Unofficial Draft Guide to RFF

[MrsStarkey]

Was I the only one that felt a little badly for the MN team member who tried to get our input in order to help build a guide for this forum recently? That didn’t go as planned!

Am in the only one who laughed about Justine’s “The Royal family forum
is deranged” comment and can take it in stride? That thread was definitely an example!

I am proposing we try again and help crowd source a guide. I just ask that we don’t be so RFF, and have a sense of humor while we do so. I’ll paste my draft attempt below. Everyone is welcome to contribute however they like.

It is generally used when a tedious poster tediously repeats the same tedious points without engaging with responses except to repeat the same tedious post...

Oh, and when very obvious attempts are launched to derail posts by startig to goad a particular OP about domething she never said.

It’s not about the person but about the technique they are employing.

As someone mentioned upthread, it’s used when someone isn’t engaging in the discussion. Typically when they are repeating the same “asked and answered” points repeatedly. Often when they are being insulting themselves.

Thank you for explaining that, I've been wondering about the pigeon references.

Rule 22: Ignore those whom you deem to be goady derailers.

Rule 23: Also consider reporting them to MNHQ for breaking talk guidelines. This helps MNHQ build up a pattern of posting behaviour.

so in a way it is used to call someone a troll without using the troll word, which is against the guide lines?

Maybe they feel they are engaging with the conversation but the difference is... they have a different opinion. And they are trying to put points across that certain posters do not agree with.

Out come the pigeons again. I've seen it repeatedly. Whatever the origins of the saying are, it is done to shut up different opinions.

Hope the collation's going well, @MrsStarkey! So many rules, so little time ...

Could I say though please that a poster who is supposedly doing that can be very much judged subjectively and not objectively by posters who all hold the same perspective.

Republican posters, or those critical of the RF, may just be making genuine points that don’t sit well with the majority. so I agree with Threesocksmorgan and Simpsonthecat that pigeon remarks are frequently used to stifle proper debate.

Just as personal attacks or supposed jokes were often used on the royalist side in the past against republicans who made good points that royalists wanted to avoid answering. So it works both ways!

Btw, I know that “royalist” and “republican” are definitions that are too narrow but I am using them solely for the purpose of this particular point.

No, please refer to my explanation above. It’s about behavior only.

Not at all. People do so obviously engage in spirited debate here. But when one or more posters attempt to turn the conversation and control it, repeating the same, often disproven and illogical points ad nauseam, it applies.

Also when people appear and make purposefully derailing comments with no argument at all?

So if a poster says "I don't agree with what you are saying because..." and then gives a very valid reason why they dispute that point, others are quite entitled to tell them they are a pigeon shitting on a chess board... OK!!

This is going to be a very interesting set of rules!

If we want more productive discussions on this board that don’t lead to upset on either side then maybe it’s just best to tell someone honestly if you think they are derailing without all of the gifs and nonsense. And everyone gives them an opportunity to explain why they posted what they did while being open to hearing a different viewpoint or perspective to their own?

I would definitely be up for that. The problem as it stands at the moment is that the more combative the responses you receive are, the more combatively you tend to defend them and then the whole thing ramps up. Especially if it’s ten posters responding to one!

And bluntly for the above to take place it needs an understanding that one group with a shared perspective doesn’t “own” the board.

that one group with a shared perspective doesn’t “own” the board

No, but it is reasonable for the person starting the thread to have some ownership of the thread.

I do not understand why some posters constantly try and derail threads and complain that the subject matter of that thread is too narrow.
The ANL posts are a good example, they have been kept on subject matter, and still they are 5,000's post long - if it encompassed everything then it would be 50,000 posts long and it would be too much to read.

I am always interested by 'productive discussion' I don't understand why (and this isn't just picking out this poster, there are many) people that want a productive discussion don't start their own threads. Post a discussion topic, bring in your argument and have the wide ranging discussion, I am sure there will be many posts.

No.
It is when a poster does not engage in a to and fro but repeats the same assertion inn the face of counter argument.
A recengbexample:

Harry never said that

 Yes he did, several times.

He never said that.

 He's a link to him saying it.

He never said that. Ehat H sez in that clip mesns something else completely.

I take your point about the op being able to steer the thread.

But after five threads on the same subject for example, ie nearly 5000 posts, surely the discussion is going to widen a bit?

I don’t think, for example, discussion about a different country’s privacy law, or how the British press is viewed globally, is entirely off topic in a discussion about ANL v Harry when looking at a wider picture of press sensationalism, gossip and pushing the boundaries?

If most posters are very much anti-Harry, as has already been declared, with posters openly saying they wanted him to lose and “can’t wait” for him to receive the largest amount of damages possible, then I can understand that focusing on the less admiral side of the British press overall and different attitudes to privacy law in different countries, might not something possibly that you would want to linger on, whereas in most other normal circumstances everyone happily derides tabloids tactics!

Is the lack of engagement on a topic while others go on discussing what they wish to discuss elsewhere being mistaken for those others “owning the board”?

Anyone can start a thread. But you can’t force people to participate!

And as I said earlier this thread itself is an example of how derails happen and then to your point about threads staying on topic... you see people defend the derail and that its okay for it to happen. The pattern appears to be if certain psoters derail its perfectly acceptable when its others its not.

So basically whats a newcomer meant to know...other then unless you are along term poster don't deviate from thread topic otherwise you sre accused or reported for derailing and also don't point out if others do it (e.g. long term posters) because they are allowed to. 💁‍♀️

I am not referring to a discussion like that.

A lot of what is said on forums are personal opinion. So if I were to say, I thought Meghan's As Ever series was great cinematography, I believe I am entitled to say that opinion.
If someone comes along and says, I thought it was awful, too saccharine and overdone, they are entitled to that opinion also

However, if another poster on this thread that is skewed into knocking Meghan, then says 'ignore the feathered friends' or 'here come the pigeons', or 'just ignore them' it is pretty obvious to me that is trying to see off anyone who isn't of the same mindset as them.

@Rhaidimiddim is giving an example of the type of behaviour that is described, across the internet, as 'pigeons playing chess'.

As am I, in that posters post about pigeons unfairly.

Poor pigeons 😭 so unfairly treated!

Conversely to my last point, just as you can’t force others to discuss what you want to discuss, you can’t stop them from their preferred discussion.

That’s true both on and offline.

Since we are on the topic of pigeons, people keep dropping cheese references in this thread as if it’s ghastly. Can someone that’s upset about cheese please explain WTH it means to them?

I’m an outlier I really like pigeons, I have a couple who live in my garden, I do wish they wouldn’t poop in the bird bath though, they are the only birds that do that the rest have much better manners.

I would sincerely like to know why republicans are so committed to defending Harry and Meghan! , because as far as I can tell, that is not the usual behaviour or aim of any republicans that post on the royal family topic that ive conversed with.