h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I don't know if that's the best approach, kea. Does it really make sense to have two different definitions on the same page? I think it would be confusing.

After all, I think a "thread bomb" and a "dumb bomb" would have to have very different definitions. The definition given in the d-bomb article is strongly pejorative, so it does not lend itself to a neutralizing phrase. One of the reasons I would have to see someone else write the "thread bomb" article is that I'm not sure exactly what you guys mean when you use it, since it seems to me you would have to mean something other than what I mean when I say "dumb bomb."

I think it might be less confusing to have two separate articles, cross-linked to each other for reference. So if a newbie sees me use the phrase dumb-bomb, that person is linked to an article that describes what I mean when I use the phrase, but can also chase the link to the alternative usage if interested.

My two cents, anyway.

Actually, I'm with kea on this one.

I *like* "Dumb Bomb". And "thread bomb" is a perfectly good alternative for people who want to be a bit more fluffy.

I propose not two definitions, but simply this: the Dumb Bomb definition page stays the same, but with a paragraph appended under a tag "Fluffier alternative".

"For those who wish to signal mere boredom, frustration or mild disapproval, without any strongly pejorative connotation, the phrase "thread bomb" may be substituted for "Dumb Bomb", to taste."

That way the link always goes to the same place, the place with the perfect example already supplied as the first post in the "What can I say?" thread.

How about it Blathers?

H.

Yeah I think having one Entry is simpler, and also means I only have to memorise one A number . It would depend on how it was written as to whether it confused or not.


I'm still not totally clear about the 'thread bomb' distinction either, although I think the idea merits discussion. Maybe someone could draft an explanation? Or we go with Hoo's suggestion? I need to have a think about it anyway.

I think Hoo's alternative is a workable one, but I'd just like to check with the folks who want to use t-bombs instead of d-bombs first, to make sure they agree with the definition in the d-bomb entry. As I said, I'm not sure they mean to say the same thing I mean to.

If its about boredom then maybe it should be Yarn-Bomb.

Perhaps we should petition tptb for a smiley.

In response to the question posed in the title of this thread, the answer is No.

This post has been removed.

My suggestion for the name Thread Bomb was simply to replace the name Dumb Bomb - I didn't mean that Thread Bomb should mean something different or that there should be more than one type of 'bomb'.

And placing 'Alert' after the name seemed to make the concept clearer - that the researcher posting wasn't dropping a bomb but alerting others to one having been dropped previously.


az

"Look who it is who revives long-dead (at this point) Della Wars?"

Um... Della? The last posting on that thread was FIVE WEEKS ago.

Who, exactly, is attempting to revive what here? (Clue: it's not me)

H.

And posting 262, later posting 455, has gone again. Seriously, we can round and round with this guys. I'm game, we'll see who rusts first.

The following is a FURTHER bowdlerised version of post 455, which was itself an attempt to make acceptable post 262. Anyone bored yet? Tell it to the moderators.



OK, first things first: posting 262 (or thereabouts) was hidden. I'm reposting it now with what I *think* was the problem removed:
Alfster wrote: "I do not think a dumb bomb solves anything. It's abit like some one going back at you in an argument with the reply 'You are stupid'".

No, it's not. It's like saying "I refer my honourable friend to the answer I gave a few moments ago."

The point of the Dumb Bomb is that it's shorthand for "You have just posted something homophobic/racist/generalised/poor-baby/flat-out-wrong, and we've been through all this before, so while I'm not just going to let it go, I'm not going into the details, AGAIN."

The interesting thing I've just realised is that what is at issue here, what the community is uncomfortable with, is NOT Della's [insert list of Della's usual behaviour we're all familiar with] or whatever, but the habit of myself and others to call her on it, in detail, EVERY time she does it.

It is acknowledged that we *don't* want Della ejected from h2g2. 

Apparently her behaviour is, overall, acceptable. We - the community - just don't want our conversations derailed by people like me who won't stand for her nonsense.

It is acknowledged, implicitly, that there is no realistic chance of Della [...] changing her behaviour. Therefore, the community's only possible response is to attempt to change the behaviour of the other participants - all eight or ten or however many of them/us there are.

Therefore, in order that the community continue to enjoy its quiet conversations free of interruption, we need a SHORT way for people like me to say "Della, you've done this before and I went through
all the details last time. The details have changed, possibly, but the main points are the same. I'm calling you on it again."

Hence: Dumb Bomb.

I agree, it's entirely possible that someone could just use the phrase
indiscriminately, in which case it would become useless. I'd like to think that indiscriminate use of the phrase would be regarded as a Dumb Bomb in itself.

It's important that usage is carefully prescribed for the specific situations we need it for. For instance, Dumb Bomb should never be used for typos, slight errors, and opinions open to rational debate (e.g. "the Beatles were the greatest band ever"). It's down to the community itself to police the usage.

Indiscriminate users would rapidly become just as much of a pariah as people who post Dumb Bombs in the first place, one would hope.

It's an idea still coalescing. Let's give it a day or so...

H."

I had a hard time spotting what might have been "otherwise offensive" in that [this comment still applies], because the only thing I've removed was quite mild, and every other thing in there that might qualify are, inconveniently, facts I can back up with links. [I've now removed some of these facts. Truth hurts, it seems]

I'll be interested to see whether this post vanishes too, and we can then play the game of "guess which bit is supposed to be the offensive bit". I'm game. {}
H.



And there you have it. I *will* have this post in the thread, visible. I see no reason why this should be pulled when others are not, other than the possibility of one or two people abusing the moderation system to stifle opposition. It's happened before. It stinks.

H.

I was wondering the same thing, Hoo.


az

oops, simulpost - I was referring to post 550.


az

erm, a few words from a Researcher...

* wonders if he's going to be heard over the din*

what a fracas! don't throw stones at me, please

1. I *have* read the backlog. All of it. I considered going back and reading it again, but I don't have the courage

2. I do think that the Dumb/Dim/Thread bomb is an admirable compromise. I wish we try it out to see what happens, instead of going on and on about it

3. It appears to me that part of the trouble actually lies with the site design. Since posts are laid out linearly, derailments and 'threads' actually end up in the main body of the thread. Last I checked, a 'thread' is supposed to go off in its own direction from the one it starts off in, and not be visible unless required. These threads feel more like ropes.

My point is, if you didn't have to see the "derailments" (which really are threads in themselves), would you be so bothered about the fact they're happening?
consider:

Post ###: Alphabeta : What this is all about
{
yada yada yada...
}
Replies:
GammaDelta: Yeah Right
|- Oolong: Yeah Right
| |- GodInHeaven: Perhaps
| |- Whatever: What this is all about
|- FARK: Yer all nuts!

You could then explore what branches of the thread you wanted to.

Shortly, someone's going to suggest a slashdot style of threading. I hope not.

~ a

Hoo, I can't see what's wrong with it either, but then moderations are often very subjective. It's possible it's the inclusion of Della's name given that was what the D bomb page got modded on (maybe?).

If it gets pulled again I think it'd be reasonable for you to ask for and expect an explanation about what is 'otherwise offensive'. Or ask for it to be escalated to the Eds and ask them for an explanation.

Well as far as I can see there is *nothing* there that breaks the house rules.

However in the not to distant past certain researchers have been able to manipulate the mods in relation to Della so I am hardly surprised.

BTW Della I thought we had all come to an accord in that thread to drop it? In your own words about four posts from the end you said you wanted the thread to die a natural death or something.

<<I propose not two definitions, but simply this: the Dumb Bomb definition page stays the same, but with a paragraph appended under a tag "Fluffier alternative"...>>
Fluffy? My arse.

How about less 'trying to wind the other person up'.

BTW. My arse isn't fluffy before anyone comments.

Is this thread really demonstrating the willingness to change behaviour or just illustrating how unlikely that is?

Tell you what, instead of just arguing round in circles, lets all argue around in circles about arguing around in circles and throw in a new toy, sorry, tool we made, the Duh Bomb. That way instead of derailing a conversation by endlessly going over old ground we can derail it by deploying our new tool and endlessly going over its’ use/misuse and be just ever so slightly rude/offensive about it at the same time.



Oh but it proves you care about the community and its’ views doesn’t it?
Hmmm, must’ve missed that post because all it’s proved to me is that a few of us enjoy a good argument, at least up to a point, perhaps the point where someone gets rude or repetitive etc. Whether your aim then at that point is to put a stop to the behaviour, to take the dispute elsewhere to avoid derailment of the conversation or simply to avoid appearing to give agreement by default, is this really the simplest, least inflammatory, most easily understood way to do it?
Seems to me that although it has some merit, it could do better on all counts.

Would not a not be easier? I’m sure a red card smiley would not be beyond our community artists and its’ meaning would be easily understood even by those ‘too stupid to read the whole page’
It could link back to a red card page where you could start a thread in which you explain your objection if you so wish, with a link back to the offending post for clarity. Those who want to follow the side issue can do so, whilst others can carry on with the original conversation.

I don’t think anyone needs ‘alerting’ to what someone else considers a conversation bomb, because if we’re following the thread we can see them for ourselves.

There can be very few users of this site who would upon finding an ignorant, bigoted, inflammatory posting assume that the lack of a reply from Hoo, Ben or anyone else implies their agreement with such a post.

I wonder how many people have been put off posting by the impatience and rudeness in this very thread. I nearly was but then I wouldn’t want my ‘not posting’ to be taken as tacit agreement you understand.

Well, this smiley might serve . . .

Hmmm, 'Duh Bomb' is also a good alternative name, I think.


az