It doesn’t matter who it reflects more on, what matters is that it destroys serious debate.
If people agree with this, then it should work just as well. It has the advantage of not having to ban pile-ons (which people seem averse to doing), but also keeps the discussion on topic.
Of course, the issue is that, if it is difficult for enforcement purposes to strictly define when a pile-on is occuring, it is similarly difficult to strictly define when an off-topic comment is made.
Another issue is that people might not want to ban off-topic comments. Personally, if both methods are equally effective in raising the level of discourse in GD, I’d much rather ban pile-ons than off-topic comments.
No sweat. I’m glad to have been an object of facilitation for you. Since I define love as the facilitation of goodness, if anything good comes of your usage, then your usage is an expression of love.
Not that I mind being loved charitably by Harborwolf, but the love would be for you. He merely used me as an example to facilitate your understanding of the point he was making. The good — the edification — would come to you. Therefore, it is Harborwolf and FinnAgain sitting in a tree… I’d be happy to join you two, but I’d probably break the limb.
I might argue that serious debate was destroyed a long time ago by the snarky attitude espoused by Cecil Adams. Most posters were drawn here by his columns or contributions and it would be hard to ban that type of behavior simply because of who set the standard. A board dedicated to “The Straight Dope” on which the column’s own author could not employ his own style would be a bit odd. On the other hand, Cecil’s column is a monologue and it would be difficult to carry on a serious dialog employing said style. Q. E. D. with GD as the example I would argue.
I would retain the “pile on” as a legitimate way of having posters reputations matter. I would find it disruptive to have Seethruart be able to start any number of threads about how there are structures on the moon and there are massive conspiracies to cover this up and never get the near universal condemnation he deserves because of a “no pile ons” rule.
It would also be exceedingly difficult to enforce a no pile-on rule.
How many people jumping on a poster is too many? Five? Ten? What if they’re all acting individualy and just happen to feel the same way? As I’ve said before, enough snow flakes make a storm.
I’d be happy to join you two, but I’d probably break the limb. 