is the best way to continue.

Which is exactly what we currently do.

I have also seen threads where the original poster has got upset because someone has posted some opinions contrary to their own (well reasoned, not abusive nor 'trolling').
The reaction was something to the effect of 'how dare you disturb "my thread"?'

The idea that threads can be "owned" is a death knell to a thriving forum.
It is usually the lively debate that attracts many to read these pages.

.

Well said.

:clap:

Probably best to close here, it's reached full circle. Thanks for the input - just knocking an idea about. ;)

Thread closed at OPs suggestion