Would you like the option of reponding to a DU thread without kicking it?

[Boojatta]

Poll question: Would you like the option of reponding to a DU thread without kicking it?

Poll result (42 votes)
Yes, some things need to be refuted if they are seen, but don't need to be seen.	(11 votes, 26%)	Vote
Yes (but not for the above reason).	(1 votes, 2%)	Vote
No, you should just ignore ideas that you disagree with unless you want them to get more attention.	(7 votes, 17%)	Vote
No, that would be too complicated.	(0 votes, 0%)	Vote
No (but not for either of the above two reasons).	(23 votes, 55%)	Vote

[BlooInBloo]

1. Only this one.

[Boojatta]

11. Okay, how about the option, when starting a thread, of deciding

whether or not people who post in the thread can post without kicking. That option is not available, so I couldn't choose it for this thread.

[DireStrike]

13. That wouldn't work at all

Nobody would choose to have their thread potentially lose kicks.

I like the idea in the first place.

[Boojatta]

18. If nobody chooses it, then there's no problem at all.

It would simply be an unused feature.

However, I think that some people would choose it. It would show a kind of integrity and a willingness to give options to people.

[BlooInBloo]

15. Look - the biggest issue with your solution is that there's no PROBLEM

to be solved.

[Renew Deal]

2. It doesn't make sense.

Posts live their lives here and move on.

[petronius]

3. I don't see the point - the kick is about the new post, not the

post being responded to. So what would be the point of posting something that you don't think is worth being seen by everyone else? If you only want the OP to see your response, send a PM.

What I would like, however, is for voting in polls (without posting) to kick the poll...

[Boojatta]

6. I agree that voting in a poll should kick the poll thread.

The point of posting without kicking is that a thread might already be getting more attention than it deserves.

[petronius]

12. I don't really see it being useful

It seems like a strange determination to make that a thread deserves my attention (i.e. me posting in it), but isn't worthy of anyone else's attention. Basically, if a thread is worthy of attention it will be read and responded to, and if it is unworthy it will slide off the bottom of the page.

I would never use the option you describe, personally...

[DireStrike]

14. It's for things that you think should not be discussed

Yet you would like to post to tell the author why it's a dumb idea.

[petronius]

17. But that's what PM is for...

Seems unnecessary to me, although I guess a case could be made for it in the Lounge where there will be threads in which two posters go off on an extended conversation that doesn't matter to anyone else...



Kick!

[DireStrike]

19. I guess that's true

I never use PMs, so I didn't think of that.

Though this would have the advantage of keeping the answer/rebuttal in the thread should it be searched for in the future, and for whatever handful of people view it so they don't ALSO have to rebut it, or be tempted to kick the thread.

[GreenArrow]

21. ach, ja, zose zings zat should not be discussed

.

[DireStrike]

22. You don't think there are some things that just clutter the front page?

There's nothing worthless that you'd like to be able to contribute to removing? Remember it's only a single contribution, any one user can kick the post in an instant. It's not censorship.

[Boojatta]

24. Technically, we're not even talking about contributing to the removal of

something. We're just talking about refraining from contributing to keeping it at the top of a forum.

[GreenArrow]

25. there's lots of things that I think are worthless

but I just don't read them. Often things that I think are worthless end up being popular threads, but nobody makes me read them. By the same token, there are plenty of things that too me seem worthwhile or important that get little or no play, or are ghettoized in one of the dungeons. But everyone seems to have his or her own ideas about what constitutes important, and I'd just as soon see threads live and die natural deaths whenever possible. If I were admin, (which I have no aspirations of being -- what a headache!) there would be a lot fewer locked threads on here, and no ghettoized topics. People would be banned less for their opinions than for their lack of manners. But that's another topic, no?

I just figure if someone doesn't like a post he can either a) hide it, b) ignore it or c) respond to it.

[Mojambo]

4. No. Not really. n/t

[I Have A Dream]

5. No. What I'd like is for a thread to be kicked when one responds to...

a poll. (Someone shouldn't also have to post something to kick it.)

[DireStrike]

7. Japanese imageboards have this feature

called "sage" (sah-GAY). I think it's a great idea. It helps give people a little more power to stamp out stupid ideas. "Controversial" threads could be killed this way when one side is clearly wrong but very stubborn. It also conveys a message in itself, that one thinks the discussion should not continue.

http://www.lurkmore.com/wiki/index.php?title=4chan#S

(Please refrain from looking at other 4chan-isms on that list. It's for your own good.)

[Annces]

8. That would be interesting if it got kicked by recommendation

instead of by reply. The world would turn upside down.

[DireStrike]

10. Yes, I was thinking that recs should kick also.

And for that matter, we should start using "bump" instead of kick, like every other board in existence.

[NoPasaran]

23. "Kicks" are part of the culture

It's what donkeys do.

[sendero]

9. I can't think of any reason...

.. anyone would want to do that - except to be able to reply to a post and not have everyone else notice.

Naw, bad idea. If you don't want everyone to read what you say, don't post it.

[Crunchy Frog]

16. Sometimes I'm having an argument with a real horse's ass

but don't really want it to be on page 1. I try to avoid arguing with horse's asses, but I don't always have perfect self control.

[Lefty48197]

20. Kick

no response. Ironic, eh?