We all have that one friend on the forum that loves to pile on to threads once the OP has been answered, often with the likes of “As said by X”, “As said above by Y” and “To sum things up”.
The Snowball Clause will be discussed below and is one way users should exercise common sense to avoid pointy and pile on behavior in threads. Additionally, the snowball clause is designed to prevent long, mind numbing discussions in threads that contain answers being foregone conclusions at the start. I want to emphasize that this is not a policy, rather a best practice that active members of the forum should respect out of the courtesy of others. The clause should be seen as a request to not waste everyone’s time.
- If an original post has been answered in a few posts above and you cannot add anything to the post that has resolved the original one, then it is a candidate for the snowball clause as the point has gotten across and an additional comment will only create a pile on.
- If a post is “snowballed” and somebody later raises an objection or asks a follow up question, then there is no snowball clause and the discussion may continue to get to the point.
This test is meant to show a process of thinking before posting a pile on comment and should not be used to silence others if they have genuine content to contribute.
What the snowball clause is not
If a discrepancy in one’s answer comes up, it is best to settle the conflict through discussion. Moderators and staff do not apply to the Snowball Clause as they always have final word on the issue at hand.
Additional pile on comments don’t do anything other than clutter the thread and in some cases, notify parties who have already made their point (“As X said above”). This process is one that we should all think about to prevent pile on comments and hopefully clean up some of these threads a bit. As always use common sense.
As @naro said, it is a thing that keeps happening, and I agree. To sum things up, just don’t post saying like “as X said”
Okay, sorry. You know I had to do it. But this really is a thing and can clog up the forum.
I would say not being a moderator you might want to be careful making what comes off at-least as a firm rule, I believe the moderators have already brought this up a few times, I do agree with the mentality though.
Hello, I’ve clarified and bolded that this is not a policy or firm rule, simply a practice I believe we should follow. I believe this mentality could improve the forum which is something that doesn’t require a shiny badge nor a mop to do.
This is utterly ridiculous. You are in no position to tell anyone what they can and can’t say or post!
This seems tangentially related to the topic created by @AlphaSeven that was unlisted (Just background, I fully support this topic). One recommendation I have to address these issues is to remove the regular status from the forum.
While becoming a regular doesn’t have a tangible reward, many IFC users do not recognize this fact. For some reason they set their sights on achieving this very inconsequential goal. That changes the nature of the forum.
Because so many people are trying become regulars there are all sorts of symptoms across the IFC. Whether it be high levels of policing, unwelcoming attitudes, or in this case snowballing, these symptoms can be detrimental to our community.
I believe that removing the regular status would mitigate these issues to a significant degree.
As max said this is a little much, so to sum it up I’m not a fan.
And you saying people are trying to become regulars and over policing… this is exactly what this post is! What gives a random guy the right to say what I can reply to a post?
No it’s not.
This is common sense. Naro’s purpose wasn’t to restrict people in their speech, but to say the problem is solved when it’s solved. Nothing more is needed.
Hello Max, that was never my intention. I want to be clear that I am not a moderator and do not have any delegation over the forum. Take this for what you will, once again, this is not a policy or a hard rule and if you decide to follow this is your choice. If you have any other questions, please do let me know. I am willing to engage in civil discussion to clear any discrepancies.
So this random person is allowed to set rules and be a factor in what I’m allowed to reply to a topic?
Where does it states that this is official rule?
It doesn’t, but this is what he’s trying to implement.
^Are you trying to say my previous post was 1) policing and 2) an attempt at becoming a regular?
Clarify if you meant something else. I can assure you I have no interest in becoming a regular.
No, it’s what you interpret it to be. He’s even emphasizing that it’s not.
No not you at all mate! I meant the author of the topic.
Understood, I think his intention was to shine a light on the snowballing issue. That is in large part caused by policing/the desire to become a regular.
Yes so I reiterate my point. He’s trying to implement a policy for all active members of the IFC to follow a rule he’s made up, whether it be best practice or not.
Please stop accusing @naro of wanting to become a regular. I agree with his post. Marc touched on this here
Sorry s1b2p5 - I replied to wrong user
No he’s not. It’s a suggestion on how to approach things.